Sitting of 24 April 1989

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

    Road Pricing
    Mr. Stern: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the future of road pricing.
    The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Paul Channon): Road pricing is often suggested as a way of using road space more efficiently in urban areas. It has some attractions, and I do not wish to rule it out for the future, but there are some serious practical problems, and it clearly could not be an immediate option.
    Mr. Stern: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that no remotely economic way of road pricing has yet been demonstrated anywhere in the world and that the chances of this wild idea becoming a reality remain very small?
    Mr. Channon: I agree that there is nowhere on a comparable, or even approaching comparable scale to London—in respect of which road pricing is often mentioned—where anything is in place. The problems of congestion, for example, are much in the minds of all hon. Members. The issue needs careful study but, as I have said, road pricing could not be an immediate option. There are serious practical problems associated with it.
    Mr. Roy Hughes: As the Treasury will collect approximately £17 billion in motor taxation during the current year and as less than one quarter of it will be spent on roads and maintenance, is it not diabolical that the Government should even consider imposing additional taxation on the motorist?
    Mr. Channon: I do not think that I accept the hon. Member's figures in their entirety, but his general point is well taken. Motorists pay a great deal in taxation. It is a bit early for the hon. Gentleman to say that we are being diabolical because, as I said a few moments ago, road pricing could not be an immediate option. There are serious practical problems with it, and nothing could be done without a great deal of study. It is a bit too early to accuse us of all these appalling crimes.
    Mr. Dickens rose—
    Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
    Mr. Dickens: It is nice to be back. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we have, somehow, to lower the density of traffic in our city centres? Taxation as a way forward would enable buses and taxis to move faster through our city centres and give people more of a chance to get about.
    Does my right hon. Friend agree that we must encourage more private investment so that we can accelerate our major road building programme in return for, perhaps, a toll which would enable motorists and other road users to save many pounds in petrol?
    Mr. Channon: My hon. Friend raises several important matters. There are other questions on the Order Paper on which the subject of road expenditure may crop up. My hon. Friend will be aware that the Government propose to publish a roads White Paper in the not too distant future. I shall bear what my hon. Friend has said in mind.
    I share my hon. Friend's concern to reduce inner-city congestion. Whether road pricing is the right way to go about it remains doubtful. The matter needs careful study. I urge hon. Members on both sides of the House—this. is clearly not a party political issue—to bear in mind the experiences of other towns and the arguments that have been advanced in favour of the proposal.

    Local Authority Operations (Buy-outs)
    Mr. Brandon-Bravo: To ask the Secretry of State for Transport if, when considering proposals for privatising local authority transport operations, he will give full consideration to the desires of employees to participate in buy-outs.
    The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Michael Portillo): Yes. When a company is sold by competitive tender, we encourage the vendor to give the employees a reasonable opportunity to acquire a controlling interest, and we have been prepared to consider some sales by single tender to employees.
    Mr. Brandon-Bravo: My hon. Friend knows that Nottingham City Transport was the largest municipal undertaking which was affected by the Transport Act 1985. Is he aware that that undertaking has confounded the prophets of doom as it is now a successful company which pays a dividend to its owners in the city rather than one which milks the ratepayer? The staff and employees of that undertaking want to share in the success. Above all, they want to secure their future. They are concerned about the future and they want to buy a stake in the business that employs them. What help and advice can my hon. Friend offer?
    Mr. Portillo: I am very pleased with the success of the company and that the prophets of doom have been confounded. I see no reason why local authorities should want to own bus companies. I suggest that the staff should try to persuade the local authority to prepare a proposal for privatisation which includes employee participation.
    Mr. Snape: Has the Minister seen the report on the future of West Midlands Travel, prepared by Peat Marwick McLintock? Does he agree with its conclusion that the breakup of West Midlands Travel would be generally disadvantageous to the travelling public?
    Mr. Portillo: I have not seen the report, although I am aware of the seminar on the subject that was organised last

    639
    week. We have sent a proposal to the passenger transport authorities requesting their response to a suggestion that the companies might be split. I look forward to reading their responses and shall consider them carefully.
    Mr. Favell: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Greater Manchester passenger transport authority, having decentralised the operation of Greater Manchester Buses at the time of decentralisation, is now recentralising it, not for the sake of efficiency, but to make it more difficult for employees to indulge in buy-outs? Is he aware that there have been great successes? For example, the southern division has taken on enormous competition from the private sector, yet it is carrying more passengers than ever before? Is he aware that the engineering division will have to sack people because it has been forbidden to carry out private sector work?
    Mr. Portillo: I am distressed at what my hon. Friend tells me. Greater Manchester is in very much the same position as West Midlands Travel in that a proposal letter has been sent by my Department and we are now receiving responses from the PTA and Greater Manchester Buses about the suggestion that there might be a splitting of the company. We shall consider their responses very carefully.

    BR (Heathrow and Gatwick)
    Mr. Speller: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will meet the chairman of British Rail to discuss the condition of stations and rolling stock where British Rail serves passengers arriving at Heathrow and Gatwick.
    Mr. Portillo: The upkeep of particular stations and rolling stock is a management matter for British Rail. I am sure that it is aware of the commercial advantages of providing high-quality services from airports.
    Mr. Speller: Is my hon. Friend aware that British Rail does not seem concerned about other circumstances? For example, Gatwick is the darkest, greyest of stations to welcome people, yet it provides an excellent service. At Heathrow, London Underground is intolerable in every way, and the route to the south-west is via Reading station, which is always dirty, where there are no seats, the buffets are awful and there are no porters, as on most of our stations. Does my hon. Friend agree that if British Rail is to survive as an economic entity it must do something about putting passengers as well as patients first?
    Mr. Portillo: I am very disturbed by what my hon. Friend says, particularly about Reading, because I understand that £20 million has been spent on the modernisation of Reading station. However, I know that the management takes these matters seriously and I shall certainly draw my hon. Friend's remarks to their attention.
    Mr. Gregory: When my hon. Friend next meets the chairman of British Rail, bearing in mind that tourism is Britain's fastest growing industry, will he discuss with him the possibility of an incentive scheme for his staff, as tourists to this great country expect at major stations such as Gatwick the services of a porter and the ability to understand which train leaves any particular platform? Those facilities are almost non-existent, as are the trollies at Gatwick and at Victoria. That is a national scandal.
    Mr. Portillo: My hon. Friend makes a series of interesting points, not least that the way in which British Rail is judged depends on the performance of every individual member of staff as that is its point of contact with passengers. I know that British Rail is most concerned to improve the standard and quality of the service that it provides to its customers. The shortage of trollies is partly a matter of passenger behaviour, and unfortunately many trollies go astray.

    London Transport (Overcrowding)
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he is taking to avoid overcrowding on London buses, trains and London Underground; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Channon: The only long-term cure for overcrowding is to increase capital investment in public transport. My hon. Friend will be pleased to hear that investment on London railways is now at record levels, and that London Regional Transport alone will be investing well over £1 million a day in London's transport systems.
    Mr. Greenway: I welcome my right hon. Friend's assurance that investment is at record levels. However, is he aware that on London's bus, train and Underground services at most hours of the day and night people cannot move because they are so overcrowded? Is he further aware that it is predicted that within a short time surface traffic will come to a standstill if nothing is done and we will be unable to move either above or below ground? Will he initiate new underground lines and more trains and will he get rid of one-man operated buses and bus lanes and do everything that he can to get London's traffic moving?
    Mr. Channon: I cannot agree with everything that my hon. Friend said. However, I agree with him entirely about the need to improve London's rail services, whether Underground or Network SouthEast. He will be pleased to learn that Underground investment is now about twice as high in real terms as it was in 1984–85, the last year of the Greater London council. I am sure that he will also be pleased to learn of the enormous investment in Network SouthEast since 1983—some 16 major schemes together worth over £500 million—and there is much more investment to come. The central London rail study and the east London rail study, about which my hon. Friend will know, show that much more improvement is necessary in London, which the Government are prepared to make.
    Mr. Spearing: Is the Secretary of State aware that London Transport has confirmed to me that there are fewer trains running in peak hours on some Underground lines than there were 50 years ago and in the early 1950s? Is he aware that there are fewer trains arriving at Westminster on the District and Circle lines than there were 50 years ago, to the disadvantage of people living in places such as West Ham and Plaistow? Does he agree that, as a matter of urgency, some of the investment of which he speaks should be spent on restoring the signalling arrangements that used to be available for those trains so that more trains can be run on existing lines?
    Mr. Channon: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that recent investment approvals include the provision of extra trains and the Central line modernisation, which is running at over £700 million. It is an enormous scheme.

    641
    They also include the reconstruction of Angel station, enlarged ticket halls and escalators at Liverpool street, new ticket halls at Tower Hill and a massive expansion of investment in London Underground all over London.
    Mr. Bowis: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is an urgent need for more and longer trains and for new lines on the overground such as the opening to commuter services on the west London line, and on the Underground such as the long overdue link to Clapham junction?
    Mr. Channon: Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend that there is a need for investment. He pointed out the need for investment on the Underground and I know of his constituency problems about that. I have described that investment to the House. There is also a need for investment in Network SouthEast. My hon. Friend will be pleased to learn—I am sure that he knows already—that over £2 billion of investment on electrification, signalling and rolling stock has taken place on British Rail in the past few years. I have recently approved another £60 million, or thereabouts, for Network SouthEast, new rolling stock for the Chiltern line, and the Cambridge-King's Lynn electrification. We also have large British Rail renewal programmes which are likely to increase.
    Mr. Tony Banks: Is the Secretary of State aware that the biggest complaint on transport matters that hon. Members on both sides of the House hear arises from the installation of the ludicrous ticket barriers throughout the Underground system, which is giving rise to a great deal of congestion on the stations? Is the Secretary of State interested in the fact that I intend to introduce a Social Crimes (People's Tribunal) Bill soon and that when I have arraigned before the people's tribunal the idiots who got rid of trams and trolley buses, I shall then try to arraign those who introduced the ludicrous and unacceptable ticket barriers? If the Secretary of State does not want to appear before the people's tribunal, will he ensure that London Transport gets rid of those barriers because no one wants them?
    Mr. Channon: It is particularly appropriate, 200 years after the French revolution, that the hon. Gentleman should start to be the Robespierre of London by introducing people's tribunals. It is typical of him.
    On his serious point about the safety of the Underground ticket system, he will know that we are expecting a consultants' report and the House will be interested to have that.
    Mr. Stanbrook: Whatever steps my right hon. Friend takes, will he please not deregulate London taxis or license mini cabs to ply for hire because if he does so, he will destroy one of London's biggest assets?
    Mr. Channon: I take note of what my hon. Friend says. We have no plans to license mini cabs in the way that my hon. Friend describes. I note the strong views of hon. Members about taxis, which we shall consider carefully.
    Ms. Ruddock: The Secretary of State has spoken mainly of trains, but as improving the railway network will take much time and as a substantial bus programme could be implemented quickly, will he instruct London Buses to put on the road the 30 Routemasters that are roadworthy but sitting unused in garages? Will he support proposals to strengthen bus lane rules to prevent lanes being clogged by cars? Will he instruct the traffic control support unit to step
    642
    up its programme of bus priority at traffic signals, which is enormously beneficial and could be implemented within six months?
    Mr. Channon: I am not sure that I agree with all the hon. Lady's remarks. There is considerable controversy about bus lanes; many hon. Members believe that in parts of London they have been put in the wrong places. I shall consider what the hon. Lady said about that. She will be pleased to learn that bus miles have increased significantly and that a further increase of 5 per cent. is planned for this year. Reliability is improved and we shall have more high-frequency mini bus services. Tendering has much improved bus services in London, and I shall welcome her support for all those measures.
    Mr. Molyneaux: Can the Secretary of State do anything to persuade London Transport to open the Piccadilly line at Gloucester Road? Many travelling interests, especially those using Heathrow airport, wrote to London Transport about the problem as far back as a month ago. Fairclough, the main contractor, is showing no sign of urgency. Is it not deplorable that visitors from overseas arriving at Heathrow are treated to such a demonstration of incompetence?
    Mr. Channon: I shall certainly look into what the right hon. Gentleman says. The right hon. Gentleman's remarks show that there are bound to be short-term problems while a large investment programme is going on. I shall consider specifically the point that he brings to my attention and write to him about it.

    Dartford Crossing
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the Dartford crossing will be opened to the public.
    The Minister for Roads and Traffic (Mr. Peter Bottomley): Good progress is being made on the new bridge between Dartford and Thurrock, which is due to open early in 1991.
    Mr. Arnold: My hon. Friend would probably like to know that the people of north-west Kent are looking forward with considerable enthusiasm to their deliverance from the current heavy traffic james of one or more miles every day north and south waiting pass through the Dartford tunnel. Will he give details of the steps that are being taken to ensure that approch roads to the Dartford bridge will be adequate?
    Mr. Bottomley: Approach roads to the bridge at Dartford and Thurrock will be increased to four lanes, the A13 southwards and A2 northwards.
    Mr. Dunn: Is my hon. Friend aware that his announcement is most welcome? None the less, there are serious problems combining a need to improve the infrastructure and roads leading to the tunnel and the opening date, bearing in mind that every day the people of Dartford experience serious congestion problems? The fact that we can move forward to the opening will resolve that problem in part. I welcome what my hon. Friend has said.
    Mr. Bottomley: It is important to get the necessary infrastructure in place so that the economy can continue to

    643
    develop and so that places that need special relief from congestion and extra jobs can benefit from investment, such as in this case, from the private sector.

    Severn Crossing
    Mr. Roy Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if a date for the commencement of the construction of the second Seven crossing has yet been decided.
    Mr. Bottomley: The timing depends on the proposals that we shall receive later this year from tenderers, and on approval of the necessary legislation by Parliament.
    Mr. Hughes: Is the Minister aware that the Secretary of State for Wales has said that the second crossing will be in place by 1995, whereas his colleague the Minister of State, Welsh Office recently told the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs that there is no guarantee that the second crossing will be in place by the year 2000. Given that our governor-general, the right hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker), does not have the ear of the Prime Minister, who is telling the truth?
    Mr. Bottomley: If I were concerned, I would say that it would be difficult to have an extra crossing before 1995, even on the best of assumptions. The hon. Gentleman and many others on both sides of the Severn will be interested to know that we hope to invite tenders in the next week or two. The date of construction of the bridge will depend on the result of those tenders. We are moving forward and that should unite hon. Members on both sides of the House. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is glad that he asked that question.
    Mr. Simon Coombs: Does my hon. Friend agree that a second Severn crossing will substantially increase traffic on the M4 as more and more constituents of the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) travel towards London? Will my hon. Friend therefore look, in conjunction with those proposals, at improvements to the road network nearer London between Maidenhead and the end of the M4 to ensure that the hon. Member for Newport, East is not back here in a few years demanding further improvements so that his constituents and mine can get to central London on the M4?
    Mr. Bottomley: Yes. Perhaps the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) will have to talk to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), who seems on occasion to have different views. It is worth remembering that the English Stones site was chosen for the second bridge because about 60 per cent. of the traffic coming across the Severn from Wales head south rather than towards London.
    Mr. Wigley: Given the comments by the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes), will the Minister assure the House that his Department and the Welsh Office co-ordinate closely on this matter? Will the hon. Gentleman assure the House that as the scheme goes ahead there will be co-ordination in terms of the spin-off requirements and planning of employment opportunities so that there are opportunities on both sides of the channel for work on the scheme?
    Mr. Bottomley: Those job opportunities are coming and that is generating the extra traffic. Better infrastructure means more economic growth and more economic growth means more traffic—they go together in a cycle.
    The hon. Gentleman referred to the hon. Member for Newport, East. I suspect that my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Transport and for Wales get on better than the hon. Gentleman gets on with either of them.
    Mr. Prescott: Does the Minister's Department fully agree with the Secretary of State for Wales, who says that there is inadequate expenditure on our transport infrastructure and that 35 of the 51 programmes decided for 1985 have been delayed? Will the White Paper review the situation, especially the iniquitous toll system that the Department intends imposing on traffic over the Severn estuary?
    Mr. Bottomley: Is that not very interesting? Suppose we ran a sweeptstake on which party introduced tolls on the Severn bridge? The Labour party was responsible. The hon. Gentleman turns away in Opposition from what he supported in Government.

    M40
    Mr. Andrew Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the progress of work on the completion of the M40.
    Mr. Tim Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects the M40 extension to be completed.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: Construction of the motorway north of Wendlebury, remains on target for completion by the end of 1990.
    We are inviting tenders for the section south of Wendlebury today.
    Subject to the outcome and to the satisfactory completion of the remaining statutory procedures we hope to start construction this summer for completion as early as possible.
    Mr. Andrew Smith: Does the Minister appreciate that everyone in the Oxford area remains deeply concerned at the prospect of chaos on local roads due to the mishandling of this matter by his Department? Will he confirm that, even on that timetable, there will be a period of eight to 12 months when an additional 9,000 vehicles a day will be piled on to the existing congested local roads? What additional financial support will the Government provide the local highway authority so that it can provide at least some protection to local pedestrians, cyclists, public transport and motorists from that chaos? Local resident in Headington, Risinghurst and north Oxford deserve better treatment than the Minister is giving them.
    Mr. Bottomley: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has been listening during the past two or three weeks. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that he wanted all the stops pulled out, and issued similar clear instructions, to ensure that the gap was as short as possible, not as long as possible. [Interruption.] If the period which I have announced today is still too long, the hon. Gentleman really has trouble.

    645
    We are all aware that the Pear tree roundabout has some of the longest weekend traffic jams in southern England. We know that we must try to accelerate the procedures. We need to pay attention to people's democratic right to object and accept their right to speak before an independent impartial inspector—that may be news to the hon. Gentleman. We want to ensure that local people decide whether they want roads. In the areas in which they want to put up with the casualties, environmental confusion and lack of jobs, they can go on objecting. In Oxfordshire, people are glad that my right hon. Friend has decided that this road should be completed and we now have the chance of closing the gap, rather than expanding it.
    Mr. Tim Smith: Is my hon. Friend aware that since the completion of the M25, traffic on the M40 has increased considerably and, with it, the noise that local residents have to put up with? Does he agree that when the motorway is completed all the way to Birmingham, there will be a further substantial increase in traffic, especially in heavy goods vehicles? Will my hon. Friend come along to Gerrards Cross and discuss with the residents the problems of noise, or could we come to the Department to discuss what we are going to do about it?
    Mr. Bottomley: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Redmond: Will the Minister ensure that all future specifications for new roads more than meet the volume and traffic flows—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. That is a bit wide of the M40.
    Mr. Redmond: Will the Minister ensure that the next extension more than meets the specifications made for the previous section and will he ensure that the delays and traffic hold-ups are cut to the minimum?
    Mr. Bottomley: We will do the best we can. My right hon. Friend has said that he wants to end the inter-urban congestion. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are building the M40 as dual three-lane, which will help the traffic north of the west midlands as well as the west midlands itself. There is a problem for the Opposition. If the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) is properly reported, he seems to be against the building of roads this week.
    Sir John Stokes: Is my hon. Friend aware that I have lived by the M40 since it first started? As the route progressed, I moved further out, but the motorway always caught me up. Now the wrong route has been chosen and the butterflies have been preferred to local residents. Can we please clear up the mess as soon as possible?
    Mr. Bottomley: Yes, Sir. However, as my hon. Friend will have noticed, our leader has instructed us to be environmentalists and is leading us in the right way.

    Traffic Congestion
    Mr. Cran: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what studies have been undertaken by his Department as to the likely annual cost to industry of traffic congestion on Britain's roads.
    Mr. Channon: The costs of road congestion are clearly substantial, although there are no reliable estimates of the total costs.
    Mr. Cran: I am sure that my right hon. Friend is aware that the industrial community has estimated that traffic congestion in this country is costing British industry about £6,000 million per annum, which illustrates how difficult it is for companies in the north of England and which are trying to export. Against that background, does my right hon. Friend agree that one solution is an accelerated construction programme, but that another is a review of planning methods, which seem to allow a minority to hold up infrastructure expenditure for far too long?
    Mr. Channon: On the first point, it is right to review the roads programme which, as my hon. Friend knows, is done every two years. We will come forward with proposals in the next few months. I hope that they will be to his satisfaction and to the satisfaction of most other hon. Members. On planning permission, there is a difficult balance between allowing people to have their democratic rights and not having unreasonable delays. Rather than concentrate so much on planning delays, I have been concentrating on the internal procedures, which take a considerable time—and have done for many years—before a road reaches the planning inquiry stage. I have identified ways of cutting that time by a considerable margin and I look forward to roads being built far more quickly than in the past.
    Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Is it not gross complacency for the Secretary of State to base his projections on what he himself says are unreliable statistics, especially against the background of looking forward to the 1992 European market? Is it not extremely important for our industrialists in all areas of the United Kingdom to ensure that they have adequate communications and to ensure that export-led industries are not disadvantaged? His own proposals pale into insignificance when we consider the projects being undertaken at present by the French Government.
    Mr. Channon: It is a bit early for the hon. Lady to accuse me of complacency. I have already announced that we shall have a roads review and a programme announcement in the next few months and when the hon. Lady has studied that, she will be in a position to decide whether she thinks it is adequate. I strongly agree with her that it is in the interests of all parts of the United Kingdom that we should have a decent roads programme so that people can get their goods from the United Kingdom to the continent—[HON. MEMBERS: "And railways."] We must also improve the railways, but the hon. railways, but the hon. Lady's question concerned roads, and I agree with the thrust of her comments.
    Mr. Adley: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that it is not his opinion that the only way of dealing with congestion on the roads is to build yet more roads?
    Mr. Channon: It is not my only way of dealing with congestion on the roads. I am extremely anxious—as, I know, is my hon. Friend—that the advent of the Channel tunnel should lead to a substantial increase in the amount of freight carried by British Rail. I look forward to British Rail's report and its proposals for achieving that north of London. We shall receive that report some time this year. I am certain that, if British Rail handles the matter correctly—as it must and will—substantial opportunities

    647
    will be created for businesses in the north and elsewhere to send their goods economically and, above all, reliably, to the continent. That will benefit both BR and the road user.
    Mr. Prescott: Does the Secretary of State agree with the Secretary of State for Wales that there is insufficient expenditure on our roads infrastructure, and does he agree with the CBI's estimate that insufficient expenditure is costing industry £15 billion? After 10 years of this Government will he now agree that average expenditure on roads in real terms has been higher under Labour than under the Conservative Government?
    Mr. Channon: I certainly do not agree with the last part of the hon. Gentleman's question. I am surprised that he makes that boast. No doubt he was wrongly reported in the Morning Star, and that is very understandable—
    Mr. Prescott: Do you read the Morning Star?
    Mr. Channon: Yes, every morning, that is where I find the hon. Gentleman's most authoritative speeches. According to the Morning Star, he is against all this expenditure. I am glad to learn that that is not the case and that he is in favour of it. I agree that we must have an adequate road infrastructure to meet the challenges of 1992 and the turn of the century. I have not read the remarks made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales to which the hon. Gentleman referred but I seldom, if ever, disagree with my right hon. Friend.

    Trunk Roads (North-East)
    Mr. Jack Thompson: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on progress in improving the trunk road systems in the north-east of England.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: The A1 between Newcastle and Morpeth and the A69 between Newcastle and Hexham are now dual carriageway throughout.
    Mr. Thompson: The Minister's disappointing reply will not go down well in the north-east of England. Will he consider instituting a full-scale survey of the A69 east-west and the A1 north-south as the Romans did 1,900 years ago?
    Mr. Bottomley: We shall review the whole length of both stretches of road. I do not want to prejudge the conclusions.
    Mr. Amos: Will my hon. Friend undertake to look again at traffic flows on the A69 west of Hexham, as there is clearly an urgent need to dual that road all the way to Carlisle?
    Mr. Bottomley: A review of the traffic on that stretch of road does not suggest that a dual carriageway is justified, but we shall see what we can do by widening and providing overtaking stretches, which is just as important.

    BR Property (Accidents)
    Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many (a) deaths, (b) major injuries and (c) minor injuries there were in non-movement accidents during 1988 on British Rail property in Great Britain.
    Mr. Portillo: Full railway accident statistics for 1988 will be published in the chief inspecting officer of railways' annual report later in the year. The information presently available shows 17 deaths, of which 14 were those of trespassers or suicides, 310 major injuries and 3,864 minor injuries.
    Mr. Hughes: I am grateful to the Minister for those figures. Is it not clear from the recent inquest on my constituent Paul Elvin, who died at Euston, that British Rail does not enforce the rules governing the employment of contractors on its premises and that it does not comply with the rules that require it to ensure, for example, that there are circuit breakers to turn off the mains cables if there is someone on the line? Will he guarantee that the railway inspectorate will prosecute where there is clear evidence of criminal failure by British Rail and others working on its property, as that has not happened often enough in the past?
    Mr. Portillo: I am not familiar with the case to which the hon. Gentleman refers, although I shall definitely look into it. These are matters for the Health and Safety Commission and the railway inspectorate. In the broadest terms, I can confirm that both those bodies have the power to prosecute when it seems appropriate to do so.

    Road Assessment Studies (London)
    Mr. Cox: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the number of road assessment studies for London now under consideration by his Department; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: None. Consultants have been engaged to carry out assessment studies in four parts of the capital with very severe transport-related problems. They are currently assessing and testing a wide range of options which contain some road elements. Their reports are expected later this summer. We have also commissioned a study of the area around Heathrow and south-west London.
    Mr. Cox: Is the Minister aware that, whatever he may say, there is growing concern among constituents in many parts of London about the potential development of major "road improvements" in their area because they will not be improvements of the environment in which many of our constituents live; they will be problems? Will he give an assurance that, before there is any major road development in London, if local residents call for a public inquiry, he will support it?
    Mr. Bottomley: Yes. I go further than that and invite the hon. Gentleman to go to the Rochester Way relief road, which was the last road built in inner London and started by the GLC under the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) and supported by a Labour council. The hon. Gentleman will see the environmental relief, the casualty reduction, and the opportunity for more jobs. I wish that the hon. Gentleman and others would spend as much time being concerned about the nearly 500 people who die every year on London's roads —the equivalent of a Sheffield Hillsborough every 10 weeks—and the thousands of people in London who are injured on our roads. Those issues need to be tackled with public transport and some road changes as well.

  THE ARTS

    Arts Council
    Mr. Knapman: To ask the Minister for the Arts when he last met the chairman of the Arts Council; and what was discussed.
    The Minister for the Arts (Mr. Richard Luce): I met Lord Rees-Mogg on 21 March and we discussed a number of matters of mutual interest. I shall be meeting Mr. Palumbo in his capacity as the new chairman of the Arts Council shortly.
    Mr. Knapman: I join my right hon. Friend in thanking Lord Rees-Mogg for his seven years of dedicated work for the Arts Council and welcoming Mr. Palumbo, who has some important but difficult decisions to make. Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that the principle of arm's length funding for the arts will continue?
    Mr. Luce: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his tribute to Lord Rees-Mogg for his outstanding seven years as chairman of the Arts Council and for wishing Mr. Palumbo every success in his new task. I strongly reaffirm that we shall continue to allocate funds within a given total to the Arts Council and that the arm's length principle will continue.
    Mr. Robert Sheldon: Will the Minister point out that, according to the Government publication, British Business, nearly £4 billion comes from the arts and overseas earnings, and that £1·5 billion of that is from cultural tourism? Will he point out, further, that it makes economic good sense to continue subsidies at a much higher level and that is he aware that that article in a Government publication should prompt him to press the Treasury and the Government for more money for the arts?
    Mr. Luce: The right hon. Gentleman is right to point out the important contribution which the arts make to the economy. Those findings emerged principally from the Policy Studies Institute, which partly funded that study. The arts world is expanding successfully with many new audiences, not just with taxpayers' money but joint partnerships in which the private sector is playing a leading role.
    Mr Goodlad: Will my right hon. Friend discuss with the chairman of the Arts Council the funding of the royal national theatre? Is he aware that, despite greatly increased subventions to the Arts Council, funding for the royal national theatre has seriously fallen behind the rate of inflation and that that is a serious threat to the artistic standards of one of our greatest institutions? Will he consider direct funding by his Department along the lines of that for the British Museum?
    Mr. Luce: On the latter point, I must make it plain that I wish to continue the arm's length policy. It is not right that civil servants and Ministers in Whitehall should take specific decisions on the allocation of funds to the arts. It must be for the Arts Council and regional arts associations to do that.
    My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the value of the royal national theatre, and I am grateful to him for doing that. Last year 10 per cent. extra funds were given to
    650
    the Arts Council, and part of that was through incentive funding and extra money for tourism. In both cases, the royal national theatre stands to gain.
    Mr. Tony Banks: When the Minister next meets Mr. Palumbo will he discuss with him the enormous cultural contribution that is made by the British Broadcasting Corporation? At the moment, that cultural contribution to this country is being jeopardised by the Governmen is White Paper proposals on broadcasting and the hypocritical, provocative action of top management of giving themselves a 30 per cent. pay hike, while offering BBC workers a pay cut. Will he comment on that?
    Mr. Luce: I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his temporary role as Opposition Front Bench spokesman on arts. However, he has not done his research because broadcasting is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. There is no doubt that broadcasting will play a key role in the arts. Under the White Paper and the proposed reforms, it has an even bigger role to play, with a wider range of choice.
    Mr. Holt: Does my right hon. Friend accept that while he must not necessarily give directions in the allocation of funds, he might give a hint that when the Arts Council is giving money to American sculptors to produce a tipsy bottle as a memento of Captain Cook's discovery of Australia, he might bring some pressure to bear and not agree with the outgoing chairman that that was perfectlly appropriate spending of British money?
    Mr. Luce: It is for the Arts Council to judge and for hon. Members to express their views if they like or dislike a particular form of support. However, this gives me an opportunity to say that the most important role of the Arts Council—the expenditure of money—is to strengthen the standards of excellence in the arts. That must be a priority both in London and outside and I am glad that Mr. Palumbo stressed the importance of that in his opening remarks when he first came to the Arts Council.

    Greater London Arts Association
    Mr. Chris Smith: To ask the Minister for the Arts when he last met the chairman of the Greater London Arts Association to discuss the structure of arts administration in London.
    Mr. Luce: I meet the chairman of the Greater London Arts Association from time to time. A variety of matters is discussed.
    Mr. Smith: Will the Minister ensure that as the Wilding inquiry into the structure of arts administration in London and elsewhere gets under way, part of Mr. Wilding's consideration will relate to the threat from property development to many arts enterprises and organisations in inner London? Will he do so particularly in the light of current pressures in the Tottenham Court road area where an actors' agency, two theatre groups, two film production agencies and the Directors Guild are all threatened by development proposals currently under appeal to the Secretary of State for the Environment? Will he ensure that those issues involving a major threat to the life o f valuable arts institutions in inner London will form part of Mr. Wilding's inquiry?
    Mr. Luce: I take note of the hon. Gentleman's comments and I will look into it. However, I am not convinced that that is necessarily part of Mr. Wilding's terms of reference for his review, which is to look at the relationship between the allocation of money from central Government to the Arts Council and in turn to the regional arts associations, the coherence of funding for the arts and to improve the structural procedures for the disbursement of arts money.
    Mr. Harry Greenway: When my right hon. Friend next meets the director of the Greater London Arts Association, will he express robust support for the new lady director of the Victoria and Albert museum in her efforts to restructure staffing at the museum in the interests of the museum and its visitors?
    Mr. Luce: I recently had the opportunity last Monday to visit the Victoria and Albert museum. I am full of of admiration for the work carried out by the director, the staff, curators and administrators.

    Orchestras (Rehearsal Funds)
    Mr. Maclennan: To ask the Minister for the Arts what discussions he has had with the Arts Council on the allocation of funds for the rehearsal of contemporary British music by the London orchestras.
    Mr. Luce: The allocation of funds to the London orchestras is a matter for the Arts Council. While I do not seek to influence the council's artistic judgments, I fully support its policy of encouraging artistic excellence, including the performance of well-rehearsed contemporary music.
    Mr. Maclennan: Is the Minister aware that while it is sometimes relatively straightforward to obtain sponsorship money for the first performances of contemporary British music, it is more difficult to keep that music in the repertory? If that music is to enjoy success, it needs additional assistance. While recognising that that is primarily a matter for the Arts Council, will he at least undertake to consider discussing the matter?
    Mr. Luce: That really is the reason for the answer that I have just given. Of course it is true that much sponsorship goes to the traditional arts, although there is increasing evidence that sponsorship is going towards innovative or experimental arts. That is one reason why the Arts Council has decided to use taxpayers' money to encourage the four London orchestras which play some contemporary music.

    Dance
    Mr. Bowis: To ask the Minister for the Arts what steps he is taking to encourage dance.
    Mr. Luce: As with all art forms, I look to the Arts Council for advice about the development of dance. My hon. Friend will be aware that the Arts Council is currently considering a wide-ranging report about the future of dance.
    Mr. Bowis: Will my right hon. Friend take a brisk two-step, first to the Arts Council to discuss with it the criteria by which it allocates money for the arts, and to express the concern of this House that there might be some
    652
    risk of the council not including a solution to funding for the Northern Ballet? Will he then take a brisk step on to the chairman of British Rail and discuss with him his recent statements that he may be considering withdrawing the entertainment express contract, which, of course, gives great support to touring companies, including dance companies?
    Mr. Luce: On my hon. Friend's latter point, I note the concern that has been expressed by many people in the arts world. I have been in touch with the chairman of British Rail to draw his attention to the widespread anxiety about that matters and I hope that he will take these views into account.
    As to dance policy, the Arts Council is considering the independent report. My hon. Friend drew attention to the Northern Ballet. There was a very impressive Adjournment debate in this House, which was widely attended. I took the chance to convey to the chairman of the Arts Council the strong views of the House, and I know that he will take those views into account.
    Mr. Flannery: Did the Minister discuss with the chairman of the Arts Council the details of the Northern Ballet, Manchester, which tours more than any other company, and for which there is very deep affection throughout the north, and, indeed, in a much wider area, so that its continuance can be assured?
    Mr. Luce: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I have drawn very strongly to the attention of the chairman of the Arts Council the views of this House, which have been widely expressed, about the value of the Northern Ballet. It is, of course, for the council to make the decision. I should point out that it is not a final decision, that this is just one of a number of options that have been put forward in an independent report, which the council will have to consider shortly.

  CIVIL SERVICE

    Trade Unions
    Mr. Favell: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service when he last met leaders of the Civil Service trades unions; and what matters were discussed.
    Mr. Harry Barnes: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service when he last met representatives of the Civil Service trade unions; and what subjects were discussed.
    The Minister of State, Privy Council Office (Mr. Richard Luce): I have meetings from time to time with representatives of Civil Service trade unions, both centrally and during visits to Civil Service establishments. A wide variety of matters is raised.
    Mr. Favell: Has my right hon. Friend had any discussions with leaders of trade unions about regional pay? Does he agree with me that earnings in the private sector vary widely from region to region, and that similar market conditions ought to prevail in the Civil Service? Does he agree that the fact that there is not regional pay is one of the greatest obstructions when it comes to Civil Service Departments moving to regions of high unemployment?
    Mr. Luce: My hon. Friend must be right to draw attention to the importance of flexibility in pay in order to

    653
    cater for the problems of recruitment and retention in different areas—different in terms of skills, or geographically. In fact, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced very recently that the maximum rate of the London pay addition will be increased to £1,000 per annum. Of course, the rates have to be negotiated. I understand that at the moment they apply to 50,000 civil servants. The recruitment and retention problems of particular areas have to be taken into account, but a degree of flexibility is now developing.
    Mr. Barnes: Has the Minister discussed a 10-point code of ethics for press officers with the Institution of Professional Civil Servants, whose members are opposed to becoming political hacks? Should a Government who claim to support individualism be operating a Ministry of Propaganda from 10 Downing street?
    Mr. Luce: On the question of Government publicity, there are very clearly laid down procedures. The hon. Gentleman referred to a code of ethics. I do not know whether he was referring to individual civil servants or to the question of publicity as a whole. If he was referring to individual civil servants, I would point out that in December 1987 very clear guidelines were laid down as to what steps individual civil servants may take if they have grievances.
    Sir Anthony Grant: Will my right hon. Friend discuss with the Civil Service unions the essential importance of honesty among public servants? Will he warn them of the long-term consequences of breaches of confidence concerning documents in their possession, and of the effect of such breaches on democracy and democratic control as a whole?
    Mr. Luce: My hon. Friend must be right to draw attention to this matter, which is of concern. It is only a tiny minority of civil servants who are doing a grave disservice to the rest of the Civil Service which provides an outstanding service to the elected Government of the day and will continue to so do.
    Mr. Beith: Will the Minister advise civil servants what they should do if they form the view that their ministerial head would not mind if they leaked certain correspondence, such as letters from the Solicitor-General?
    Mr. Luce: The position is absolutely clear. There are disciplinary procedures which the permanent secretary of the particular Department can take. If a civil servant disobeys the rules, disciplinary proceedings can be taken.
    Mr. Boswell: Will my right hon. Friend take a fresh look at the possibility of introducing an entirely independent assessment of disputes in the limited number of cases, sometimes involving principle rather than large sums, where Ministers have been unable to resolve the matter to the satisfaction of hon. Members and their constituents?
    Mr. Luce: I am not absolutely certain to what my hon. Friend is drawing attention, but if he can provide me with further information, I shall look into the matter.
    Dr. Marek: Does the Minister agree that in the past there was no need for a code of practice for information officers but that with the present incumbent of 10 Downing street the position is different? Does he agree that it is wrong of Mr. Bernard Ingham to tell the police who its
    654
    director of public affairs should be and wrong of any Minister to ask any information officer to enter the political arena? Will he, therefore, pursue the establishment of an impartial and mutually agreed code of practice for information officers and ensure that there is no victimisation if it is invoked by any civil servant?
    Mr. Luce: The procedures are clearly and carefully laid down and there are no difficulties with them. Each Department has a clear understanding of what they are. I am not sure what the hon. Gentleman is worried about.

    Civil Servants (Legal Qualifications)
    Mr. RookerTo ask the Minister for the Civil service how many civil servants have a legal qualification.
    Mr. Luce: There are about 2,500 lawyers in the Civil Service.
    Mr. Rooker: As only two of those lawyers are allocated by the serious fraud office to deal with the House of Fraser-Lonrho affairs and as one of them advised against and was overruled only by the assistant director, Ms. Chase, could we have a few more Government lawyers put on this case so that at least they can begin to get round to interviewing the leading protagonists? Obviously, with only two on the job, they have not got round to doing that.
    Mr. Luce: I have enough questions to answer in the House and I will not be drawn into answering on the Lonrho case. Although we have had some success in recruiting lawyers for the Government legal service and the Crown prosecution service, we are still short of a large number.

    Recruitment
    Sir Hal Miller: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service whether he intends to change the procedures for recruitment into the Civil Service; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Luce: In the light of current developments in Civil Service management, Departments will be free to carry out their own recruitment to all except the senior grades and their fast stream feeder entries, subject to rules laid down to safeguard the principle of selection on merit by fair and open competition. I announced these plans on 13 April 1989 in a written reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins).
    Sir Hal Miller: While I am sure that the Departments would welcome the greater freedom and responsibility thus imposed on them by the Minister, how will he assure the rest of us that the quality of service, seniority and qualifications will be ensured so that throughout the country we may maintain the level of service and the morale of the Civil Service?
    Mr. Luce: I hope that in general the concept of delegating more authority to individual Departments to carry out the bulk of their recruitment policies is the right. one. They are in the best position to judge what recruits they need. Nevertheless, I acknowledge my hon. Friend's point about the need to maintain the highest standards. It will be up to the commission to recommend to the Minister for the Civil Service rules that should be followed by all

    655
    Departments relating to such matters as, for example, fair and open competition, selection on merit and the impartiality of the service.
    Mr. Haynes: Is the Minister aware that there are difficulties in appointing civil servants? I remember the Minister coming to the Dispatch Box and telling me that he had been to their annual conference. I asked him what the morale was like at that conference. It was not very good. That was because of the Government's massive cuts in local government. Why do the Government not back off and make the money available? Then we would get the right people for the jobs?
    Mr. Luce: It is interesting that the hon. Gentleman believes that I have responsibility for local government as well as for the Civil Service. I visit Civil Service offices around the country, so I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the vast bulk of the Civil Service is doing an outstanding job and its morale is good. It is a slimmed-down, highly professional and very impartial service.

    Agencies
    Mr. Watts: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service how many Civil Service agencies have now been announced; and whether he will make a statement.
    Mr. Luce: Five executive agencies have now been established following the launch last week of the National Weights and Measures and Warren Spring Laboratories. Around 30 more have been announced as candidates.
    Mr. Watts: In thanking my right hon. Friend for that encouraging reply about progress so far, may I ask him to tell the House what other candidates are at present under active consideration, and when he will be in a position to make a further statement?
    Mr. Luce: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I have undertaken to give regular reports to the House on the
    656
    progress of Civil Service agencies. Within the next two or three months there should be statements about a number of other areas, including the Queen Elizabeth II conference centre, the Department of Social Security's resettlement units and the employment services. There may, of course, be others, too.

    Mr. Charles Powell
    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service if he will arrange for Mr. Charles Powell to give a lecture at the Civil Service college.
    Mr. Luce: There are no plans to do so.
    Mr. Dalyell: How about a title such as, "Recent developments in Civil Service ethics, which allow a principal private secretary to the Prime Minister to authorise and to give approval to the unauthorised disclosure of a Law Officer's letter"? If that title is not good enough, how about, "The role of a principal private secretary to the Prime Minister in preserving the Prime Minister from a position of having misled the House of Commons and the consequences of misbehaviour"?
    Mr. Luce: I am not sure how many times over the past three years that the hon. Gentleman and I have had exchanges across the Floor.
    Mr. Dalyell: Seventeen.
    Mr. Luce: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for providing me with that additional information. It feels like 17. The position is absolutely clear. We have made statements time and again in the House. I am glad to say that Mr. Powell, who served me in 1980 when I was Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs with responsibility for Africa, is an outstanding civil servant.

Airport Security
3.32 pm
The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:
Mr. David Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent steps have been taken to help improve security at Britain's airports; and if he will make a statement.
The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Paul Channon): Immediately after Lockerbie increased security measures were ordered for American airlines, particularly for hold baggage. Soon afterwards I decided to bring in further measures for them in relation to cabin baggage, hold baggage and cargo. On 6 April I announced a package of measures to provide better security of restricted areas and for aircraft, passengers and baggage in those areas.
I have now set firm objectives for a further tightening of security, particularly in relation to items that might be used to conceal explosive devices; the screening of all hold baggage; cargo, mail and courier, consignments; the physical separation of inbound and outbound passengers; and the design of aircraft interiors.
I intend to more than double the strength of my Department's aviation security division so that it can carry out more inspections and spot checks, as well as special surveys to determine whether new measures are needed. To emphasise its monitoring role, the team of aviation security advisers will be reconstituted as the aviation security inspectorate.
There are certain areas where my powers under the Aviation Security Act 1982 are more limited than I should like. I shall therefore seek new powers from Parliament to secure more effective implementation of security measures.
I am doubling the budget for the current financial year for research and development into equipment, to include the continuing examination of commercially available equipment and the development of new techniques for the detection of explosives.
We have now received the Federal Aviation Administration's proposal to install one of the first production thermal neutron analysis machines at Gatwick or Heathrow later this year. We have kept in touch with progress on a similar British project and we are discussing with its sponsors the possibility of funding further work.
With the United States of America we initiated an ambitious programme of work by the International Civil Aviation Organisation designed to improve security standards worldwide. I look forward to a further discussion with the United States Secretary of Transportation when he visits London later this week.
My written answer today to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith) gives further details of my review of aviation security.
Mr. David Evans: I thank my right hon. Friend for those far-reaching initiatives, which I am sure the House will also welcome. Could he be more specific about what he means by his reference to tightening up the security services? In future, will airports be safer place to which to go? When will the initiatives be implemented?
Mr. Channon: The timing of the initiatives will vary. Some of those that I have announced this afternoon will
658
take some time to implement, but my hon. Friend will know that I announced a package of measures on 6 April, some of which can take effect almost immediately.
The initiatives I have announced today are part of a continuing process. This is not the end and we shall continue to improve aviation security. I am now aiming for a set of internationally agreed rules on security procedures on, for example, radios and other electrical items. I am tightening up the requirements for screening hold baggage and the security requirements for cargo. I assure my hon. Friend that there is still more to be done, but I am determined to do anything within my power to improve security at airports.
Mr. Donald Anderson: Would not this question have been better answered by way of a statement? Will the new powers that the right hon. Gentleman is seeking from Parliament be sought in this Session because of their urgency? What will be his response to American pressures to impose their standards on our airports?
Mr. Channon: My answer today represents a progress report on the continuing review of security. I made some announcements on 6 April and I am always open to the House to make a statement, if that is what it would like. My hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans) had a question down and it seemed right that I should answer it at the end of Question Time as his question was not reached earlier.
It is not for me to say exactly when the required legislation will come forward, but it will do so at the earliest convenient date. There is, however, already a heavy programme of legislation for the present Session of Parliament.
With regard to the United States Government, I am looking forward to discussing the relevant matters with the Secretary of Transportation during the next few days. We are in total agreement about the need to improve aviation security. If there are any differences, which I doubt, I am sure that they are small ones that can be resolved quickly.
Mr. Terence L. Higgins: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is sensible to take a question at the end of Question Time occasionally when most people who are interested in a particular subject happen to be in the House? Can my right hon. Friend be more specific about the proposals he has in mind with regard to extending the 1982 Act? I welcome the doubling in the budget that my right hon. Friend has mentioned.
Mr. Channon: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. We worked off the questions today and, as my right hon. Friend has said, this is a time when most people interested in transport are likely to be here. I shall try to ensure that the aviation security inspectorate, which I have announced, will have adequate powers to ensure that aviation security requirements are properly implemented. I also want to consider whether there should be sanctions for lax security or powers over persons other than airports or airlines. At the moment the powers are limited to airports and airlines.
Mr. Jeff Rooker: When the Secretary of State meets Secretary Skinner for discussions, will he ask him about recent reports that show that just a few hours before the Lockerbie disaster the United States issued further warnings of immediate priority about possible hijacks or explosions on aircraft, which,

659
admittedly, Secretary Skinner's Department did not pass on to the British Government? Will he take up that matter with the United States Secretary of Transportation?
Mr. Channon: I shall examine what the hon. Gentleman has said. As to the general question of Lockerbie, the House will know that I made a full reply to a question put by the Leader of the Opposition on 21 March. At this stage I
have nothing else to add.
Mr. Nicholas Soames: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on this package. Is he now satisfied with the arrangements for liasion between the British Airports Authority and his Department on security matters? Has he given any consideration to the establishment of a land border guard similar to that in Germany and other countries with specific control of airport security alone?
Mr. Channon: No, so far we have not considered that matter. Obviously we shall keep airport security under continuous review, and what my hon. Friend has suggested is an important subject which needs further study. At the moment however, I do not believe that it would be an appropriate procedure for the United Kingdom.
I am satisfied about liaison with BAA. Between us we must work to try to ensure improved airport security. The House must be under no illusions, however, of the great difficulties that always exist in this regard. At Heathrow, 50,000 people are employed and 100,000 people are employed at the four largest airports of the United Kingdom. I shall do my best, and so will my officers and all those concerned, to improve security at airports, but the House will be aware from the figures I have given what an enormous task it is.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Does the Secretary of State agree that one of the problems is the number of subcontractors, who have a rapid turnover of staff? As it is known that it takes at least three months to get a security clearance, is it not obvious that the rules applying to subcontractors working at major airports must be not only clearly laid out but rigidly enforced?
Mr. Channon: It could well be that the powers I seek to take in due course will cover the specific point which the hon. Lady has raised and about which she is quite correct. She has put her finger on an important problem.
Mr. Robert McCrindle: I revert to the matter of the discussions that my right hon. Friend is to have with the United States Secretary of Transportation. Has my right hon. Friend seen reports that the American authorities intend to seek to impose their standards of security on what, to them, are foreign airlines and foreign airports? As, by implication, that would mean an attempt by the United States to impose its rules on British airways at Heathrow and Gatwick, will the Secretary of State, in discussions with Secretary Skinner, make clear to him that such a proposal would not be acceptable and that the rules relating to British airports and airlines must remain firmly with the Department of Transport and other agencies in this country?
Mr. Channon: My hon. Friend is entirely right about that point. I shall want to discuss this matter with Mr. Skinner, bearing in mind that the United Kingdom
660
Government are responsible for aviation security in this country. I am sure that the object of the American initiative is to achieve better security in other countries, where, perhaps, Governments do not take their responsibility in this area as seriously as we do. I am sure that we will have no problem about this matter and that we will amicably conclude our discussions, because both Governments share a belief in the overriding need to improve security. We have worked extremely well together in Montreal at the International Civil Aviation Organisation, and I am sure that we will do so again on this occasion.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: How much new money will be spent on this package of proposals? Will it be greater or less than the £500 million doled out by the Prime Minister to save a dozen Tory-held Kent constituencies? Is this Government more concerned about looking after their interests in constituencies they hold than in saving lives?
Mr. Channon: The serious answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is that, if there are security requirements that should be enforced on their merits, lack of finance will in no way be allowed to stand in the way.
Mr. Robert Adley: I appreciate the importance of the figures to which the Secretary of State referred a few moments ago of the huge number of employees involved at airports, and I also recognise that the West German authorities and PanAm, to name just two groups involved, are trying to put the blame for what has happened on this country. However, will my right hon. Friend confirm that, when it comes to the security of aircraft and to the checking of baggage and tickets, the airlines are responsible and must be forced to carry out their duties properly?
Mr. Channon: It is extremely important that airlines carry out their duties properly. Being well aware of the fact, the airlines are energetically following this course. My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to that point. We are continually emphasising to airlines the great importance of the security measures they should undertake.
Sir Anthony Grant: Can my righ hon. Friend assure us that the checks at airports to detect persons carrying explosives are as scrupulous as the checks made of persons entering the Palace of Westminster?
Mr. Channon: That is certainly what I intend should occur, and I hope that it will. It must be the rule that, if security staff are in any doubt about a radio, a cassette recorder or other item being carried, they should forbid its carriage.
Mr. John Prescott: I must protest that the Secretary of State has just given what was really a statement. In fact, he spends most of his time either avoiding making statements to the House or using Question Time to make points. As all hon. Members know, under the procedure for statements in this place, an hon. Member can obtain a copy of the statement and make a judgment about it.
The Secretary of State knows that, if what he said today in his statement improves security at airports, we will welcome it, because mistakes and confusion which affect airport security alarm American and other authorities.

661
Will the Secretary of State confirm that most of the recommendations that he has just made were made by the Select Committee in 1986 but were then totally rejected by the Department? The right hon. Gentleman confirmed that rejection a few weeks ago in correspondence to me. What made him change his mind? I am pleased that he has changed his mind, because checks on luggage into Heathrow will improve security, but how much will it cost, and will that cost be borne by the passenger or the taxpayer, or financed by a levy fund system as recommended by the Select Committee? The last method is the one overall way to deal with the financing of airport security.
What about the other recommendation of the Select Committee that there should be someone in overall control of security and directly responsible when a mistake such as those that we have seen in the past few months is made?
As the Secretary of State referred to the view of the Americans—there is a report about it in The Independent today—can he tell us whether he agrees that the American authorities feel that our security is so bad that they will impose their higher conditions of security on their aeroplanes? That is a comment on our level of security. Does the Secretary of State accept that, as he so often avoided his responsibilities by saying that the breach of airport security on the PanAm flight was the responsibility of PanAm, the operator, rather than his responsibility, that is why the Americans take the view that there is inadequate security and control, particularly by the Secretary of State, of airport security in the United Kingdom?
Mr. Channon: That was a typical question from the hon. Gentleman. If he thinks that I spend my time trying to avoid making statements to the House, I may say that I have not been particularly successful over the past few months.
To answer the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans), I have announced a progress report on what is a continuing review.
To answer the hon. Gentleman, the cost will be borne by the passenger; extra costs on airlines and airports will inevitably be passed on. I am not persuaded by the case for a levy, which would raise no new money. It is merely a way of transferring money from one pocket to another and will not raise a single extra halfpenny. The person in overall control is the airport manager, and the new inspectorate will have an important role in inspecting airports even more energetically than at present. I reject completely the hon. Gentleman's view of the United States' opinion of our aviation security. There is not the faintest evidence to back up his unfounded and irresponsible claim. I shall be discussing this matter with Mr. Skinner, and I shall be amazed if he takes the Prescott line.

Arms Trafficking (Paris Arrests)
3.47 pm
Mr. Gerald Kaufman(by private notice): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign arid Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Government policy following the arrest in Paris of three members of the Ulster Defence Association in the company of a South African diplomat on a charge of illegally possessing weapons.
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Sir Geoffrey Howe): We have been informed by the French authorities of the arrest in Paris of three United Kingdom citizens and one American on 21 April on charges of arms trafficking, receipt of stolen goods, and criminal conspiracy of a terrorist nature. Consular access is being sought to the three United Kingdom citizens.
The Government are seriously concerned at the implications of the charges brought by the French authorities. The matter is sub judice and it is extremely important not to prejudice the French legal proceedings in any way. The South African ambassador in London was today summoned to the Foreign Office to be told of the grave view taken by the British Government of the implications of the charges and of the alleged involvement of a member of the South African embassy in Paris. The House will wish to be assured that since the initial reports of thefts in Northern Ireland became known my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has been subjecting security arrangements at Shorts and other establishments in Northern Ireland to a most thorough review.
Mr. Kaufman: I congratulate all involved in the successful operation in Paris.
Does not that operation reveal an alarming state of affairs—a conspiracy whereby South Africa has supplied so-called Loyalists with lethal weapons for use in terrorist actions in Ulster in quest of access to information, replicas and models of British missiles? In view of a succession of successful burglaries at Shorts, can the right hon. and learned Gentleman guarantee the security of the Starstreak missile in particular, as well as Javelin and Blowpipe?
Is it not a fact that weapons supplied by South Africa as part of this bloodstained deal have already been responsible for the deaths of innocent people in Northern Ireland and that grenades supplied by South Africa have been thrown at the police in Northern Ireland?
In the knowledge of the fact that South Africans have supplied arms for murder in Northern Ireland, did the Forein Secretary raise this act of aggression when he met the South African Foreign Minister last month? Did the Prime Minister do so when she met that same Minister this month? How can the Prime Minister have told a South African newspaper:
"I consistently have made clear the total opposition and abhorrence of the British Government for terrorist actions"
when she must have known that the South Africans have been responsible for making possible terrorist action inside the United Kingdom?
Today, all hon. Members have received a letter from the Foreign Secretary declaring:
"our message is getting through where it matters most—inside South Africa".

663
Is this conspiracy the response to that message? Is this conspiracy the response to the tact and persuasion that the Prime Minister says she uses with South Africa?
Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman consult other European Community Foreign Ministers urgently to obtain united action, involving the expulsion of all South African intelligence agents and arms purchasers posing as diplomats? Will he call back the South African ambassador in London and tell him to withdraw all members of his staff with duties comparable to those of Mr. Storm?
Will the Government now cut off to South Africa all supplies of equipment, spare parts and vehicles which can be used for military purposes? Is it not time that Britain acted in line with world opinion and imposed sanctions on South Africa's incorrigible regime?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I can begin by thanking the right hon. Gentleman for his congratulations to those concerned with bringing this matter to the state it has so far reached. I find it difficult to agree with several of the other points that he raised.
The right hon. Gentleman will surely acknowledge that the success of this operation thus far underlines the extent to which the Government have been, are and remain totally committed to enforcement of the United Nations arms embargo to South Africa. That is why I said that we take an extremely serious view of the facts so far disclosed in this matter. I emphasise "the facts so far disclosed" because it is by a long way too early to come to any conclusions about the implications of this matter, let alone some of the earlier ones to which the right hon. Gentleman referred.
The right hon. Gentleman is quite right to emphasise the need for the closest possible attention to security in relation to manufacturing processes in Northern Ireland. I have said that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is closely concerned with that.
The right hon. Gentleman will understand that we are well aware of the nature of some of the agencies and authorities that are involved in a matter of this kind. That is all the more reason for working in a manner which is most effective to secure the removal of apartheid from South Africa. It is our continuing and firm belief that the present policy of the Government is best calculated to achieve that end.
Sir Ian Lloyd: Will my right hon. and learned Friend accept that I regret every bit as much as he does the rather deplorable events which have occurred in Paris during the past 48 hours? If, as has been suggested in the House today, South African weapons have given rise to terrorist action in Ulster, that is a profoundly regrettable consequence. However, before my right hon. and learned Friend reaches a final conclusion, will he bear in mind the fact that many of us, including many of my constituents, take just as grave a view of the way in which SWAPO and the ANC obtain SAM-7 and Stinger-type missiles so that the South Africans are compelled by the international arms embargo to resort to deplorable methods to obtain arms themselves?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I do not think that I should join my hon. Friend in discussing SWAPO's access to weapons in different circumstances, save to underline the extent to
664
which we deplore the use of violence as a means of promoting political objectives in southern Africa as in our own country. However, I am glad to have his endorsement of the view that I have expressed that the implications of the facts so far disclosed could be extremely serious, and the fact that he has endorsed that is significant.
Mr. Menzies Campbell: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that the military importance of the incident we are discussing is demonstrated by the fact that the South African Government were apparently willing to pay £1 million for the model of the missile which was sought to be obtained in Paris? He has also told the House that a review of the security has been taking place. If that is the case, why did the Minister of State for the Armed Forces say in response to a written question from me:
"Security of all Ministry of Defence establishments and bases is kept under constant review as a matter of course. I have no plans at present to commission a specific investigation into security at territorial army bases in Northern Ireland."—[Official Report, 20 April 1989; Vol 151, c. 278.]
Sir Geoffrey Howe: On the hon. and learned Gentleman's last point, I cannot comment on the precise formulation of the matter to which he has referred, but I can assure him that since the initial reports of security risks and thefts came to light, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has set in hand a very close review of security at such premises. I cannot confirm or deny the specific figure that the hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned, but it goes without saying that the South African authorities are prepared to go to considerable lengths to outwit the United Nations arms embargo. That is why we apply ourselves so energetically to upholding its enforcement.
Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: Is there any evidence that South African weapons have been used in terrorist incidents in Northern Ireland, as the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) claimed?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I cannot offer the House any concluded judgment on that today, but obviously if it were firmly established it would add to the gravity of a serious situation.
Rev. Martin Smyth: Will the Secretary of State shed further light on the incident, as we have only press speculation? I do not want to speculate as to whether any court proceedings are developing but is there any truth in the suggestion by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) that the UDA was involved? Furthermore, on a day when the people of south Belfast have suffered another terrorist attack on a police station and after a weekend when women have been murdered, is it not rather hypocritical to spend time attacking South Africa when the ANC and the IRA have been collaborating in the attack on British people in Northern Ireland?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: On the hon. Gentleman's first point, it is not possible to be more specific about a number of matters that have been raised for discussion by the facts so far reported, not only because we do not wish to say or do anything that may interfere with the conduct of proceedings in France—which is important—but in addition, one has to take care about the revelation of

665
sensitive material in answer to any further questions. The inescapable fact is that any involvement on either side of the tragic conflict in Northern Ireland involving the supply of weapons that may add to the hazard to life and limb there is to be deplored, and any fresh aspect of it raises serious questions.
Mr. Derek Conway: My right hon. and learned Friend will have the support of the whole House in deprecating the stealing of weapons. Bearing in mind that the Government wisely operate an arms embargo policy against South Africa, has my right hon. and learned Friend or any of his ministerial colleagues received any evidence from the Opposition about the illegal supply of arms as was suggested by the shadow Foreign Secretary? I have heard of no such evidence being put forward, yet the fact that we have an official arms embargo is rarely recognised by Opposition Members.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I can assure my hon. Friend that any suggestion of the supply of weapons in breach of the arms embargo is always investigated with the utmost thoroughness. I hope that he will accept, as does the rest of the House, that the facts I have so far disclosed today suggest that that thoroughness is not in vain.
Mr. Merlyn Rees: The supply of arms to Northern Ireland is one of the major reasons why the tragic events of the past 20 years have lasted so long. In a country in which relatively few people are involved in violence, the arrival of those weapons, whether from Colonel Gaddafi or money given to the United States, and whether they go to Republican or Loyalist organisations, does not matter much. What matters is that the arms are getting through.
Will the Foreign Secretary ensure that we receive accurate information as to whether it is true, as is reported in the newspapers, that the UDA—a working class group —has received arms from South Africa and that now the new organisation, which I understand is a middle class group that has arisen in the past year or two, also has arms contacts in South Africa? One way of stopping the supply of arms is to know more about the people involved. I had never heard of the movement until a few weeks ago. It is an insidious development, and I hope that we can have more information.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The right hon. Gentleman is correct to remind us of the central fact, which is that the availability of any weapons on either side of the troubled Province of Northern Ireland is a matter that we must do everything possible to prevent. One cannot be sure where they will end up or what will happen to them. That is why we are making such an enormous effort to try to achieve that.
The facts and evidence underlying the matters I have announced today have not yet been fully explored, but it is entirely right that at the right time and in the right way every possible use should be made of them to identify those responsible for the acquisition, financing and importation of those weapons. Every action should be taken thereafter to demonstrate how seriously we view the matter and how determined we are to stamp it out.
Mr. Robert Adley: Will my right hon. and learned Friend accept that most impartial people would regard these events, if they are proved to be true, as
666
every bit as reprehensible as the relationship that appears to exist between the IRA and Libya? If the charges are well founded and those concerned are found guilty, will my right hon. and learned Friend consider our diplomatic relationships with South Africa in the light of the decision taken some time ago about our diplomatic relationships with Libya?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I understand why my hon. Friend is concerned about the possible gravity of some of the implications of the facts so far known and I appreciate that concern. However, we must acknowledge that the shape and nature of diplomatic relations must be considered in the light of many different considerations, one of which is the extent to which we are able to continue representing to the Government of another country the case we feel strongly needs to be taken into account.
Mr. David Winnick: When will the Foreign Secretary recognise that South Africa is willing to do the maximum damage to Britain's interest, as is Libya, in supporting the other side of terrorism in Northern Ireland? Does he recall the case in Coventry just five years ago when the South African authorities double-crossed the British Government and the judicial authorities and the people who were bailed did not return to Britain? Is it not time we started to recognise the immense danger to this country of South Africa's terrorist activities, including acts of terrorism carried out in various parts of Europe? When he sees the ambassador, I hope that he will tell him of the strength of feeling in the House of Commons.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: It is clear from what has already been said on both sides of the House that there is grave concern at the implications of the facts so far known in this matter. I shall take care to ensure that the South African Government are in no doubt about that. The precise extent to which this or that action should be equated with the action of any other Government has to be considered in the light of all the circumstances. We should leave every Government in no doubt that the promotion of the supply of weapons for violent, terrorist purposes within this Kingdom is a matter of the utmost seriousness.
Mr. Robert Hughes: Will the Foreign Secretary take this opportunity to refute as totally unfounded and disgraceful suggestions that the African National Congress has been collaborating with the IRA to murder British citizens? Does he recollect that the South African Government boasted that they would not send back from South Africa people charged in this country with breaching the oil embargo who had been allowed to return under the gravest assurances given by the South African embassy? Now that South Africa has become involved in affairs in Northern Ireland, would it not make more sense, rather than simply calling in the ambassador to tell him how displeased he is, if the Foreign Secretary insisted that the military attaché department in Trafalgar Square was closed and the South African ambassador was sent back to South Africa as a mark of our intention to do something other than simply mouth platitudes?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman will know that. all allegations of links between the ANC and the IRA and any other terrorist organisations are thoroughly investigated. It is made clear to the ANC, as to other organisations, that it is entitled to remain in this country so long as it complies with our laws.

667
The hon. Gentleman will recall that the case which came before the Coventry courts was last dealt with in a statement on 23 October 1984 by my right hon. and learned Friend, now the Secretary of State for Scotland, when he was Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
The hon. Gentleman will recall that in September 1985 Community countries agreed to recall military attachés accredited to South Africa and to refuse to grant accreditation to new South African military attaches. British attachés were withdrawn from South Africa in 1985, the South African armed forces attaché left London in July 1987 and the air and naval attaché left in December 1987.
Mr. Jeff Rooker: In the last year for which we have figures, 1986–87, this country was the world's second largest arms supplier behind the United States and ahead of the Soviet bloc. Is it not evident that our factories and manufacturing plants involved in that trade, which amounts to about £6 billion a year in exports, are bound to be prey to Governments such as the South African Government who exist only because of their use of weapons? Will the Foreign Secretary have words with his Cabinet colleagues to ensure that, notwithstanding the policy to continue with a massive trade in weapons, at least the security of the factories and the people working in them is greatly enhanced?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman is right to emphasise the importance, in any country supplying weapons on any scale, of the tightest possible control over the licensing and export of any such weapons and the places in which they are stored and manufactured. As I have already said, that is a matter of which my right hon. Friends are well aware.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. This is an extension of Question Time, and we must move on as we have a heavy day ahead of us.

Statutory Instruments, &c.
Mr. Speaker: With the leave of the House, I shall put together the Questions on the two motions relating to statutory instruments.
Ordered,
That the Draft Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Estates of Deceased Persons and Inheritances and on Gifts) (Sweden) Order 1989 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the Beef Special Premium (Protection of Payments) Order 1989 (S.I., 1989, No. 574) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Dorrell.]

Points of Order
Mr. Harry Cohen: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We have just had a private notice question about Blowpipe missiles. At present the destination of Blowpipe missiles is—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry that I was not able to call the hon. Gentleman; he was not alone in that. A private notice question is an extension of Question Time and I allowed nearly 20 minutes on it, which is much longer than I would normally allow for a question.
Mr. Cohen rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. It is selfish of the hon. Gentleman to persist. If it is a matter of order, I shall deal with it, but not if it is an extension of Question Time.
Mr. Cohen: On a point or order, Mr. Speaker. I am asking a question of you, Mr. Speaker, not of the Minister. At present questions about the supply of Blowpipe missiles to the terrorists in countries such as Nicaragua or Afghanistan are blocked by the Table Office. As we have now been able to ask questions about it on the Floor of the House, will you take steps to unblock the tabling of such questions in future?
Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter for me.
Mr. Nicholas Bennett rose—
Mr. Dennis Skinner rose—
Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members should look at the Order Paper to see how much business we must get through today.
Mr. Bennett: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask for your advice on a serious matter concerning freedom of speech? The House jealously guards its right of freedom of speech, and hon. Members have a duty to protect it, which includes the process by which hon. Members are elected. Conservative party election posters in the Vale of Glamorgan have been wantonly destroyed by the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams). Has he approached you, Mr. Speaker, about making a statement?
Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter of order in the House.
Mr. Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This has nothing to do with exchanges, but you, Mr. Speaker, may have heard the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs refer to the procedure in a French court as being sub judice. Since the Wright case, it has been generally accepted that the sub judice rule applies only to British courts.
Mr. Speaker: I did not hear the Secretary of State say that, but if he did I must tell hon. Members that the matter may be sub judice in French courts but it is not yet so in Ours.
Mr. Alan Williams: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you confirm that the Chair has no power if a Minister chooses to answer a question lifted from the Order Paper rather than make a statement, thereby excluding you, Mr. Speaker, from the parliamentary process? Did the Minister seek your authority to make

669
a statement? Will you confirm that the effect of the procedural device, compared with a statement, used by the Secretary of State—he has been under much pressure lately and we understand that he is aware of his vulnerability—is that, first, it restricts the amount of time available—although you, Mr. Speaker, allowed every hon. Member who stood to take part and we are grateful for that? Secondly, it limits the Opposition Front Bench spokesman to a single intervention at the end of the statement. Thirdly, and most important, because that device was used, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), who had to put up with snide comments from the Secretary of State, had no prior knowledge of the statement's contents, which is a normal courtesy, and therefore had no opportunity to consider the details of a matter that is of profound national importance, in which the Minister's previous incompentence has been a matter of grave national concern.
Mr. Speaker: The House should understand that, because of the shuffle, the question might have been answered earlier. If we had not reached oral question No. 35 today, it would have received a written answer. No request for a statement was made, and the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) rightly said that I have no authority to stop questions being answered at the end.
Mr. Edward Leigh: You, Mr. Speaker, may have noticed from today's Votes and Proceedings that there are already 736 early-day motions on the Order Paper, a large proportion of which have been tabled by Opposition Members, who are keen to climb on any bandwagon. Will you raise with the printers of the Votes and Proceedings the strange absence of an early-day motion, which Opposition Members have surely tabled under our democratic procedures, condemning the unwarranted invasion of personal property perpetrated by the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) of ripping down election posters—an act that was witnessed by television cameras?
Mr. Speaker: So far as I know, such an early-day motion does not appear on the Order Paper, but it may well do so tomorrow.
Mr. Tony Banks: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You said that if question No. 35, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans), had come up earlier in the shuffle the Secretary of State could have answered it. What is the purpose of having the shuffle if Ministers can decide what questions they will answer by making a statement from the Dispatch Box?
Mr. Speaker: That is a matter for the Minister, but the hon. Gentleman well knows that we have had a private notice question on this matter from the Leader of the Opposition. It is a matter of considerable interest to the House. I said that oral questions that are not reached on the Order Paper receive a written answer.

Orders of the Day

  Social Security Bill
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  Ordered,
  That the Social Security Bill, as amended, be considered in the following order, namely, any new Clauses standing in the name of a member of the Government, any new Schedules standing in such a name, other new Clauses, amendments relating to Clauses 1 to 16, Schedule 1, Clauses 17 and 18, Schedule 2, Clause 19, Schedule 3, Clause 20, Schedule 4, Clause 21, Schedule 5, Clauses 22 and 23, Schedule 6, Clauses 24 to 30, other new Schedules, amendments relating to Schedules 7 and 8.—[Mr. Moore.]

  Social Security Bill
    New Clause 7

      AMENDMENTS RELATING TO PRIMARY CLASS I CONTRIBUTIONS
      `(1) In section 4 of the principal Act, for subsections (6) to (6B) (computation of primary Class 1 contributions) there shall be substituted—
      "(6) Where a primary Class 1 contribution is payable, the amount of that contribution shall be the aggregate of—

      (a) the initial primary percentage of so much of the earnings paid in the tax week, in respect of the employment in question, as does not exceed the current lower earnings limit; and

      (b) the main primary percentage of so much of those earnings as exceeds that limit but does not exceed the upper earnings limit;

      but this subsection is subject to regulations under subsection (7) below or sections 128 to 132 below and to section 27 of the Pensions Act (contracted-out rates).
      (6A) For the purposes of this Act the primary percentages shall be as follows—

      (a) the initial primary percentage shall be 2 per cent.; and

      (b) the main primary percentage shall be 9 per cent.; but the rates of those primary percentages are subject to alteration under sections 122 and 123A below.

      (6B) In the case of earners paid otherwise than weekly, any reference in subsection (6) above to the current upper, or (as the case may be) lower, earnings limit shall be taken as a reference to the prescribed equivalent of that limit."(2) In subsection (6F) of that section (alteration of number of primary or secondary brackets) the words "primary
      or" shall be omitted.
      (3) In section 122 of that Act (additional power to alter contributions) for paragraph (a) of subsection (1) there shall be substituted—

      "(a) the percentage rate specified—

      (i) as the initial primary percentage in section 4(6A)(a);

      (ii) as the main primary percentage in section 4(6A)(b);"

      (4) In subsection (4) of that section (variation of rates for purpose of adjusting Redundancy Fund) for paragraph (a) there shall be substituted—

      "(a) the percentage rate specified—

      (i) as the initial primary percentage in section. 4(6A)(a);

      (ii) as the main primary percentage in section 4(6A)(b); ".

      (5) In subsection (6) of that section, for paragraph (a) (maximum variation in Class 1 rates of 0·25 percentage points there shall be substituted—

      "(a) to increase for any tax year—

      (i) the percentage rate of the initial or main primary percentage, or

      (ii) the percentage rate for secondary Class 1 contributions,

      671
      to a percentage rate more than 0·25 per cent. higher than the percentage rate applicable at the end of the preceding tax year for the primary percentage or secondary Class 1 contribution in question; or"

      (6) In section 123A of that Act (further power to alter certain contributions) for subsection (1) there shall be substituted·

      "(1) For the purpose of adjusting amounts payable by way of primary Class 1 contributions, the Secretary of State may at any time make an order altering—

      (a) the percentage rate specified as the initial primary percentage in section 4(6A)(a);

      (b) the percentage rate specified as the main primary percentage in section 4(6A)(b)."

      (7) In subsection (3) of that section, for paragraph (a) (limit on increase of primary Class 1 rates) there shall be substituted—

      "(a) to alter the percentage rate of the initial or main primary percentage to a percentage rate more than 0·25 per cent. higher than the percentage rate applicable at the end of the preceding tax year for the primary percentage in question; or"

      (8) In section 134 of that Act (destination of contributions) in paragraphs (a) and (i) of subsection (4) ("appropriate national health service allocation" and "appropriate employment protection allocation", when in force, to include specified percentage of earnings in respect of which primary Class 1 contributions were paid) after the word "paid" there shall be inserted the words "at the main primary percentage rate".
      (9) In Schedule 20 of that Act (glossary of expressions) there shall be inserted at the appropriate places—

      "Initial primary percentage";

      See section 4(6) and (6A)

      "main primary percentage"; "primary percentage"

      Construe "initial primary percentage rate" and "main primary percentage rate" as references to the percentage rates from time to time specified in section 4(6A)(a) or (b) as the initial or, as the case may be, main primary percentage."

      "Main primary percentage"

      See "initial primary percentage"; "main primary percentage"; "primary percentage" above."

      "Primary percentage"

      See "initial primary percentage"; "main primary percentage"; "primary percentage" above."—[Mr. Moore.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      4.15 pm
      The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. John Moore): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider Government amendments Nos. 7 and 10.
      Mr. Moore: The purpose of the clause is to reform the structure of employees class 1 national insurance contributions, to reduce those contributions for almost all employees and to abolish the steps in contribution rates between the lower and upper earnings limits. These changes were announced by the Chancellor in his Budget statement on 14 March 1989 and build on the reforms enacted in 1985 when the reduced national insurance contribution rates of 5 per cent. and 7 per cent. for lower paid workers were introduced.
      The 1985 reforms were a welcome change for the lower paid, but there was a major difficulty. When a person's earnings crossed the lower earnings limit for national insurance, he had to pay a 5 per cent. contribution on all his earnings. An individual earning £42 a week in 1989–90 would pay no contributions. A pay increase of £1 will take
      672
      his weekly earnings over the lower earnings limit of £43 a week and he will then pay a contribution of 5 per cent. on all his earnings—£2·15 a week—which is considerably more than his increase in earnings. There are similar effects when earnings rise above £75 and £115 a week—the earnings levels at which the higher 7 per cent. and 9 per cent. rates come into force. Not surprisingly, people are deterred from increasing their earnings to take them over these cliff edges.
      People keeping their earnings below the lower earnings limit can be excluded from a wide range of national insurance benefits. Under the reformed system, which comes into effect in October, people earning less than the lower earnings limit—£43 a week for 1989–90—will still pay no contributions. Individuals earning more than £43 a week will pay contributions at 2 per cent.—the initial percentage rate—on the first £43 of weekly earnings and at 9 per cent.—the main percentage rate—on earnings above £43 a week up to the upper earnings limit of £325. At the current lower earnings limit, the national insurance entry fee is just 86p a week. Individuals earning at this level throughout the year will earn entitlement to all national insurance benefits for this small weekly sum.
      The single 9 per cent. rate of earnings above the lower earnings limit will remove the steps in contributions that occur on changing from 5 per cent. to 7 per cent. and from 7 per cent. to 9 per cent. A pay increase of just £1 above the £75 and £115 earnings limit means that people will no longer be worse off overall by over £1 a week through higher contributions. The clause will entirely remove the disincentives for individuals to increase their weekly earnings above those earnings limits.
      The change will lead to lower contributions generally. From October, 15 million people earning more than £115 a week will pay £3 a week less in national insurance contributions. The 4 million people earning less than £115 a week will not gain as much, but they have already gained from the 1985 reforms, and the combined effect of those reforms and those proposals will result in a gain of £3 a week. They will also benefit from the removal of the cliff edges at £75 and £115 a week, which may have kept down their net earnings. The new system will cost, in terms of lower national insurance contributions, about £1 billion in 1989–90 and about £2·8 billion in 1990–91, which will be its full first year of operation.
      The clause removes the steps in national insurance contributions, which were disincentives for employees to increase their hours of work. It reduces the class 1 contributions for almost all employees by up to £3 a week. It provides entitlement to all contributory benefits, including the basic retirement pension, for as little as 86p a week.
      I am sure that the measure will be widely welcomed and I commend the clause and associated amendments to the House.
      Mr. Frank Field: I should like to continue a conversation that I had during an earlier Question Time with Ministers on the Treasury Bench. I made a plea that the Government should not rest on their laurels and leave their reform of national insurance at this stage. I was concerned specifically with the growth of part-time work and with the fact that 40 per cent. of all part-time jobs in the EEC are in this country. In reply, the Secretary of State said that the reason was probably that large numbers of workers wanted part-time jobs.

      673
      I accept that many people want to work part time, and they should have the opportunity to do so. However, at that time I was making a separate point. If employers' contributions are exempted up to the lower ceiling, as it now is, there is an incentive for them to pay people below that level—in other words, to create part-time jobs—whereas, if there were no rigging of the market by national insurance contributions, they might create full-time jobs. I should like the Government to consider that aspect.
      I should like to underline a point made by the Secretary of State. For the small sum of 86p a week, people at that end of the market get a very good deal.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 10

      BENEFITS FOR WOMEN WIDOWED BEFORE 11TH APRIL 1988
      `(1) In the case of a widow whose late husband died before 11th April 1988 and who either—

      (a) was over the age of 40 but under the age of 55 at the time of her husband's death, or

      (b) is over the age of 40 but under the age of 55 at the time when she ceases to be entitled to a widowed mother's allowance,

      section 26 of the principal Act (widow's pension) shall have effect, and be taken always to have had effect, as if section 36(3) of the 1986 1986 (which substituted "45" for "40", and "55" for "50", in subsections (1) and (2)) had never been enacted.
      (2) The Social Security (Widow's Benefit and Retirement Pensions) Amendment Regulations 1987 shall have effect, and be taken always to have had effect, with the addition at the end of regulation 3 (transitional provision for widowed mother's allowance where husband died before 11th April 1988) of the following—
      "(3) In determining whether a widow—

      (a) whose late husband died on or after 7th October 1987 and before 11th April 1988, and

      (b) who became entitled to a widow's allowance on his death,

      is also entitled, after the cessation of that allowance, to a widowed mother's allowance for any period beginning on or after 11th April 1988, regulation 16(1) of the principal Regulations shall apply as if regulation 2(6) above had not been made.
      (4) In determining whether a widow—

      (a) whose late husband died before 11th April 1988,

      (b) who immediately before that date was entitled to a widowed mother's allowance otherwise than by virtue of regulation 16(1) of the principal Regulations, and

      (c) who would, apart from this paragraph, cease to be entitled to that allowance on or after that date, is entitled to such an allowance for any period beginning on or after that date, that regulation shall apply as if regulation 2(6) above had not been made."

      (3) The Social Benefit (Dependency) Amendment Regulations 1989 shall have effect, and be taken always to have had effect, with the insertion after regulation 3 (which made amendments concerning widowed mother's allowance to regulation 4B of the Social Security Benefit (Dependency) Regulations 1977) of the following—
      "3A. The first amendment made by regulation 3 above shall not have effect in relation to a widow whose late husband died before 11th April 1988.".
      (4) in any case where—

      (a) a claim for a widow's pension or a widowed mother's allowance is made, or treated as made, before the passing of this Act, and

      (b) the Secretary of State has made a payment to or for the claimant on the ground that if the claim had been received immediately after its passing she would have been entitled to that pension or allowance, or entitled to it at a higher rate, for the period in respect of which the payment is made,
      674
      the payment so made shall be treated as a payment of that pension or allowance; and, if and to the extent that an award of the pension or allowace, or an award at a higher rate, is made for the period in respect of which the payment was made, the payment shall be treated as made in accordance with that award.

      (5) Where, apart from section 165A of the principal Act (making of claim a condition of entitlement), a widow falling within subsection (1) above would be entitled to a widow's pension for any period beginning on or after 11th April 1988, then, notwithstanding anything in that section, she shall be entitled to that pension for that period if she has made a claim for it before the end of the period of twelve months beginning with the passing of this Act.
      (6) Where a widow's late husband died on or after 7th October 1987 and before 11th April 1988 and, apart from section 165A of the principal Act, she would have become entitled to a widow's allowance on his death, then if either—

      (a) she was over the age of 40 but under the age of 55 at the time of his death, or

      (b) she would, apart from that section, have been entitled to a widowed mother's allowance on the cessation of her entitlement to the widow's allowance,

      she shall, notwithstanding anything in that section, be entitled to the widow's allowance (and, accordingly, in a case falling within paragraph (b) above, to the widowed mother's allowance) if she has made a claim, or is treated as having made a claim, for it before the end of the period of twelve months beginning with the passing of this Act.
      (7) Where in consequence of any of the amending provisions an adjudicating authority has decided before the passing of this Act that a widow whose husband died before 11th April 1988 either—

      (a) is not entitled to a benefit under section 25 or 26 of the principal Act, or

      (b) is entitled to such a benefit at a particular rate, an adjudication officer may review that decision, notwithstanding anything in section 104 of the principal Act.

      (8) In any case where—

      (a) it is determined on such a review that the widow in question was entitled to a benefit under section 25 or 26 of the principal Act, or was entitled to such a benefit at a higher rate, and

      (b) the application for the review was made before the end of the period of twelve months beginning with the passing of this Act,

      the decision on the review may take effect on 11th April 1988 or any later date, notwithstanding any provision of any Act or instrument restricting the payment of any benefit or increase of benefit to which a person would otherwise be entitled by reason of a review in respect of any period before the review.
      (9) Subsection (4) of section 104 (appeals from reviews) shall apply in relation to a review under this section as it applies in relation to a review under that section.
      (10) In this section—
      "adjudicating authority" means—

      (a) an adjudication officer;

      (b) a social security appeal tribunal;

      (c) a Commissioner; and

      "the amending provisions" are—

      (a) section 36(3) of the 1986 Act; and

      (b) regulation 2(6) of the Social Security (Widow's Benefit and Retirement Pensions) Amendment Regulations 1987 (deemed entitlement to child allowance for purposes of widowed mother's allowance etc).

      (11) The amendment by this section of provisions contained in regulations shall not be taken to have prejudiced any power to make further regulations revoking or amending those provisions.
      (12) Nothing in this section shall be taken to prejudice section 16 or 17 of the Interpretation Act 1978 (effect of repeals, substitutions etc).'.—[Mr. Moore.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Moore: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 55 and 52 to 54.
      Mr. Moore: The new clause extends entitlement to widows' benefit under the pre-reforms legislation to all women widowed before 11 April 1988. It will give legislative effect to the commitment that I made to the House on 28 February 1989.
      When the reforms were introduced, women whose husbands had died before 11 April 1988 expected to receive widows' benefits based on the rules in force before the reform changes were made. For some widows receiving widows' allowance or widowed mothers' allowance on 11 April the reform changes meant that when their benefit ceased and their succeeding widow's pension entitlement was determined, they received either a reduced rate of pension or no pension at all. There was also a group of mothers whose youngest child was under 19 but no longer a dependant, who would have been entitled to the personal rate of widowed mothers' allowance but lost it under the reform changes. I have decided on the grounds of equity and fairness that all these entitlements should be restored. This means that these widows will regain their right to receive the benefits in line with their expectations on the day that they were widowed.
      I want to make clear to the House the arrangements by which we are making payments to these widows. My Department has identified and contacted them and in many cases payments have already been made. Payments in those cases which are not covered by the commissioner's decision of 28 February—the majority—are being made on an ex gratia basis. Whilst it is right that this money should reach these widows as quickly as possible, it is not right to make ex gratia payments in the long term. Therefore, this clause includes the power to put these payments retrospectively on a statutory basis. It will also ensure, as the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) understands, that all widows receiving these payments will have access to all the adjudication rights associated with statutory benefits. These payments will, of course, be offset against any other maintenance or income-related benefit that may be or have been in payment.
      These changes are expected to affect beneficially 20,000 women at an estimated net cost to public funds of around £5 million in a full year.
      Any widow who thinks that she may be affected by these changes and has not been contacted should approach her local social security office.
      I commend this clause and the associated amendments to the House.
      Mrs. Margaret Beckett: As the Secretary of State is aware, there is a 12-month period during which people can claim. Some people in receipt of widowed mothers' allowance have children who may not have reached the age of 16, so the change in their benefit may not come into question until after that period. Am I right in thinking that the right hon. Gentleman is completely confident that all those people will be picked up by his Department during the ensuing year and that there is no risk that they will not receive the benefit that is due to them?
      Mr. Moore: I am grateful to the hon. Lady. Like her colleagues, she has welcomed the new clause on another occasion.
      676
      There will be no need to contact the women who are now in receipt of WMA when it converts—the date on which that happens will depend on the circumstances—to the widows' pension. That will automatically be picked up, so I can reassure the hon. Lady on that important point.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 8

      ABOLITION OF EARNINGS RULE ETC.
      '(1) In section 30 of the principal Act, subsection (1) (the earnings rule) shall cease to have effect.
      (2) In section 28(1)(a) of that Act (conditions of entitlement to Category A retirement pension) the words "and has retired from regular employment" shall cease to have effect.
      (3) In section 29 of that Act (woman's Category B retirement pension)—

      (a) in subsections (2) and (3) (first and second cases of entitlement) in paragraph (a), for the words "both of them have retired from regular employment" there shall be substituted the words "has become entitled to a Category A retirement pension"; and

      (b) in subsection (5), paragraph (a) (retirement, in fourth such case, to have retired from regular employment) shall cease to have effect.

      (4) For section 12 of the Pensions Act (deferred retirement) there shall be substituted the following—
      "Increase of retirement pension where entitlement is deferred
      12.—(1) Where a person's entitlement to a Category A or Category B retirement pension is deferred, Schedule 1 to this Act shall have effect for increasing the rate of his pension.
      (2) For the purposes of this Act and the principal Act, a person's entitlement to a Category A or Category B retirement pension is "deferred" if and so long as he does not become entitled to that pension by reason only—

      (a) that he has not satisfied the conditions of section 165A of the principal Act (requirement to claim); or

      (b) that, in the case of a woman's Category B retirement pension by virtue of her husband's contributions, her husband has not satisfied those conditions with respect to his Category A retirement pension;

      and, in relation to any such pension, "period of deferment" shall be construed accordingly."
      (5) Subsection (1) above affects the rate of pension to which a person is entitled for the week in which that subsection somes into force as well as any subsequent week ("week" having the same meaning in this subsection as it had in the proviso to the said section 30(1) immediately before its repeal).
      (6) The enactments mentioned in Schedule (Abolition of earnings rule etc.) to this Act shall have effect with the amendments there specified.'.—[Mr. Moore.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Moore: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 36 to 41.
      Mr. Moore: The purpose of the new clause is to abolish the earnings rule for state retirement pension from 1 October 1989. There are one or two administrative points that might be of interest beyond the House. The new clause will give legislative effect to the important decision taken by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor and me and announced in the Chancellor's Budget statement on 14 March. It will also remove the condition that individuals

      677
      must be "retired from regular employment". The clause therefore removes all the restrictions which prevent people enjoying their pension while continuing to contribute to the economy and to their own incomes through earnings.
      At the moment, someone approaching pension age has to decide whether to retire from regular employment and claim his state retirement pension, or to defer retirement and get annual increments to his eventual pension of about 7·5 per cent. for the first five years after pension age. If he decides to claim his state retirement pension but continues working, his pension is reduced at the rate of 50p on every £1 earned between £75 and £79 a week, and at pound for pound for earnings over £79 a week. This means that someone who earns over £120 a week has his basic state retirement pension completely extinguished. The proposed changes are therefore wholly beneficial.
      Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will my right hon. Friend pay tribute to the late Sir Brandon Rhys Williams, who campaigned on this point for many years?
      Mr. Moore: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. That suggestion will be welcomed by hon. Members on both sides of the House. I unreservedly give that commendation to our late colleague who can be regarded as having been in the forefront of many of these issues.
      Individuals over pension age will be able to carry on working without having their basic state retirement pension reduced. They will no longer be barred from receiving a full state retirement pension if they work more than a few hours.
      Mr. Timothy Raison: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that this welcome measure is in no sense selective or targeted? It applies indiscriminately to all beneficiaries and retirement pensioners regardless of their income.
      Mr. Moore: I have the distinct feeling that my right hon. Friend is leaping to get into the next series of debates. He is, of course, right on that point. He might be regarded as somewhat wrong—I do not want to pursue this point at large—in that there is a specific problem with regard to retirement which suggests that it covers, by definition, only a limited class of people.
      We are retaining provision for people to defer drawing state retirement pension for up to five years, if they so wish. Increments will continue to be added during periods of deferral at the rate of about 7·5 per cent. per year of deferment, with a maximum increment to state retirement pension of 37·5 per cent. for five years deferral. In future this period of deferral will be known as "period of enhancement". This will allow people the option of building up a higher weekly pension for themselves for when they might need it later in life. Individuals who do that will be able to claim, as now, sickness benefit and unemployment benefit. Similarly, invalidity pensioners, as at present, will keep the current option of retaining invalidity benefit during the five years after retirement age, instead of claiming state retirement pension. Reduced earnings allowance will be available to those over pension age for as long as they are as now in regular employment.
      4.30 pm
      A large number of our elderly citizens stand to gain from these changes: there are 2,500 individuals who currently have their state retirement pension reduced by the earnings rule. Those individuals will be able to earn as
      678
      much as they wish as well as receiving their state retirement pension. There are many more elderly people—about 200,000—who are currently deferring receipt of their state retirement pension. We believe that most of them are likely to have declined taking their pension as a result of the earnings rule. There are also a huge number of pensioners who are not earning at present and there are about 200,000 earning less than £75 a week. For them, the abolition of the earnings rule will be a considerable incentive to start earning, and to earn more.
      Letting pensioners know about these changes and getting their pensions to them will be a major undertaking. In advance of receiving Royal Assent, to ensure that all individuals coming up to pension age are fully aware of other changes, a note is now being included in the pension pack setting out these changes and making clear, of course, that they are subject to parliamentary approval. We plan to write to those people who appear to be deferring claiming their state retirement pension because of the earnings rule. Claim forms will be issued to them from 30 May. Individuals whose basic state retirement pension is currently reduced on account of earnings and whose order books span 1 October will have payments of pension included at the full rate from 1 October. My Department's central offices at Newcastle and North Fylde, as well as all 500 of our local offices, will be involved in processing the claims. I am pleased to say that, despite the size of the task, we are able to give effect to the change from 1 October.
      Mr. Tony Favell: Has my right hon. Friend shared my experience that groups who help elderly people warmly approve the proposals? I have been approached by many elderly people who say how pleased they are about the changes. Has my right hon. Friend shared that experience?
      Mr. Moore: Of course I have. My only regret is that we could not have made the change earlier. It has been welcomed by hon. Members of all parties.
      Payments will be backdated to 1 October. Our aim is to pay as many individuals as possible by Christmas and the remainder by the end of the financial year.
      The expected benefit cost of the measures to public expenditure is £190 million in 1989–90 and £375 million in 1990–91. The Government believe that this new system will provide more choice and flexibility for older people who want to carry on working. It will remove the penalty which has been an important disincentive to elderly people continuing to contribute to society their particular skills and experiences. I commend the clause and the associated amendments to the House.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Schedule

      `ABOLITION OF EARNINGS RULE ETC.
      Category A and Category B retirement pensions
      1. In section 27 of the principal Act, subsections (3), (4) and (5) (retirement from regular employment) shall cease to have effect.
      2.—(1) In section 30 of that Act, in subsection (3) (election to be treated as if entitlement to retirement pension had commenced) the following shall cease to have effect—

      (a) in paragraph (a) the words "retired from regular employment or has otherwise"; and

      (b) the words "retired or".

      (2) For subsection (5) of that section (advance notice of retirement) there shall be substituted the following—

      679
      "(5) In any case where—

      (a) a person claims a Category A or Category B retirement pension, and

      (b) the date specified in the claim as the date on which entitlement to the pension is to commence falls after the date when the claim was made,

      such a pension may be awarded as from the date so specified but, if so awarded, shall be conditional on the person's not ceasing to be entitled to the pension in consequence of any election under subsection (3) above."
      (3) Subsection (6)(a) of that section (power to vary 5 year period in sections 27(5) and 30(1)) shall cease to have effect.
      Deferred entitlement to retirement pension
      3.—(1) In Schedule 1 to the Pensions Act (deferred retirement) for the words from the beginning of the Schedule to "age" in paragraph 1 there shall be substituted—
      SCHEDULE I
      INCREASE OF PENSION WHERE ENTITLEMENT IS DEFERRED
      Increase of pension where pensioner's entitlement is deferred
      1. Where a person's entitlement to a Category A or Category B retirement pension is deferred,".
      (2) In paragraph 2 of that Schedule, in sub-paragraph (1), for the words "period of deferment" there shall be substituted the words "period of enhancement".
      (3) For sub-paragraph (2) of that paragraph (definitions) there shall be substituted—
      "(2) In this Schedule—
      `incremental period' means any period of six days which are treated by regulations as days of increment for the purposes of this Schedule in relation to the person and the pension in question; and
      'the period of enhancement', in relation to that person and that pension, means the period which—

      (a) begins on the same day as the period of deferment in question; and

      (b) ends on the same day as that period or, if earlier, on the day before the fifth anniversary of the beginning of that period."

      (4) In sub-paragraph (3) of that paragraph, for the words "if he had retired on attaining pensionable age" there shall be substituted the words "if his entitlement had not been deferred".
      (5) In sub-paragraph (5) of that paragraph, for the words "period of deferment" in both places where they occur there shall be substituted the words "period of enhancement".
      (6) In sub-paragraph (6) of that paragraph, for the words "if he had retired from regular employment" there shall be substituted the words "if his entitlement had not been deferred".
      (7) In paragraph 3 of that Schedule—

      (a) for the words "period of deferment" there shall be substituted the words "period of enhancement"; and

      (b) for the words "if he had retired from regular employment" there shall be substituted the words "if his entitlement to the pension had commenced".

      (8) In the heading preceding paragraph 4 of that Schedule, for the words "deferred retirement" there shall be substituted the words "deferred entitlement"; and in that paragraph—

      (a) in sub-paragraph (1)(b)(ii) for the words "if he had retired on the date of" there shall be substituted the words "if his period of deferment had ended on the day before," and

      (b) in sub-paragraph (2)(c)(ii) for the words "if she had retired on the date of" there shall be substituted the words "if her period of deferment had ended on the day before".

      (9) In paragraph 5 of that Schedule (married women) for sub-paragraphs (1) and (2) there shall be substituted—
      "5.—(1) For the purposes of paragraphs 1 to 3 above in their application to a Category B retirement pension to which a married woman is entitled by virtue of her husband's contributions, a married woman who would have become entitled to such a pension on an earlier day if her husband's entitlement to his Category A retirement pension had not been deferred shall be treated as having (in addition to any other period of
      680
      enhancement) a period of enhancement which begins on that earlier day and ends on the same day as her husband's period of enhancement.
      (2) The reference in sub-paragraph (1) above to the day on which the woman's husband's period of enhancement ends shall, where the marriage is terminated before that day, be construed as a reference to the day on which the marriage is terminated."
      (10) In sub-paragraph (3) of that paragraph—

      (a) for the words "if he had retired on attaining pensionable age" there shall be substituted the words "if his entitlement had not been deferred"; and

      (b) for the words "if she and her husband had so retired" there shall be substituted the words "if neither her nor her husband's entitlement to a retirement pension had been deferred".

      (11) In Schedule 20 to the principal Act (glossary of expressions) there shall be inserted at the appropriate places—

      "Deferred" and "period of deferment" (in relation to entitlement to a Category A or Category B retirement pension)

      See section 12 of the Pensions Act.

      "Period of deferment" (in relation to a Category A or Category B retirement pension)

      See "deferred" and "period of deferment" above".

      Unemployment and sickness benefit
      4.—(1) In section 14 of the principal Act, in subsection (2) (conditions of entitlement for unemployment and sickness benefit) for paragraphs (b) and (c) there shall be substituted—
      "(b) on that day the person—

      (i) is over pensionable age, but not more than five years over that age; and

      (ii) would be entitled to a Category A retirement pension (section 28) if his entitlement had not been deferred or if he had not made an election under section 30(3) below; or

      (c) on that day the person—

      (i) is over pensionable age, but not more than five years over that age; and

      (ii) would be entitled to a Category B retirement pension by virtue of the contributions of his deceased spouse, but for any such deferment or election."

      (2) In subsection (6) of that section (rate of benefit: disregard of certain increases) the words following paragraph (c) shall cease to have effect.
      Invalidity pension
      5.—(1) In section 15 of that Act (invalidity pension) in subsection (1)(b)(ii) for the words "and not having retired from regular employment" there shall be substituted the words ",but not more than five years over it,".
      (2) For subsection (2) of that section (additional conditions for those over pensionable age) there shall be substituted—
      "(2) The conditions of this subsection are that on that day—

      (a) the person would be entitled to a Category A retirement pension (section 28) if his entitlement had not been deferred or if he had not made an election under section 30(3) below; or

      (b) the person would be entitled to a Category B retirement pension by virtue of the contributions of his deceased spouse, but for any such deferment or election."

      (3) In subsection (6)(a) of that section (regulations making provision for persons over pensionable age corresponding to section 50A) the words "but have not retired from regular employment" shall cease to have effect.
      Category C retirement pension
      6. In section 39(1)(b) of that Act (Category C pension for retired women over pensionable age whose husband is entitled to such pension) the words "and has retired from regular employment" shall cease to have effect.
      Increases for dependants
      7. Section 48(2) and (3) (application of earnings rule in connection with increase of Category A pension in respect of dependants) shall cease to have effect.
      Industrial injuries benefit
      8.—(1) In section 50A of the principal Act (sickness benefit in respect of industrial injury) in subsection (3)(b) for the words "but has not retired from regular employment" there shall be substituted the words "but who is not for the time being entitled to a Category A or Category B retirement pension."
      (2) In section 59B of that Act (retirement allowance etc) in subsection (1)—

      (a) in paragraph (b), for the words from the beginning to "from" there shall be substituted the words "gives up";

      (b) in paragraph (c), for the words "retired or is deemed to have retired" there shall be substituted the words "gave up such employment"; and

      (c) in the words following that paragraph, for the words from "retires" onwards there shall be substituted the words "gives up regular employment and may become entitled to it again only if he returns to regular employment."

      (3) In subsection (3) of that section (duration of entitlement) for the words "Unless he makes an election in accordance with regulations under section 30(3) above" there shall be substituted the words "Unless he returns to regular employment".
      (4) For subsection (4) of that section there shall be substituted—
      "(4) If he returns to regular employment, his entitlement to retirement allowance shall cease on the day on which he does so; but he may again become entitled to reduced earnings allowance or, if he again gives up regular employment, retirement allowance."
      (5) In subsection (5) of that section (rate of benefit) for paragraph (a) there shall be substituted—
      "(a) 25 per cent. of the weekly rate at which he was last entitled to reduced earnings allowance; or".
      (6) After subsection (6) of that section there shall be inserted—
      "(7) Regulations may—

      (a) make provision with respect to the meaning of "regular employment" for the purposes of this section; and

      (b) prescribe circumstances in which, and periods for which, a person is or is not to be regarded for those purposes as having given up, or returned to, such employment.

      (8) Regulations under subsection (7) above may, in particular—

      (a) provide for a person to be regarded—

      (i) as having given up, or as not having returned to, regular employment, notwithstanding that he is or intends to be an earner; or

      (ii) as having returned to, or as not having given up, regular employment, notwithstanding that he has or may have one or more days of interruption of employment; and

      (b) prescribe circumstances in which a person is or is not to be regarded as having given up, or returned to, regular employment by reference to—

      (i) the level of frequency of his earnings during a prescribed period; or

      (ii) the number of hours for which he works during a prescribed period calculated in a prescribed manner."

      (7) In section 2 of the Social Security Act 1988, for subsection (8) (which provides that no retired person over pensionable age shall be entitled to reduced earnings allowance except under subsection (4) of that section) there shall be substituted—
      "(8) Subsection (4) above shall, in prescribed circumstances, cease to apply in the case of a person who is engaged in regular employment; and, subject to regulations, any subsequent entitlement of his to reduced earnings allowance or retirement allowance shall be determined as if that subsection had never been enacted.
      682
      (8A) In subsection (8) above, "regular employment" has the same meaning as it has in section 59B of the Social Security Act 1975 (retirement allowance) and regulations may prescribe circumstances in which a person is or is not to be regarded as engaged in such employment."(8) Subsection (9) of that section (definitions relating to retirement) shall cease to have effect.
      Category B retirement pension for widower
      9.—(1) In section 8 of the Pensions Act, in subsection (1) (conditions of entitlement for widower's Category B pension) the words "who has retired from regular employment" shall cease to have effect.
      (2) For subsection (3) of that section (period of entitlement) there shall be substituted—
      "(3) Subject to the provisions of the principal Act, a man shall become entitled to a Category B retirement pension on the day on which the conditions of entitlement become satisfied in his case and his entitlement shall continue throughout his life."
      Invalidity pensions for widows and widowers
      10.—(1) In section 15 of that Act, in subsection (5) (disentitlement to widow's invalidity pension)—

      (a) for the words "and has retired from regular employment" there shall be substituted the words "and is entitled to a Category A or Category B retirement pension"; and

      (b) for the words "she retires from regular employment, having attained" there shall be substituted the words "she has attained".

      (2) In section 16 of that Act, in subsection (5) (disentitlement to widower's invalidity pension)—

      (a) for the words "and has retired from regular employment" there shall be substituted the words "and is entitled to a Category A or Category B retirement pension"; and

      (b) for the words "he retires from regular employment, having attained" there shall be substituted the words "he has attained".

      Occupational and personal pensions
      11. In section 29 of that Act (contracted-out rates of benefit) in subsection (2) (circumstances in which a person is treated as entitled to a guaranteed minimum pension) before the word "if" in each of the places where it occurs there shall be inserted respectively "(a)", "(b)" and "(c)"; and at the end of that subsection there shall be inserted the words "or
      (d) if its commencement had not been postponed, as mentioned in section 33(3) below.".'.—[Mr. Moore.]
      Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 1

      UPRATING OF CHILD BENEFIT
      `In section 63(3) of the 1986 Act, at the end there shall be added the following paragraph—
      `(c) mentioned in subsection (1)(f) above:.—[Mrs. Beckett.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Robin Cook: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take new clause 2—Social Security Act 1986—
      `In section 63(3) of the Social Security Act 1986 for "(c) or (d) above" there shall be substituted "(c), (d) or, in any Order having effect on or after 1st April 1990, (f), (child benefit), above".'
      Mr. Cook: I want to follow the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman), who referred to the late Sir Brandon Rhys Williams. I assure the hon. Lady that the absence of—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It has been pointed out that the hon. Gentleman's name is not on the new clause. Will an hon. Member whose name is on it move it formally?
      Mrs. Beckett: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Cook: I am happy to assure the House that I agree with the words of my hon. Friend.
      I was paying tribute to the memory of Sir Brandon Rhys Williams, whose absence from these debates is much regretted by Opposition and Conservative Members, not simply by Conservative Members. There would be no more fitting tribute to the memory of the late Sir Brandon Rhys Williams than for the House to pass new clause 1 or new clause 2. Sir Brandon was indefatigable in his defence of child benefit and in his campaigns to secure regular and honest upratings of that benefit.
      This is not the first occasion on which the House has had the opportunity to debate the freezing of child benefit. We did so most recently in January, on a Supply day motion tabled by the Opposition. On that occasion, a number of Conservative Members were good enough to say that they agreed with us on the issue, but could not vote for the motion because it was a Labour motion. I must confess that I am not entirely persuaded that that in itself is a good enough reason for not supporting a motion with which one agrees. However, that difficulty is now removed because those hon. Members have tabled their own new clause. It may be helpful to them—and make the evening more interesting for the Whips—if the vote at the end of the debate is on new clause 2 rather than on new clause 1. It may be for the convenience of the House for me to say now that we do not propose to press new clause 1 to a vote. I hope that that will also assist in keeping those on the Treasury Bench rather more on the edge of their seats than they might otherwise have been.
      The regularity with which this issue has been debated must have at least the one essential function of convincing those on the Treasury Bench that the issue will not go away, but will return to harass them repeatedly until they accept the logic of the case or dispose more satisfactorily of it than they have in our previous debates on child benefit. Every year, the Secretary of State reviews whether child benefit should be uprated. We are assured that it is mere coincidence that in both years in which the present Secretary of State has carried out the review he has decided that it is appropriate to freeze child benefit. He dare not state that child benefit should be frozen as a general principle because he would be in breach of the law that obliges him to review annually the level of child benefit. That leaves him in a rather uncomfortable position. He is unable to attack the benefit openly and to state that he would wish it to wither away. But, because he cannot openly attack the benefit, he has some difficulty in justifying why he never thinks it right to uprate child benefit. His difficulty tonight is compounded because new clause 2 in particular clearly focuses not on what should happen this year, but on what should happen next year. If the Secretary of State invites us to reject new clause 2, he is inviting the House to leave open the possibility that next year he may choose again to freeze child benefit for the third successive year.
      In so far as the Secretary of State has come near to justifying such a freeze in our previous debates, he has
      684
      done so on the basis that it is cheaper to control access to child support through the means test, hence the stress placed on family credit as a substitute for child benefit. With every successive debate, it is possible to evaluate more clearly whether family credit can be portrayed as a satisfactory and credible alternative to child benefit. We have continuing evidence that the number receiving family credit is far smaller than promised. The Government's initial estimate of those likely to claim family credit was 470,000. The Secretary of State will be aware that the number has never exceeded 255,000, and at the end of February the number was slightly lower than the November peak. The number of people on family credit has flattened out at half the level initially promised by Ministers when family credit was introduced in the House.
      The Department of Social Security has made two responses to the rather meagre take-up. The first response —which is welcome—was the relaunch of family credit a fortnight ago, on which the Secretary of State is spending £7 million. We wish the relaunch well and hope that it will be successful. However, I hope that he will forgive us for pointing out that family credit is becoming one of the most advertised benefits. Even if the right hon. Gentleman's wildest hopes are fulfilled and the relaunch succeeds by driving up take-up by, for example, one third, it will mean that the Department is spending £100 for every new claimant for family credit. That is a large administrative overhead and I am bound to say that it contrasts badly with the administrative overheads for child benefit.
      Nobody suggests that child benefit needs a relaunch. No one is proposing a £7 million recruitment campaign to recruit claimants for child benefit. On the contrary, for minimal effort, child benefit obtains a 98 per cent. take-up. That figure turns not on packaging and advertising but on the nature of the benefit. Child benefit scores high because it is well known, easily understood and simple to claim and because it is universal so there is no sense of social stigma attached to claiming it. For all those reasons, the take-up of child benefit will always be far higher than anything that can be achieved by any means-tested benefit.
      The other response from Ministers to the low take-up of family credit was less elevated. Confronted with a problem, the Government changed the figures, as they so frequently do. The new figures produced by the Secretary of State a month ago knock a quarter of a million off the estimate of those eligible for family credit. That has the convenient consequence that it has increased the percentage take-up of family credit without its being necessary for one extra person to claim it. Overnight, the take-up figure has soared from 35 to 50 per cent.
      The Secretary of State will recall that he announced those figures on 17 March. On 6 April, I asked whether he would deposit in the Library the working papers on which the revised figures were based. Last Monday, he told the House that the figures had been deposited in the Library. When I checked, I found that the papers had not yet been deposited. I pursued the matter and asked the right hon. Gentleman's office whether we could have the papers. I was told that arrangements would be made for a package to be sent to my office. When I opened the package, I discovered that it contained the market research carried out for the relaunch. It is singularly apt that, when we ask for the Government's statistical data, we are sent market research.
      On Friday, I again asked where the working papers were. I was told that they had not been deposited in the

      685
      Library because they were not yet ready. These are the working papers on which a conclusion was apparently reached by the Secretary of State a month ago.
      On my way to the Chamber today, I checked in the Library and discovered that three sheets dealing with the take-up of family credit had been deposited by the Department of Social Security this very afternoon. The Secretary of State will appreciate that I have not yet had time to go through the complex formulae. Of the three sheets, two deal with methodology and none provides the raw data. If the Secretary of State had those sheets in front of him when he announced the revised figures, he will know that the foundations for those revised figures look very shaky indeed.
      Mr. Favell: Is the Labour party in favour of abolishing family credit and spreading benefit thinly among everyone entitled to child benefit? If so, surely the poor will suffer.
      Mr. Cook: We are most certainly not in favour of abolishing family credit. We are most anxious that all the 470,000 who we were promised would get family credit should get it, for the good and simple reason that, as the hon. Gentleman would recall if he had attended the debates in 1985 and 1986, Ministers repeatedly promised that family credit would compensate families with children for cuts in housing benefit and the loss of entitlement to free school meals. Those families have suffered the cuts but a quarter of a million of them are not receiving the family credit which we were promised would provide the compensation. We very much hope that the campaign launched by the Secretary of State will succeed and that he will find the remaining quarter of a million, but in the meantime, given the Government's pathetic failure to match even their own target for the take-up of family credit, they cannot seriously argue that family credit is an adequate substitute for child benefit. After all, the increase in take-up was achieved without a single extra person claiming.
      The net result of all this is that, in the past 18 months during which we have been debating the uprating of child benefit, the only thing that has happened to alter the debate one way or the other is that it has become absolutely clear, beyond argument, that family credit cannot possibly be paraded as a substitute for child benefit. Family credit goes to only one quarter of families—one twentieth of those who receive child benefit. Not only does child benefit go to many more families with children; it goes to many more families living in poverty. For a start, it goes to the 250,000 families who, even on the revised figures, are poor enough to qualify for family credit, but do not receive it. Each of those families gets child benefit and it is the only support that they have for their children.
      4.45 pm
      Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: The hon. Gentleman referred to those in poverty. Does he have any recent data suggesting that, as we discovered some time ago, there is a remarkable number of women from quite wealthy families whose only income is child benefit? Their husbands pay the bills, the rates, and the butcher but they do not give them any money in their hands. Those women at least get child benefit.
      Mr. Cook: The hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) is absolutely right. During our previous
      686
      debate I read to the House a moving letter from the wife of a man whose earnings were well above average who said that she depended on child benefit because it was the only income on which her husband could not get his hands. The hon. Lady has led us to the reasons why child benefit is so superior to family credit and why it is so important.
      First, child benefit puts money in the hands of the mother. It redistributes purchasing power in favour of children because it goes to the parent who is most likely to be responsible for feeding and clothing the children. Secondly, it puts money in the hands of just about every mother. It has a take-up rate as close to 100 per cent. as one could hope to achieve.
      Thirdly, child benefit does not fall as income increases. The Government persist in representing that feature of child benefit as its major weakness. In fact, it is its great strength. Child benefit represents an important ladder out of the poverty trap. It will be impossible for child benefit to fulfil its role as a ladder out of the poverty trap if the Government substitute for it a means-tested benefit confined to those who are already in the poverty trap.
      There is a fourth reason why child benefit remains a correct and appropriate way—the best way—of combating poverty among children: it is reliable and consistent. It does not fluctuate with all the other exigencies that can affect families in our society.
      The Secretary of State has referred to child benefit as a benefit of the past. That is an odd way to talk about a benefit that was introduced only a decade ago especially as, in one critical respect, child benefit is more relevant than ever. Child benefit provides a guaranteed income. It provides stability in mothers' budgets, in sharp contrast to the dramatic changes in their circumstances that have become commonplace in modern society.
      The Government have created what they like to call a flexible labour market. By that they mean that many on the labour market are stuck in a revolving door— bouts of work alternating with bouts of unemployment. Child benefit provides a stable constant support in meeting the expenses connected with children and smooths the transitions that affect those 4 million households who move in and out of employment and part-time employment each year. The expenses incurred in feeding and clothing children do not vary according to whether the head of the household is in or out of work, receiving overtime or in reduced short-time work. That flexible labour market requires an inflexible, constant, reliable child benefit that matches the constant nature of expenses on children.
      Let me come to the clearest reason why child benefit should be uprated. Child benefit, logically, might be better regarded not as a cash benefit but as a tax allowance. After all, it replaced a tax allowance. It is the only recognition in the benefits and tax system of the additional cost to the taxpayer who has children. The hon. Member for Lancaster referred to those apparently wealthy and comfortable households in which the father may fail) to turn adequate income over to the mother.
      There is another matter in relation to wealthy and comfortable households. Since the Government came to office, they have made it a point of pride annually to uprate tax allowances, frequently well in excess of the rate of inflation. When they do so, no Minister or Conservative Back Bencher complains about increases in such tax allowances on the basis that they apply indiscriminately to wealthy and comfortably off families—indeed, they

      687
      provide a marginal advantage which is even greater to wealthier families. I again ask the question that Opposition Members have put on the past three occasions on which the House debated child benefit and to which I have not yet received a reply: how can the Government come to a judgment which, in its order of priorities, decides that the married man's tax allowance should go up by 22 per cent. in real terms—that is what has happened over the past decade—while the value of child benefit has gone down by more than 12 per cent. over the same decade? By what extraordinary feat of mental gymnastics can Ministers persuade themselves that the cost of maintaining a wife has gone up by one fifth and that the cost of maintaining a child has gone down by one eighth? Where are the data to support such an extraordinary double standard? If they exist, could they also be deposited in the Library?
      For all those reasons, Ministers are wrong to resist the uprating of child benefit. For all those reasons, I hope that Conservative Members will vote with us tonight, to press on the Government the case for uprating child benefit next April. I appreciate that the difficulty in their joining us in the Lobby is that they are not supposed to do so. They are supposed to support and stand by the party with which they were elected.
      There is one obvious reason why Conservative Members should not feel that compunction on this issue. That reason is to be found in the manifesto on which all Conservative Members stood at the last general election. That manifesto contained a pledge that child benefit will continue to be paid as at present. There was no rider in that manifesto that it would continue to be paid as at present at a frozen level. [Interruption.] I heard an hon. Gentleman say that it has continued to be paid as at present. I should be interested to know whether, in his election address to his constituents at the last election, the hon. Gentleman spelt out that the manifesto meant that it would be a frozen child benefit at a single figure of £7·25. If the hon. Gentleman did state such a clear footnote in his election address, I assure him that I shall exculpate him from any need to vote with the Opposition tonight for the uprating of child benefit.
      For all other Conservative Members who may not have put any such saving clause into their election addresses, any honest, simple and candid reading of their manifesto means that they should vote with us tonight and, next year, provide for an honest uprating of the benefit that goes to 7 million mothers and 12 million children.
      Mr. Raison: The hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) spoke trenchantly about new clause 1. I wish to speak about new clause 2, which would automatically index-link child benefit in the same way in which retirement and other benefits are automatically uprated each year. It will not apply in the current financial year. We accept that we are now too far into the new financial year for that to be possible. Nor does it make up for past failures to uprate child benefit—for the fact that child benefit has lost 12 per cent. of its value since it was introduced in 1979. As the hon. Gentleman said, that is in sharp contrast with income tax allowances which went up during that period.
      We simply ask that, in future, the money that is already in the public expenditure projections for the uprating of
      688
      child benefit should be used for that purpose. This year, the cost of uprating is estimated to be about £200 million. I repeat that it was allowed for in the present public expenditure projections, and it is allowed for in the public expenditure projections for next year. We do not even ask for new, additional money from the Government.
      My right hon. and hon. Friends and I have tried to put new clause 2 in terms which are as easy as possible for the Government. As I said, we are not insisting on anything this year. We are trying to establish the principle which was inherent in our manifesto commitment that there should be a regular uprating of child benefit, and that we will achieve the statutory status for it. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will accept our new clause. My right hon. and hon. Friends and I intend to vote for it.
      Why do we feel so strongly about this matter? The hon. Member for Livingston was right to say that we should regard child benefit as a tax allowance rather than a benefit. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sir I. Gilmour) has often made that point. There is no doubt that child benefit has descended from the historical tradition of tax relief for those with children. That tradition dates back to the late 18th century. There was a period during the 19th century when it was dropped, but it has had long standing in our history, and it would be wrong to forget that. In racehorse terms, the origin of child benefit is "by family allowance, out of child tax allowance."
      People object that child benefit is not targeted. That is the principal objection that we are likely to hear from hon. Members who support the Government in this matter. However, tax relief on pensions, mortgages, and on married couples' and personal allowances is not targeted. The Government are proposing to introduce tax relief for health insurance for the over-60s. Again, there is no intention of targeting it. My right hon. Friend should state why we should treat child benefit selectively—that is clearly the direction in which we are moving—when many other major sources of support for large sections of our community are not selective or targeted.
      Mr. Frank Field: Is not the right hon. Gentleman being unusually generous to the Minister? Those tax allowances are targeted. They are targeted in inverse proportion to people's needs. The richer one is, the higher one's rate of tax, and the more valuable are one's tax allowances.
      Mr. Raison: That is true of mortgages and pensions.
      Mr. Field: It is true of all of them.
      Mr. Raison: Not all. Somebody receiving help with his pension in the form of tax relief gets more if he has a large pension. It seems to fly in the face of all reason that we should restrict child benefit on the basis of income. As I have already elicited from my right hon. Friend, his new and welcome measure on the abolition of the earnings rule is in no sense targeted. It will apply to everybody. Why should the Government pick out this form of help to a significant group in the population—the help which, through child benefit, goes to those with children?
      Bearing in mind the lives of our constituents and what is going on in our country today, there is no doubt that the bringing up of children can entail significant costs. Of course, for most people it brings great pleasure and happiness—I do not want to play that down for one

      689
      minute—but it also brings great financial burdens. Those burdens fall on those who are just above the level of selective benefits—the not-quite-poor, as some hon. Members have called them. Conservative Members must remember that there are many people in this country whose incomes are just above the level of means-tested benefits, and they do not find life particularly easy financially. It would be a great error to think that such burdens do not hit them. The hon. Member for Livingston forcefully made the point that, to a great extent, the burden of bringing up children—not only the actual work but the financial cost—is borne by mothers and that child benefit is paid to mothers.
      Those with a taste for history will recall the battles fought at the end of the war to establish family allowance, in which the great aunt of my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) played such a heroic part. Other Conservative ladies such as Mrs. Cazalet Keir were also involved in those battles. They fought to establish the principle that the benefit should go to the person who really needed it—the mother. To forget that would be to fly in the face of a tradition long held within the Conservative party and widely shared by many important women's bodies outside the Conservative party. I understand that the majority of the Women's National Commission has come down in favour of uprating child benefit. The Save the Children Fund, the National Children's Bureau, Barnardo's, the Children's Society, the National Children's Home, family service units, family welfare associations and many others have joined us in the conviction that it is absolutely essential to uprate child benefit.
      5 pm
      We must accept that we are living in what in some ways is a radically changing social climate. There are things in that climate which make bringing up children more difficult than it has been. We are all aware from our constituency surgeries that there has been a rather tragic increase in the proportion of cases where a family breakdown is at the heart of the problem. We are all aware that there has been a substantial growth in the number of one-parent families in this country. Those people particularly need the certainty of child benefit. Today there is more pressure and more need for women to go out to work. That incurs certain costs, and an enlarged child benefit would provide a better way of helping those people than any other form of benefit. The certainty of child benefit is one of its most valuable features. People know that family benefit will come to them. It does not involve the delay that occurs when establishing a claim to selective benefit.
      We must ask ourselves a profound question: do we want to see more and more people pushed into some kind of means-tested support? The community charge will be accompanied by a massive system of rebates. I believe that something like 10 million people will receive rebates under the community charge. The policies for rented housing will have the same kind of effect, and the number of people claiming housing benefit will clearly rise.
      Obviously no one is against income support or family credit. It is absolutely right that we should recognise that child benefit cannot do the whole job. One would very much hope that if we can allow child benefit to grow in the way that the late Sir Brandon Rhys Williams advocated in his posthumously published pamphlet "Stepping-stones to
      690
      Independence", and as the basis for a tax credit scheme, we can get to grips with a very difficult social problem in a way which has not been possible so far.
      An advantage of child benefit is that it offers one of the biggest "Stepping-stones to Independence" to which Sir Brandon referred. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has often said that he wants to get us away from the dependency culture. I do not believe that scrubbing child benefit will do that. The dependency culture is expressed by the reliance on the means-tested benefits to which I have just referred. We are all aware of the great problems with the take-up of family credit and many of us will have seen the advertisements on television intended to encourage people to collect their family credit.
      Another argument that the Government have often put forward is that child benefit does not help the really poor —those on family credit and income support. Perhaps it is true as things stand that if there is an increase in child benefit they will not receive its direct effect. However, as I understand it, there is nothing in the Social Security Act 1986 to prevent those on other benefits from receiving the full increase from child benefit. The fact that they do not receive the full increase is simply a reflection of the orders and regulations with which the Government implement the Social Security Act 1986. They could perfectly well say that we should put up child benefit to allow everyone to gain from it. Meanwhile we have to face the fact that the decision not to uprate child benefit this year has moved some 30,000 families with 60,000 children on to income-related benefits. Is that really the tendency that the Conservative party wants to support?
      Some people say that child benefit should be taxed and, of course, that has attractions. Family allowances were taxed in days gone by. However, there is a technical problem today. The absolutely justified separation of a husband and wife's taxes, which will be introduced next year, will make it virtually impossible to tax child benefit. Who would we tax? Would we tax the husband who does not receive the benefit or the wife who receives it but whose income will normally be much lower? The latter policy would not be well received, although in many cases the wife might not reach the level to be liable to pay tax. Similarly, husbands would not be very enthusiastic about being taxed on a benefit which they do not receive. That would certainly be novel.
      Another argument is that those paying the higher rate —40 per cent.—should perhaps not receive child benefit. I can see a case for that, but there are practical problems. I cannot help but think back to our debates on the community charge and the amendment in favour of a banded system and the vigour with which the Government claimed that it was completely impractical to have a system by which those on the 40 per cent. rate should pay a higher community charge because very often over 18 months or two years it was difficult to know exactly what level people were on. If that criticism applied for a banded community charge, it would apply with child benefit.
      The practical and moral arguments point strongly in favour of continuing child benefit. We are talking about the possibility that the Government may decide between now and the next election to drop child benefit as part of our social security apparatus. That would be a disastrous policy.
      We know that child benefit cannot be ended during this Parliament. I remind my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that in 1985 a very comprehensive review of social

      691
      security came down firmly in favour of child benefit. I have a battery of quotes from my right hon. and hon. Friends in favour of child benefit and I will not embarrass them by quoting from them today. All sorts of groups firmly believe that child benefit is right and must be uprated. Those are not loony groups, but include bodies such as the women's institutes.
      We know that child benefit can help to restrain inflationary wage pressure. After all, the existence of a large number of children is likely to cause working people to demand higher pay. If some of the burden of higher costs can be borne by child benefit, the pressure will be lessened.
      As the hon. Member for Livingston has reminded us, child benefit helps to offset the poverty or employment trap. Above all, child benefit embodies the positive symbol of that active family policy to which the Conservative party is committed. That is a commitment to the job of raising children decently in a world where it is not always very easy to do that. However, that is only part of the job, and many other factors come into play. If we abandon child benefit we will turn our backs on a great tradition. If we keep child benefit but do not uprate it and simply allow it to wither on the vine, that will be almost as bad as abandoning it.
      I urge my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to accept new clause 2. If he cannot do that, I urge right hon. and hon. Members to support it in the Lobby.
      Mr. Menzies Campbell: I begin by apologising for the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood). He set out to be here for the proper time, but unhappily has not been able to enlist the co-operation of British Rail. He will join us as soon as he possibly can. Unfortunately, he is delayed on a train somewhere between London and the north.
      I am a poor substitute for my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire in that I do not possess his detailed knowledge of the labyrinthine complexities of social security legislation. However, I feel that that may not be such an obstacle this evening. We are concerned more with a matter of principle than of complexity. The arguments for and against have been well rehearsed, but, if I may respectfully say so, it seems to me that those marshalled by the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), who opened the debate, were overwhelming in their quality.
      It may help if I indicate briefly some of the reasons why I and my hon. Friends will be supporting whichever of the two new clauses is pushed to a vote. In the first place, as has been pointed out, child benefit was introduced to take the place of the old child tax allowances. Secondly, the combination of tax cuts in recent Budgets and the freezing of child benefit has resulted in money being taken from those with children and given to those without children. As has been pointed out, the level of child benefit has fallen by 12 per cent. in real terms since 1979, during which period the married man's tax allowance has increased by 22 per cent., and the single person's by 19 per cent., after taking account of statutory indexing.
      Of course, the great majority of families affected by the level of child benefit fall neither into the category of the rich nor into the category of the poor. Indeed, many of
      692
      those families will find the effect of a freeze to be very considerable—indeed, disproportionate. In these circumstances, it seems that the arguments in favour of uprating child benefit are overwhelming, not least because the permanence of the benefit, and the ease of access to it, undoubtedly help poorer families, many of whom have great problems, in the management of their finances. These people may be subject to great fluctuation in income and in circumstances, week by week.
      It is easy to argue that one of the most significant features of child benefit is that it is paid direct to wives. There is a feeling among some of us that we may be intruding on private grief when we hear the debate among Tory Members as to what their manifesto actually said. I suspect that the capacity of the textual analyst really ought not to concern this debate. This is a debate about principle, and not about what was said, or is understood to have been said, in the Government's manifesto. There is little doubt that the vast majority of people in this country understood that the Government's proposals necessarily involved the uprating of child benefit year on year. It is for that reason, and because of the merits of the case for uprating, that my hon. Friends and I will certainly support whichever of the two new clauses is put to the vote.
      Mr. John Maples: The debate on this subject has become something of an annual event, and some Members seem to make very much the same speech year after year. I am afraid that my speech will be no exception.
      As the debate goes on, in its wider context, it is clear that my side of the argument is winning. While that may not be apparent in the present attendance in the House —I do not think that I have ever felt quite so outnumbered on my own Benches—outside the House, in the wider debate in the country among people who think about tax and social security policy, the Government are winning. Essentially, it boils down to an argument about means-tested benefit versus universal benefit.
      Opening the debate, the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) made an eloquent plea for universal benefits. One knows that that is part of Socialist policy, and has been for a very long time. Of course, the other side of that case, about which the hon. Gentleman did not tell us, is that universal benefits mean higher rates of taxation. On the whole, I am in favour of lower taxation and means-tested benefits, and of paying the price of the kind of poverty trap that one ends up with, rather than of having high rates of taxation and universal benefits. I do not believe that it is the business of the Government to try to help people who are in a position to help themselves, but I do believe that it is the Government's job to help those who are not in a position to help themselves.
      Mr. Tony Marlow: In which case, could my hon. Friend tell the House whether he is or is not in favour of the old system of child tax allowance, because that allowed people to keep more of their own income?
      Mr. Maples: My hon. Friend has intervened very early in my speech. I was going to come to the question of tax allowances, but, as he has raised it, I shall deal with it now. Paradoxically, if we had kept the system of child tax allowances, of which my hon. Friend is apparently in favour, their value would have fallen by one third since 1979. The reason is that taxes have been reduced from 35

      693
      to 25 per cent. The attraction of child tax allowances under the last Labour Government was based on the fact that the rates of income tax then were so high. If we had perpetuated that system, the value of those tax allowances would have fallen by about £90 in today's money.
      Mr. Jim Lester: Adopting the logic of my hon. Friend's argument against universal benefits and in favour of targeted, means-tested, benefits, how does he explain tax benefits for pensions, tax benefits in respect of married women's earned income, and the various untargeted global benefits that are paid freely to people with mortgages? By the logic of my hon. Friend's argument, those should also be withdrawn. According to what he says, we should means test those people directly and, thereby, reduce tax a great deal more.
      5.15 pm
      Mr. Maples: There is a good deal in what my hon. Friend says. It is an attractive argument. Indeed, in the past, I have argued that we should try to reduce rates and remove allowances and deductions. But there is a fundamental difference between not paying tax and receiving social security benefits, and anybody who does not realise that is missing a terribly important point in the debate. I do not believe that it is the job of the state to take money from people in tax and give it back to them in social security benefits.
      Mr. Frank Field: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Maples: I wonder if I may be allowed to get a little further into my argument. I have dealt only with the first heading in my notes.
      I was surprised that my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) should intervene to suggest that it was part of Conservative policy to regulate financial affairs between husbands and wives. That has certainly never been part of my notion of Conservative policy. In fact, I do not think that it is any business of the state either. I do not think that it is the business of the state to take money from working husbands and give it back to their wives.
      Mrs. Beckett: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Maples: Perhaps the hon. Lady will allow me to finish this point.
      In any case, there are two intervening transactions. The first concerns the cost of collecting the tax, which is generally 2 to 2·5 per cent. The other concerns the cost of administering child benefit. I do not know what its level is, but it is probably 1 or 2 per cent. In other words, probably between 4 per cent. and 5 per cent. is lost in the process of taking money out of the pockets of husbands and giving it back to their wives. I cannot see that that is part of Conservative philosophy or that it is any business of the state.
      Mrs. Beckett: I am following the hon. Gentleman's argument with interest. As I understand him, he is saying that the state should not take a view as to how income is shared, distributed and used within the family. Am I right, however, in thinking that he voted for non-dependant deduction in the case of housing benefit, which takes money from the family on the basis of a contribution of teenage children to housing costs?
      Mr. Maples: I certainly did. There is a very powerful argument for that. If a teenager earns £70 a week, to assume that he is making no contribution to the family's rent is simply flying in the face of reality. He almost certainly is making such a contribution. But this is something totally different: taking money from the husband in tax and giving it back to his wife. As I see it, that is no business of the state.
      Another general point that I think is missed here is that we are spending £4·5 billion of public money on the administration of this benefit—taking it in taxation, and giving it back to wives in the form of child benefit. The cost of administration and collection in the middle has to be borne. That is unfair, because very often it conies from people who do not have children and whose income is low, and goes to people who do have children and whose income is high. Increases do not benefit those on the lowest incomes. I believe—and this is perhaps a fundamental point—that it does not achieve its main objective.
      An increase in child benefit would be of absolutely no help to families on income support or family credit. Family credit now applies a long way up the income scale. At 1988–89 rates, a family with two children under the age of 11 could have received family credit up to an income of £7,500 a year. In 1989–90 the income figure would be more than £8,000 a year. If those two children were 14 and 16, the family could have continued in 1988–89 to receive family credit up to an income level of £9,000 a year, which in 1989–90 money is £9,700. But a family with two children aged 14 and 16, earning below £9,700 a year, would not benefit by one penny piece from an increase in child benefit. That is a fundamental point.
      Presumably those are the families whom we regard as needing help. Families trying to bring up children on incomes of £7,000, £8,000 or £9,000 a year certainly need help, and if there were any proposal to remove that help I should certainly vote against it. But what is proposed in the new clauses would be of absolutely no benefit to those families. Every penny they gained in increased child benefit would be lost either in income support or in family credit. It is of no use to people at the low end of the income scale whom we are supposed to be helping.
      Mr. Robin Squire: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that for poorer families and even not-so-poor families, particularly if the wage earner is unemployed or ill, child benefit is relevant? It is not just a case of saying that it cannot benefit them. It can benefit people in those specific circumstances.
      Mr. Maples: My hon. Friend knows more about the workings of the social security system than I do, and he may be right. In effect, he is criticising the way family credit operates and if his criticism is valid, perhaps it should operate to provide a more regular stream of income. The non-indexation of child benefit has reduced it from £835 to £725. The £725 continues to be paid, so is a regular income.
      I was saying that people on low incomes do not benefit from the increases. There is another side to that which presents paradoxes. It is that everybody else pays more in tax than they receive in child benefit. Anyone with two children who earns £7,100 a year pays income tax of £'751 and receives child benefit of £754—£3 more. If we uprate that to this year's tax rates, the answer might be slightly

      695
      different. Anybody with one or two children who earns more than £7,100 pays more income tax than he receives in child benefit.
      Is it the business of the state to organise that sort of transfer through the tax and social security system? I do not believe that it is. The way to help those people, if they need help, is through tax reductions. The consistent theme of the Government's tax policy is to reduce the basic rate of tax. That is untargeted and goes to everybody, but those on incomes who can afford to take care of children should do so. Whether or not they have children is a free choice. If their incomes are insufficient, the social security system should make it up. It is not for the tax and social security system to differentiate between people and to decide how they are taxed and how social security is spent when they can make those decisions themselves.
      There are one or two other fundamental misunderstandings about child benefit. Forty per cent. of the recipients of child benefit have incomes in excess of £15,000 a year—substantially above the national average. A further paradox is that people on low incomes without children are subsidising people on high incomes with children. Why should a single shop assistant earning £100 a week pay tax to subsidise someone earning £20,000 a year? I cannot see that that is fair in any way.
      Another point that is lost sight of is that the world has come a long way since 1979. People's disposable income has risen substantially. We know that the income of someone on average earnings has risen by 29 per cent., but that percentage is not usually translated into pounds per week. Somebody on average earnings is, in today's money, £46 a week better off than 10 years ago. Somebody on three quarters of average earnings is £34 a week better off and someone on half of average earnings is £22 a week better off.
      Mr. Marlow: Will my hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Maples: I shall finish this point. Against that we are setting a non-indexation of child benefit of just over £1 a week. People at all levels of earnings—I agree that there is a different set of criteria for people out of work—are considerably better off in terms of take-home pay and disposable income than they were 10 years ago.
      When people have such increases in their disposable income the necessity for the state to provide for them is demonstrably diminished. It is right that we should expect people to use part of the increase in their disposable income to pay for items which perhaps 10 or 15 years ago they could not afford and which it was right for the state to help them with. To suggest that there is some moral compulsion on the Government to pay an extra £1·10 a week per child to somebody whose disposable income has risen by £34 a week during the past 10 years is difficult to swallow.
      We are taking about increases in disposable incomes at low levels of earnings. In 1988–89 half of average earnings was £130 a week gross. The increase in the disposable element of that is £22 a week, so on earnings well below the family credit ceiling people have had increases of £20 to £30 a week in their disposable income. That sets in a much more realistic context the non-indexation of child benefit which amounts to £1·10 a week. Put in that context the sum is insignificant.
      Mr. Marlow: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his generosity. If I may say so, he is playing games with statistics. He is talking about disposable incomes and he said that 40 per cent. of recipients of child benefit are on incomes of £15,000 a year. Let us look at disposable income. Can my hon. Friend tell the House what the disposable income is, after mortgage payments, of his constituents who are earning between £15,000 and £20,000 a year? He will find that it is not very great.
      Mr. Maples: I am reluctant to take issue in such sharp terms with a good and hon. Friend. If he thinks that it is the business of our tax and social security system to funnel taxpayers' money to people earning more than £15,000 a year, I am amazed. Last year average earnings were £13,200 a year, so we are talking about people on 120 per cent. of average earnings. We cannot help people who earn more than the average. It is arithmetically impossible. We cannot take money from everybody and give back more to everybody. All we can do is take money from people earning more than the average and give it to people earning less than the average. Even the hon. Member for Livingston would not go further than to suggest that he could make everybody equal. He certainly could not improve everybody's lot.
      The crux of my argument is the need for a means-tested system which is generous and operates reasonably and sensibly to help people who cannot afford to bring up children on their income. Family credit goes a long way up the income scale. In this tax year it will go to nearly £10,000 a year of pre-tax income for those with two children aged 14 and 16. That is about 70 per cent. of average earnings, which is about what average male manual earnings have been for a long time. A system that goes to that level is reasonably generous. Clearly, it could be more generous. If it is suggested that means-tested benefits should go further up the income scale than 70 per cent. of average earnings, we are getting into dangerous territory. It is almost what my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) was suggesting: to help everybody, above and below average earnings. Obviously we cannot do that. There is no point going beyond whatever average earnings happen to be.
      A means-tested system that pays benefits to people earning £10,000 a year with two children is reasonably generous. I understand that the average payment to recipients of family credit is about £25 a week. Sixty per cent. of recipients—nearly two thirds—receive benefit of more than £20 a week. There must be a withdrawal rate and I understand that that is the criticism of the system. The trade-off between universal and means-tested benefits is that a means-tested benefit must have a withdrawal rate. To compare means-tested benefits with the hightest rate of tax is a fallacy because they are not the same. To receive benefit at the expense of other taxpayers, which is withdrawn as one gets better off, is fundamentally different from paying more money in income tax as one earns more money. One is a benefit and the other is a liability where people are paying tax. It is axiomatic that we cannot have a means-tested benefits system that does not have a withdrawal rate or, what would be worse, some sort of precipice-type cut-off.
      The social security system reforms of the past two or three years mean that means-tested benefits are now based on after-tax income. In retrospect that is an incredibly simple and obvious reform. It escapes me why none of us

      697
      came to that conclusion before. It has made a fundamental difference as the rates of withdrawal can never exceed 100 per cent. I realise, however, that once one adds together housing benefit and family credit one can achieve high rates of withdrawal. It would be nice to be able to make those more moderate, but the only way of doing that would he to extend the benefit even further up the income scale to those earning more than the 70 per cent. of average earnings.
      5.30 pm
      My right hon. Friend the Minister is obviously in a much better position than I am to respond to the specific criticisms of the hon. Member for Livingston about the statistics for take-up. The take-up rate is usualy quoted in terms of the percentage of eligible individuals taking up benefit. Some of those are entitled to very small amounts of benefit. The percentage of the eligible money that is taken up is much higher. I believe that I am right in saying that about 65 per cent. of the money available is being taken up, while it is taken up by only 50 per cent. of the individuals. That appears to show that those who are not taking up benefit are those who, on the whole, are entitled to relatively small payments and have relatively low entitlements.
      However, those who are entitled to relatively large payments under the family credit system are taking up their entitlements. I welcome my right hon. Friend's efforts to encourage more people to take up family credit. I do not believe that any stigma should be attached to it. I do not accept that there is some sort of stigma attached to family credit that is not attached to child benefit because one does not have to ask for child benefit. There is no stigma, because, for example, employees can have family credit paid through their wage packets. One does not have to obtain a Department of Social Security book and collect it from the Post Office every week. I hope that more people will take up family credit because it is far more effective than uprating child benefit in helping people who need help.
      We have a crazy system of redistributing £4·5 billion —some 1 per cent. of our GDP—by recycling it through the tax and social security system. We have a system where those in real need—those on family credit or income support—would not be helped by either of the new clauses or by any uprating of child benefit. We should continue to move, as I believe we are, to a system of letting people who are able to look after themselves do so. The state should not be an unwelcome intervener in their financial affairs.
      I do not believe that anyone coming down from Mars today, who was asked to deal with the difficulties of low-income families bringing up children, would reinvent the child benefit system. I find my second proposition even harder to believe than my first, which is that the cost of uprating the child benefit by £1·10—which has been under-indexed—would be in excess of £600 million a year. If the Government said to my right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) or the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), "We have £600 million this year to spend on helping families with low incomes to bring up children", I do not believe that they would choose to scatter that money by paying £1·10 per week for each child. They would choose to target it. They do not like the word, but, if they were presented with the money and the option, that would be their choice.
      698
      I say to some of my right hon. and hon. Friends that I hope that they will take account of the way in which the world has moved on in the past 10 years and the extent to which disposable incomes have risen substantially at all income levels. It is time that we stopped taxing middle-income people so that we can give them benefits. We should continue with the system of giving tax cuts to those who are capable of looking after their own affairs and giving generous help, through the social security system, to those who are not.
      Mr. Alice Mahon: Having listened to the speech of the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Maples), I feel depressed. If that is the attitude of Tory Members I certainly do not hold out any hope that either of the two new clauses will be passed. The hon. Gentleman's attitude reflects his lack of any real life experience of bringing up a family on low income. I was also deeply shocked by his complete lack of understanding about the position in which many women find themselves. The hon. Gentleman would not give way to an Opposition Member, possibly because he knew that we would point that out. There was an absolute lack of understanding of the fact that the majority of children are brought up in a family by the mother. Even in families of middle incomes, husbands often do not pass their incomes to the women. My husband worked very hard, but he was still not well paid, so I have experience of bringing up children on a low income. I am possibly one of the minority who can pass on experience of the fact that that income in the middle of the week—I drew it on a Tuesday—was a lifeline. When one is on a small income, if one needs an extra pair of shoes, is running out of food or has a bill coming in, child benefit is useful. The hon. Gentleman's lack of understanding of how an awful lot of people budget and manage their incomes beggars belief.
      Late in the 1980s the Child Poverty Action Group carried out a survey that showed that one in five children lived on or below the poverty line. I found that a distressing survey and I felt deeply ashamed that I lived in a wealthy country which could produce such statistics. After that survey, all informed opinion pointed out that the freezing of child benefit would make the position for many children considerably worse.
      I believe that it is worth emphasising the values of child benefit over and over again, and I hope that my hon. Friends will do the same. The money goes to the mother. The take-up rate is 98 per cent. The hon. Member for Lewisham, West did not put forward any argument to diminish the importance that people in receipt of child benefit place upon it. It does not affect the poverty trap and it is cheap to administer. The mother knows the value of child benefit, because often it is her only income.
      I hope that common sense, compassion and care will prevail in this short debate on child benefit. Looking at the suits around me and considering the lack of any kind of experience of most hon. Members, I do not feel too positive about the outcome of the debate. If the Government persist in freezing over and over again what is a universally accepted valuable benefit, with the intention of allowing it to wither on the vine, they will go down in history as the Government who took us back to the Dickensian state of the 19th century and before, when we had ragged children as the norm rather than the exception. I hope that hon. Members will vote for the new clauses.
      Sir Ian Gilmour: I wish to speak in support of new clause 2. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) made his argument so effectively, I shall not need to detain the House for long.
      As the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) said, child benefit has a number of considerable advantages and has a 98 per cent. take-up. It is paid to the women, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Maples) objected. He did not give much reason for that. It seemed just neo liberal dogma that the state should not do such things. The fact is that the overwhelming majority prefer it paid in that way. Until recently, if not still, the Conservative women's organisation was in favour of such method of payment. I do not believe that some sort of dogma about what the state should or should not do should interfere with what most people want and what many people believe is sensible and right. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury said, it loosens up the poverty and unemployment traps, and it is fair. Since the days of William Pitt, it has been generally realised that it is more expensive to have children than not. If William Pitt had been here this afternoon and heard my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West, he would have thought that he was the man from Mars and would have rubbed his eyes and ears with astonishment at what my hon. Friend said.
      Against the formidable arguments in favour of child benefit the Government have two. One is that it costs a lot of money, and the second is that benefits should be targeted, but, in fact, it does not cost a lot. It is worth comparing child benefit with expenditure on other allowances. Child benefit costs £4·5 billion, the single person's income tax allowance costs £9 billion, the married man's income tax allowance costs £14 billion, the wife's earned income allowance costs £3·5 billion, the mortgage interest rate relief costs £6·5 billion and private pensions cost £10 billion. Against all those figures I do not believe that £4·5 billion for children is excessive. Furthermore, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury has said, child benefit is the only benefit that the Government and my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West favour targeting. All the other benefits are universal, so why should the Government and my hon. Friend pick on children? Why should they be the first to go to the wall? Therefore, the Government's first argument is not right. Child benefit is not relatively expensive.
      The Government's second argument is that it is more important to give money to the really poor, but there are several answers to that argument. As I understand it, only one third of the money that is saved by not uprating child benefit is going to the really poor this year; the remaining two thirds is not being paid out. Even if the Government's argument was right, why should money for the really poor be paid at the expense of other families with children? Above all, why should it be paid at the expense of the nearly poor? If the Government feel the need to help the really poor—I am glad that they do—why should not that money come out of general taxation rather than from child benefit?
      It is well known that targeting does not work. I welcome my right hon. Friend's new campaign—or relaunch—and I hope that it will be successful. The figures suggest that things are getting better, but no one pretends that there will be anything like such a big take-up of the new benefits as there is of child benefit.
      700
      It is slightly misleading to say that child benefit does not help the really poor or that, conversely, not putting it up does not hurt them. That is a source of argument between my hon. Friend the Minister of State and myself. During our previous debate on this subject I said that, by not putting up child benefit, the Government would hit
      "some of the least well-off people".
      When my hon. Friend wound up the debate he said:
      "It is not true that, by not uprating child benefit, we shall hit the least well-off."—[Official Report, 18 January 1989; Vol. 145, c. 365, 384.]
      I wrote to my hon. Friend after that debate to point out that I believed that he had misled the House, inadvertently of course, and that he had got it wrong. He wrote me a letter back of, I am sure he would agree, remarkable ambiguity and obfuscation. I wrote two more letters to my hon. Friend, but he did not reply; he is a busy man. It is, however, worth analysing what he said, not because he misquoted me—that happens to all of us, but my hon. Friend could have admitted it—but because I had said that "some" of the least well off would be hit, while he said that it was not true that the Government would hit the least well-off. It is true, however, that not uprating hits some of the least well off.
      My hon. Friend's answer was based on at least three false assumptions. First, because of the take-up of the means-tested benefits some of the least well-off do not take up the benefits and therefore they are hit by child benefit not being uprated. Secondly, entitlement is too restricted and there is too much red tape on means-tested benefit.
      Recently someone wrote to me whose husband is a theatre technician without regular work. The family is ineligible for family credit because the work is too irregular and is ineligible for income support because of the earnings rule. Those people are hit, and my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West should bear such cases in mind. As a result of that letter I tabled a question and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State admitted that there were a number of people in such circumstances.
      The second assumption is that means-tested benefit, if it is claimed, will go where it is meant to go. That is true of family credit, but that is not necessarily true of income support. That benefit may stick with the husband and never reach the wife. The third assumption, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) has drawn attention, is that money is all that matters. Security, however, is equally important. The great advantage of child benefit is that the recipient knows that she will get it, but that is not the case of people who zoom in and out of eligibility for means-tested benefits.
      Apart from all the other disadvantages of not uprating child benefit, it is clear that the Government have hit some of the least well-off by their actions. That is why I deeply regret their actions of the past two years, which I believe have been shameful.
      Children in Britain from two-parent families are more likely to be poor than similar children in any other comparable country. That is not true of children from a one-parent family, which I welcome, but the first fact is shameful. The Government should deal with it straight away. At the very least they should accept new clause 2, and after that I hope that they will make up for the upratings that they have missed in previous years.
      5.45 pm
      Mr. John Battle: The last time we debated this issue was 18 January. At that time the Secretary of State tried to convince the House that child benefit went to too many people who did not really need it. That was the core of his defence for arguing that it needed to be targeted. No doubt I have anticipated the right hon. Gentleman's reply to this debate. In January he came out with the rather surprising assertion:
      "Conservative Members have pointed out many times in the past that 70 per cent. of the families who stand to gain from child benefit have incomes above average earnings."
      That statement was echoed today because of the emphasis given to average earnings. We should handle the computation by average earnings extremely carefully.
      As the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Maples) said, it is not commonly known that the average earnings figure in January, when we last debated this issue, was £258 per week. Many of the people that I represent get nowhere near that figure as part of their weekly income. I look somewhat askance at the idea that they are somehow pulled into the average.
      In today's edition of the Financial Times an article reminds us that the wages of Britain's managers have gone up substantially. Surely such increases pull up average earnings without necessarily suggesting that those earning below that figure have had any increase in wages. Such people's income could be decreasing, although those at the top find that their incomes are increasing. That is the difficulty of computation by average.
      As a result of the Secretary of State's claim that
      "70 per cent. of the families who stand to gain from child benefit have incomes above average earnings"—[Official Report, 18 January 1989; Vol. 145, c. 361.]
      I tabled a question asking him to spell out exactly who are the 70 per cent. who receive the benefit. That percentage is a striking figure as it suggests that many people are on above-average wages, especially as the benefit is given to those with families. The reply I received modified the earlier statement as it said that the 70 per cent. mentioned did not include those on means-tested benefits.
      I went to the statistical section of the Library and asked it if it could help me with the 70 per cent. figure. On its computation it found that 48 per cent. of potential recipients have above average earnings. It also said that even if those 1.5 million families who are so poor that they claim means-tested benefits were taken out of the calculations, at best only 60 per cent. were on above average wages.
      The hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) intervened earlier to say that gains represent the favourite figures. I believe that the quality of the official information available to the House and to the country is crucial when we are making decisions about the benefit and taxation system. Such information means that people are plain about where they stand.
      It seems to me, to give it the best interpretation possible, that the Secretary of State has really tried to create the impression that those who receive the child benefit do not really need it because they are doing so well, yet when we consider the individual incomes of people we can see that that is manifestly not the case. What I am saying has been graphically demonstrated already by the right hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison). This Government occasionally apparently operate on the principle that the truth is a matter of presentation rather
      702
      than of facts or information. Sometimes we receive a form of statistical fiction that reduces people to and computes them as an average rather than relating to their real circumstances and the incomes on which they have to live.
      In fact, the element of child benefit is absolutely vital to the income support of the poorest section of the population. The failure to uprate the child benefit actually pushes poor people into means-tested poverty. I asked a question about how many more people would be pushed into needing means-tested benefit because the child benefit was not upgraded. The Minister replied that there was an estimated increase in those claiming family credit, a s a result of not uprating child benefit, of between 20,000 and 25,000 families, so that about 80,000 people in our society are affected. If the effect of the shift from child benefit to family credit is interpreted in the amounts of money that the Department of Social Security is actually paying out, also revealed is the fact that a reduced sum is paid out: by the Department to those on the lowest income, be they on family credit or child benefit, or a combination of both.
      I asked the Secretary of State how much extra spending on family credit was attributable to the freeze in child benefit. He replied that when the 1989 uprating was announced it was estimated that the total cost of the family credit uprating would be £128 million, of which £23 million was directly attributable to the 45p added to the child benefit rates as compensation for the child benefit standstill. By parliamentary question, I pressed the matter further by asking what would have been the cost last year of uprating child benefit in line with earnings. The reply was that it would have been £260 million for the financial year 1988–89, net of savings on other benefits.
      From that answer it is clear that the amount saved by the failure to uprate was 10 times the amount offered back in the assistance to family credit. It does not take a mathematical genius to deduce that a large sum has been taken out of the system of income support to the poorest people, either through the family credit system or child benefit. The scale of the cut in income as a result of freezing the child benefit has meant real hardship for families.
      It is worth reminding the Minister that, for those who receive the lowest 10 per cent. of income, one fifth of that income is child benefit. Since that benefit has, in effect, been cut four times since 1979, it is also true that the overall level of benefits has been reducing.
      Although some Conservative Members say that the problem is solved by tax cuts, they do not acknowledge that many people now receive such low pay that they do not pay tax, being totally dependent on the benefit system. In that sense, tax cuts cannot redistribute income in the way that Labour Members like to see happen. It is surprising to hear some Conservative Members say that the Government should not even be involved in the principle of redistributing income. We should remember that the number of families living in poverty in what still is a relatively wealthy country is a reflection of the Government's policies.
      Other hon. Members have given positive reasons to support the payment of child benefit: it is more efficient to administer as a universal benefit; its rate of take-up is very high; the payment of the benefit is prompt, reliable and regular; it is paid to the mother; and people know where they are with their income from week to week. Child benefit is a vital form of regular income support to the poorest; it is a major element in family budgeting.

      703
      An issue that still hangs over from previous debates, haunting them, as it haunts this debate, is the quality of the official information given in the debates and in answer to our questions. The Government continue to misrepresent the facts so that they can make cuts in social security spending. It should be said in this House and outside that the price of such reductions is paid by the poorest members of our society.
      The Secretary of State for Social Security has assured us previously that he does not intend to let child benefit wither away by never uprating it again, but he must prove what he says. It is up to him to demonstrate that he will not let it wither away. One way in which he could do that would be to accept the new clauses.
      Mrs. Gillian Shephard: The aim of both new clauses is to commit the Government now to uprating child benefit in line with inflation and to be effective from April 1990. The aim is seductive in its limitation and obviously chosen for that purpose, but I believe that it should be resisted. Changing circumstances have benefited the vast majority of people in work in this country, particularly the increase in prosperity of the average working man over the past 10 years. Significant tax cuts have also contributed, with improved employment prospects for many people in large areas of the country. This situation surely means that the Government should review child benefit, as they are statutorily committed to do, and not have the outcome of that review pre-empted, as the new clauses seek to do.
      I believe that such an aim was held when child benefits were first introduced. When she was Secretary of State for Social Services, Barbara Castle said that the benefit was a tax-free supplement and therefore not a major means of support to families whose major source of income was earnings. She said that indexation was inappropriate, and that she thought Parliament would wish to be flexible about the emphasis it put on different factors of family support in future. In other words, the aim when the benefit was introduced was that it should be reviewed in the light of changing circumstances, and that is what the Government are committed to doing.
      Sir Ian Gilmour: That may be what the Government said at the time, but is my hon. Friend also aware that the then Conservative Opposition were in favour of upgrading the benefit twice a year?
      Mrs. Shephard: My right hon. Friend would know much more about that than I. It has certainly been the consistent aim of this Government's social security policies that the benefit should go to those in the greatest need. I maintain that, by definition, that aim cannot be fulfilled by the universality of child benefit. It seems curious that anybody purporting to argue for fairness, justice and an equitable use of taxpayers' money could possibly support a benefit which pays nearly £1 billion to 1·25 million families earning £20,000 or more a year. Yet the benefit does not provide anything to people on family credit and income support.
      Mr. Marlow: As my hon. Friend is aware, child benefit partly replaced the child tax allowance. Would my hon. Friend like to see the child tax return? That would probably satisfy some of the concerns.
      Mrs. Shephard: I am arguing that the Government should review their policy of uprating at the appropriate time, which is next autumn, in the light of the circumstances pertaining then, and in line with the original intention. I am not, as my hon. Friend appears to be, arguing for a thorough-going change of the system.
      6 pm
      Mr. Simon Hughes: The hon. Lady started her speech by saying that the average income has risen over the past 10 years, as it has. If we are to review what social security payments should be made, should we not also remind ourselves that the gap between the most well-paid and the least well-paid has increased substantially in the same 10 years? Therefore, the relative benefit to the poorest of a fixed rate benefit such as child benefit is much more substantial and much more needed now than it was 10 years ago.
      Mrs. Shephard: The system of family credit and income support, targeted as it is, is much more effective in helping people at the bottom of the income scale than a universal benefit such as child benefit.
      Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Surely the argument against income support is that its take-up rate is only 40 per cent., whereas a universal benefit reaches 100 per cent.
      Mrs. Shephard: I am going on to tackle that point. The hon. Lady is right to point out that the take-up of family credit has perhaps been disappointing, but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State last week announced both a thorough-going publicity campaign to bring family credit to the notice of all those who might benefit from it and, much more significantly, a simpler form on which to make the claim. The original form was difficult to understand and use. The combination of these two initiatives will increase the take-up significantly.
      The combination of the changing circumstances that I have outlined and the effective and vigorous campaign now mounted by the Government over the take-up of family credit gives credibility to the Government in their aim to review the situation in the autumn. It will then be possible to make a judgment about the changing circumstances and about the effectiveness of the take-up of family credit. I support that aim; and these new clauses, which would pre-empt that review, should be resisted.
      Mrs. Margaret Ewing: I shall endeavour to be brief and I shall not follow the line adopted by many others of going through a series of complex statistics, because I feel that many of them have not added to the debate but have rather detracted from the basic principles that underpin our comments and the way in which we vote. My hon. Friends in the Scottish Nationalist party and Plaid Cymru will be supporting both the new clauses.
      Targeting tends to dominate our debates on social security payments and how we allocate benefits. One of the tragedies is that, basically, no one disagrees with the concept of targeting benefit on to the people who most need it. However, the problem is that targeting has failed miserably. It can be effective only if we have a much more progressive taxation system. Comparing this debate with what happened in the Budgets last year and this year shows that the Government are bringing in a regressive taxation system that benefits the rich and penalises the poor. Until we can have a progressive taxation system, we

      705
      have to look to the continuation of universal benefits to ensure that benefits reach those on the lower incomes who most desperately need the assistance that we can give them.
      In my intervention in the speech of the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mrs. Shephard) I said that family credit has a take-up level of only 40 per cent. It is all very well for the Government to argue that there is now a massive advertising campaign to encourage people to take up this benefit, but it has been in existence for some time, and there are many reasons why people do not pursue it. One of the main reasons is that it is means tested and people have to go through a complex procedure to obtain it. All the monitoring of how the family credit system is working shows that the means-testing aspect is one of the key reasons for the low take-up.
      I have no faith that the advertising campaign will have the impact that hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West suggested. If she believes that there should be additional assistance to people in the lower income groups, she should be supporting the new clauses, if for no other reason than that the Government should take account of the reality in which so many of our constituents live.
      The hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Maples) said that there is no moral compulsion on the Government to increase child benefit. However, I believe that there is, not least because the Government made it clear in their manifesto that they intended to continue to pay child benefit. While we may go into the niceties of their language, those of us who read the manifesto understood it to mean a regular uprating of child benefit. That commitment was widely welcomed. The other moral compulsion is that the Tory party claims to be the party that supports families. The continuation and uprating of child benefit is a major aspect of supporting family life in the United Kingdom.
      I support the arguments advanced by the right hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison). He referred to the community charge rebate system and to the fact that the Government anticipate that a large number of people in the poorer income groups will be eligible for such a rebate. It is well seen that he does not represent a Scottish constituency because those of us who do know that many of the poorest families, irrespective of the fact that they may have had the largest rebate made available to them on the community charge, are worse off than they ever were. For many of the families this is compounded by the freezing of child benefit. More and more of them are forced into the poverty trap by a whole series of measures introduced by the Government.
      Women Members of Parliament should speak not only for their constituents but for women throughout the whole of the United Kingdom when arguing for the uprating of this benefit. One of the sadnesses of my life is that I am not a mother, but I do not begrudge paying my tax if it will be targeted on children. I come from a happy family home. We had to budget carefully and tightly. I remember how important the family allowance was to my parents, who ensured that my brother and I had the opportunities that they wanted for us. If having 41 women Members of Parliament is a major advance for women, all 41 of us should be in the same Lobby tonight, fighting for the women of the United Kingdom to ensure that they have the opportunity to bring up their children on the level of
      706
      income that we would wish them to have. Therefore, I urge all women Members of Parliament to support these new clauses.
      Mr. Tim Rathbone: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing), who was advocating action within this House, by her party, for the benefit of this nation as a whole. I hope that we hear many more arguments from that corner of that Bench on that subject along that theme.
      I support my right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) who spoke to new clause 2 admirably. I remind my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Maples) of the way in which, only in 1975, child benefit was introduced with all-party support. It was welcomed as an implementation of the requirement
      "to make relief in cases where there are a number of children a matter of right and a matter of honour."
      That was stated categorically by William Pitt 200 years ago, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sir I. Gilmour) pointed out. Conservative Members have welcomed child benefit, particularly as a partial implementation of the Conservative Government's Green Paper initiative for a full tax credit scheme, which grew out of some of the thinking and studies of my late hon. Friend, Sir Brandon Rhys Williams, who contributed so much to arguments in this sphere and who we miss most particularly today. My right hon. and hon. Friends argued in favour of the inclusion of child benefit in annual uprating reviews so that it would at least be kept in line with inflation.
      Child benefit replaced child tax allowance, which replaced the family allowance. If child tax allowance had continued, it is inconceivable that it would not have been increased as other tax allowances have increased. The same argument applies to child benefit.
      Much of the discussion this afternoon has centred on the pros and cons of means testing and targeting, as with family credit, versus universality, as with child benefit. My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West made a careful analysis of that, and the thrust of his argument was supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mrs. Shephard).
      I shall make five points which cut through to the truth. I hope to puncture some of the misleading statements that have been made and, with all due deference to my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West, the misleading claims that he made.
      First, it is misleading to claim that richer people gain a greater reward from universal child benefit. Child benefit is a cost to middle and high income earners without children. It is a benefit to middle and low income families with children and it does not make much difference to richer families with two or three children, or to poorer familes without children. The only real anomaly lies with richer families with four or more children but, for heaven's sake, it must be better to use overall taxation policy to establish tax takes from them than to do away with child benefit for all.
      Secondly, as right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House have pointed out, universal benefits are far cheaper to administer than family credit, which, I understand, still costs £3·80 for each £100 of benefit, compared with £1·40 for basic retirement income or £1·90

      707
      for child benefit. Moreover, that cost does not include the extraordinary, but welcome, £7 million promotion cost for family credit, which is not needed for child benefit.
      Thirdly, targeting is surely a means of getting benefit to those who need it, not just aiming them in the right direction. Child benefit has a 98 per cent. take-up. In other words, it does not arrive with 2 per cent. of people who should get it, but we do not know where that 2 per cent. falls. Family credit reaches only 50 per cent. of eligible employees—253,000 people—and 24,000 or so self-employed people. That means that 253,000 employees' families and an unknown number of self-employed people who should be getting it are not. That is a translation of percentages into people, and the picture is quite horrific.
      Fourthly, means-tested benefits create poverty traps, disincentives to work and incentives to dependency, and they erode pride and independence. Universal benefits do not, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham ably demonstrated. They are also more secure sources of income in the hands of the people who need it most—the parents of the child.
      Fifthly, universality is valuable per se because it is a mark of a civilised society. It applies to Government services, whether they be street lighting or the police, and it applies to many Government benefits such as pensions. Why should it not apply in the same civilised way to benefits for children?
      6.15 pm
      In the absence of a better, more benign, more efficient and more effective form of family assistance, child benefit should be uprated in line with inflation and linked to tax allowances not frozen to death.
      The last remaining question has to be, "Can the country afford it?" Although it is included in the public expenditure projections, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury said, that question has still to be answered. Whatever the cost, it is not a fresh burden. Rather, it is a transfer of purchasing power from people who, because of their larger income or smaller families, can afford luxuries to those who, because of their family size and circumstances, may go short of basic necessities.
      To some extent, child benefit involves a redistribution of wealth—but only in a small way—both vertically and horizontally. Vertically, the redistribution is between the better off and the less well off; horizontally, the redistribution is between people on each level of income according to whether they have children to support.
      Mr. John Marshall: My hon. Friend talks of redistribution through child benefit. Does he accept that 500,000 recipients of the benefit pay tax at 40 per cent.? What is redistributive about people on a lower income paying tax to finance higher child benefit?
      Mr. Rathbone: If my hon. Friend reads Hansard, he will see that I touched on that earlier in my speech.
      The point that I have just been making was made by my great aunt, Eleanor Rathbone, who was the hon. Member for the Combined English Universities 55 years ago. We were reminded of that truth 15 months ago by our much revered late colleague Sir Brandon Rhys Williams. Child benefit is part of a consistent Conservative policy towards families of which we as a party and the Prime Minister and all of the Cabinet can justifiably be proud.
      708
      The country has responded, and wants to continue to respond, to bold and generous leadership. Where can that be truer than in maintaining and developing the wellbeing of our greatest asset—our children? There is no better investment. There is no greater reward. I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench to accept new clause 2. If they do not, I urge all right hon. and hon. Members to support it in the Lobby so that child benefit can again be the properly valued investment that, in present circumstances, only it can be.
      Mr. Frank Field: I support new clauses I and 2. It gives me great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) and, in a sense, his great aunt and the arguments that hon. Members on both sides of the House have presented in favour of increasing child benefit.
      I have no intention of taking the time of the House by going over ground that has already been covered. Others have ably made the case for the new clauses. For two reasons I want to pick up on something that the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Maples) said. First, he introduced a new note into our debate. If Eleanor Rathbone were here today, or if we could have a seance with her, she would say that we should be taking note of that change.
      The debate is moving, and was neatly summarised by the hon. Member for Lewes. Those of us who support child benefit have to take into account the new element of rising living standards, and decide whether they have risen to such a degree that the proponents of a universal benefit have to re-think their position. I hope that no Opposition Members will deny the rise in living standards. It is why the Government win elections. People do not elect Ministers because they are better looking or more able than Labour Front Bench Members—as a group they are not. They elect them because the majority of people realise that the trough that is put before them is bigger than it was before and they are worried that if we touched down on the Treasury Bench that trough would either shrink or be removed entirely. Our case against the Government is that, at a time of record living standards since the industrial revolution, one group has been deliberately excluded and we cannot support the emergence of an underclass without conceding what the electorate has known for three elections—that living standards have been rising at a record pace. Therefore, we have to take on board that new element.
      I shall address the dilemma by answering the question that the hon. Member for Lewisham, West asked the right hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison)—if we had £600 million, would we put it towards a universal increase in child benefit to make up the shortfall that has occurred under the present Government? I would do that without any hesitation but perhaps for different reasons than have been put forward so far.
      I would fit a big increase in child benefit into a policy of taxation and incentives for those at the bottom of society as well as for those at the top. Despite the Government's rhetoric about freedom, and despite what the Prime Minister says about disengaging from the nanny state, she runs an enormous nanny state. Our tax system bribes people to undertake certain forms of expenditure to such a degree that half all personal income is exempted from taxation by way of tax allowances. I want the Labour party to be committed to a policy of phasing out all those tax allowances and introducing a standard rate of taxation

      709
      of between 12p and 15p in the pound. That policy would entail some losers. Child benefit has a crucial role to play, as one of the groups that will lose out will be low-paid workers with children. Such a taxation system would get rid of the nanny state that the Prime Minister supports so firmly, but if we are so keen on cutting tax rates at every level, there have to be some measures of compensation. It would not be a burden, as the hon. Member for Lewisham, West was suggesting, because such a reduction in taxation together with a significant increase in child benefit would be building floors—creating a society in which people could build through their own efforts without being penalised.
      Maybe not in our minds, but in the minds of most of our constituents, there is a difference between claiming a benefit but losing it as one's income rises and paying tax. People make that distinction, but it is not the relevant point. Most of our constituents are also aware that the overlap between taxes and benefits creates major disincentives for those at the bottom of the scale. If we are keen on creating incentives for those at the bottom, as we have been for those at the top, we need a massive increase in child benefit accompanying other major reductions in taxation which will not benefit one penny those who are poorest. It would he foolish and deceitful for Opposition Members to claim that we can move people away from dependency on welfare without going through a very difficult, choppy and unpopular period. The only way in which we can lift people free of means-tested assistance is to phase out the benefits and provide no help whatsoever —in other words, punish—or to increase universal provision such as child benefit. Those who are claiming means-tested assistance would lose that benefit as we increase child benefit. That would be unpopular, but if we are ever to get millions of low-income families out of the nightmare of dependency on state welfare, we have to go through that phase.
      My view is very simple. I do not think that the hon. Member for Lewisham, West was right to say that he is winning the argument in the Chamber. He is losing the argument in the Chamber, but he may win the vote. If he wins the vote tonight, Opposition Members and Conservative Members who are friends of child benefit must face reality—the Secretary of State cannot stand up and tell us that he is opposed to child benefit and that only over his dead body will there be an increase in child benefit. If he does, he knows that he cannot fulfil the terms laid upon him by the Child Benefit Act to review the benefit impartially each year.
      Mr. Favell: May I repeat the question that I put to the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook)? As I understand it, the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) is arguing for universal benefits for all. Is he in favour of abolishing family credit?
      Mr. Field: My argument makes it irrelevant. The increase in child benefit that I propose would lift most people free of claiming family credit. It would not abolish family credit but it would make it irrelevant.
      The Secretary of State cannot get up and say what he really thinks about child benefit, therefore we have to use and interpret his political body language. It is clear that he has a deep hostility to child benefit. I will bet anybody any
      710
      amount of money that while the right hon. Gentleman is Secretary of State for Social Security there will be no increase in child benefit.
      Are we to gather the clans and debate child benefit two or three times a year and go away satisfied, or are we to take the argument into the Government's camp? Such an opportunity will arise because when the Finance Bill returns to the Floor of the House I shall table an amendment to reintroduce child tax allowance. Of course the value of child tax allowance will have fallen because the basic rate of tax has been cut since 1979, at least nominally. But had child tax allowance been continued and increased in line with married man's tax allowance, the tax burden would not have been shifted from childless people and single people to those with children because we have not increased child benefit. That is why the reintroduction of child tax allowance is relevant.
      If we are concerned about delivering resources to families with children, under this Government we have no choice but to take that route. Some would say that that was selling out child benefit. I repeat that I probably owe my place here to the work that I did with an organisation campaigning for child benefit. I am mindful of that, but I organised and helped that campaign on child benefit because I was interested in delivering to families real resources rather than token gestures.
      We have a simple choice. If we are defeated tonight, either we can concede defeat and rejoice that we have put up another good fight, or we can become serious politicians about delivering resources to families with children. The only option that we have under this Government is to reintroduce child tax allowance. There will be life after Thatcherism, despite what the Prime Minister maintains, and another Government would have the opportunity to use resources committed to child tax allowance and convert them back into child benefit. There would not have to be the unhappy scramble of lobbying the Treasury for sufficient resources—£600 million according to the hon. Member for Lewisham, West—to make up the shortfall that has occurred under the present Government.
      Mr. Moore: I always listen with enormous care to the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field). I know that he would not wish to give the House inaccurate information. I do not think that he has seen the written question tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire) and answered on Thursday 20 April. It asks specifically if one can take into account the role of tax changes between 1978–79 and 1989–90 and the impact that the changes had on families without children to discover the amount by which one would have to increase child benefit to achieve the same impact. I am sure that he would want the House to know—he is honourable in such matters, especially in the way that he is putting his point —that one would have to reduce child benefit in the cases referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch, who is not unknown as being a supporter of child benefit.
      Mr. Field: It is a terrific advantage that I have not seen that parliamentary answer. I shall come back to it on another day. I am sure that the Secretary of State would not want to stop me in mid-flow as I am about to complete my comments.

      711
      If we are defeated in the Division on the new clauses —I hope that we will not be—I hope that the seriousness with which we put our arguments will have been noted. We will be equally serious about amending the Finance Bill as the only opportunity under this Government to get resources to families with children is by reintroducing child tax allowances. I hope that the strength of our rhetoric will be matched by the voting during the Report stage of the Finance Bill.
      6.30 pm
      Mr. Simon Burns: It is always a daunting prospect to follow the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) who is an acknowledged authority on social security. He made one point with which I can agree in principle, although not in practice. He said that positive efforts should be made to help children, rather than mere gimmicks. I suspect that the difference between the hon. Member for Birkenhead and myself would be in interpreting the principle. We should put the debate on child benefit in the context of the fact that between 1974 and 1979 the real-terms value of income support benefits for the family fell by 7 per cent., whereas in the last decade it has increased by 27 per cent. I think that I am right in saying that the hon. Member for Birkenhead, in a previous life with the Child Poverty Action Group, was critical of the Labour Government and their record on providing financial help to families.
      I part company with the hon. Gentleman on how one gives the maximum amount of financial help to the most genuinely needy children.
      Mrs. Beckett: I do not want to distract the hon. Gentleman from the thrust of his argument, but I should put it on record that the figures he has quoted are a peculiar and motley collection of statistics. They include support given to carers of elderly people, not merely children. Also, they primarily reflect the number of people dependent on benefits because of the increase in unemployment.
      Mr. Burns: I was talking about family support. I did not target my comments specifically at children. I am sure that the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) finds the figures somewhat curious because they do not support her argument. They put fairly and squarely the real-terms support that the Government have given to the family over the past decade.
      I find the present child benefit arrangements extraordinary because—I speak as a parent of a young child, so my wife benefits from the system—6·7 million families in Britain with 12 million children receive £7·25 tax free every week. Of the £4·5 billion—10 per cent. of the social security budget—spent on child benefit, £1 billion goes to 1·25 million families earning over £20,000 a year. I cannot understand, taking it to its logical conclusion, why the wife of a Member of Parliament or a Cabinet Minister should receive the same tax-free sum as the most genuinely needy members of society. I would be happy, as would my wife, for that money to be targeted towards those genuinely in need, because it would be of much more financial help to them.
      Mr. Christopher Hawkins: On that argument, would my hon. Friend get rid of the single
      712
      person's allowance on the ground that it is worth more to higher rate taxpayers? Would he abolish the married person's allowance, the business expansion scheme and mortgage interest tax relief on the ground that they are worth more to higher rate taxpayers?
      Mr. Burns: I should have anticipated that intervention because it is not the first time that we have heard it during this debate.
      Mr. Frank Field: Answer it.
      Mr. Burns: I shall answer it in my own way.
      We are discussing the way to target the maximum amount of resources to the most needy in society. I believe that child benefit for families such as mine is unfair and is not the best way to use resources. That is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was right to freeze child benefit for two years and, in the uprating this year, to target the money to the child allowance part of the other benefits. If hon. Members study the figures they will see that, over and above the uprating, he is increasing by 50p per child the amount available in income support and housing benefit.
      Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has found his tongue after his long silence in Committee. Will he acknowledge that the position of children in Britain has become worse as a result of the policies pursued by the Secretary of State and that the failure to uprate child benefit has compounded the problem? Does he agree that even the change in the more recent announcements does not compensate for the loss? Will he recognise that child benefit is intended to benefit children? He has not yet mentioned children. He has talked about tax rates for adults. We are talking about a benefit directed towards children universally. Surely even he must accept that that is a good thing and a benefit to the nation's children.
      Mr. Burns: I welcome the first part of the hon. Gentleman's intervention because it was made in complete ignorance. I think that I am right in saying that in the Committee on the Social Security Bill he failed to attend at the start of each of our morning sittings. If you look at the record you will see that you attended far fewer sittings than I did and that I contributed to the debates.
      Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. Will the hon. Gentleman speak through the Chair?
      Mr. Burns: I am sorry.
      One has to look at the argument about children through the parents' tax position. The money is being given to the mother to spend on the children. My original point—I do not want to make a long speech—is that the current arrangement in which nearly one quarter of those in receipt of child benefit earn incomes in excess of £20,000 is wrong. The money could be better targeted by increasing other benefits so that those in genuine need benefit rather than rich families being given an extra tax-free allowance that would be worth more to them than the poorest families.
      I shall support my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in the Lobby tonight.
      Mr. Thomas Graham: The hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Maples) mentioned average wages. I was an engineer for 20 years

      713
      in Scotland, but I never earned an average wage. I worked for a well-known firm in Scotland, but I never earned an average wage of £250. Highly skilled engineers at that well-known firm still do not earn that much. Many people in my constituency make £86 a week, if they are lucky. I live in Linwood—every hon. Member is aware of the closure of the car factory—where there is still vast unemployment. Many wives rely on child benefit and would love the Government to show care and compassion by agreeing to uprate child benefit.
      Over 2·25 million children are living at or below the poverty level. The mothers of those kids are desperate and would prefer to receive child benefit every week rather than queue up, be means tested and plead and beg for money for their children. Child benefit should be a right, and tonight the Government have a golden opportunity to agree.
      Since the Government took office in 1979, there have been 20 cuts in benefit for the family and yet the Tory party claims to be the party of the family. The Government offer the family despair and destruction and they do not care whether our children have as decent a future as children in other nations. Britain has the lowest level of public funding for child care in Europe, yet in its manifesto the Tory party claims to be the party of the family, which is a travesty of the truth.
      Over the past 10 years, child benefit has fallen by 27 per cent. It is unbelievable and ridiculous that we are allowing mothers and children to suffer. Conservative Members must not forget that there are not many people walking the streets of Glasgow and Strathclyde—where there is massive unemployment and poverty—wearing designer clothes or fashion suits from Savile row. They queue up at jumble sales and secondhand shops and buy their furniture secondhand.
      The Government have a golden opportunity to redress some of the imbalances and injustices that have occurred since they took office, such as the massive cuts in social security and the punishing of the poor and needy. Conservative Members have an opportunity to ensure that child benefit is uprated. It is a good benefit and has a high take-up rate. They should stand up and be counted so that the children and the poor and needy have some extra in their pockets this week.
      6.45 pm
      Mrs. Marion Roe: The question whether child benefit should be automatically uprated understandably raises strong emotions. As the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) said, child benefit has been around for almost a decade and a half. It is a universal benefit, so there is no problem claiming it and it makes a useful contribution to the income of every family with children. However, the fact that child benefit is simple, universal and easy to claim does not constitute a reason for unfailingly increasing its value in line with inflation every year.
      If one is to rely on targeting benefits, it is essential that the help reaches those who need it. Conservative Members who regard uprating child benefit as an expensive and imprecise way of helping families in genuine need must be reassured that take-up levels of family credit will rise and that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will take whatever steps are necessary to inform those who are eligible of their rights.
      714
      It amuses me that at a time when the Labour party is on the verge of unveiling its repackaged tax policy and when phrases such as "fair" and "relevant" rates of tax are all the rage among Labour Front Bench spokesmen, the hon. Member for Livingston is supporting an uprating of benefit that is unfair and unrelated to income.
      I fully support the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Maples), so I shall not waste the House's time by repeating the case that he made, but it hardly seems fair that millions of working people on modest incomes should be paying taxes to fund the £1 billion cost of child benefit for 1·25 million families who are earning more than £20,000 a year. Where is the fairness in that? If the Labour party believes that people on higher income should pay higher rates of tax, why does it not follow through the logic of its argument by accepting that those same people on high income simply do not need increased child benefit? The fact that three quarters of the families who benefit from increases in child benefit have incomes above male average earnings is eloquent testimony to the utterly indiscriminate nature of child benefit.
      We have all heard stories of how well-to-do, middle-class families spend their child benefit on extravagant luxuries and sometimes items that have no connection with their children. On any objective analysis, millions of parents in receipt of child benefit have no need for that money. Undoubtedly they are grateful for it, but, none the less, they regard it as a windfall, a bonus or an extra.
      I do not believe that the Government should distribute huge amounts of taxpayers' money to those who do not need it. It is curious to see the Labour party defending a system that gives an awful lot of money to an awful lot of people who would not think twice before spending the equivalent of a month's child benefit on a meal out or a couple of compact discs.
      Not only does child benefit go to those who are perfectly able to look after themselves and their children, but, to make things worse, increases in child benefit have no impact on the incomes of those in real need—the people on income-related benefits. Given that child benefit already costs the nation £4·5 billion a year, we should be absolutely convinced that benefits will go to those in need before supporting proposals to index link child benefit each and every year.
      I see no evidence that uprating child benefit is a cost-effective way of helping those families that need help most. The fact that some people do not claim the income-related benefits to which they are entitled is not a reason for putting even more cash into universal benefits. Far better results for many more families in real need can be achieved simply by making a greater effort to promote income support and family credit. I very much hope that the Government's social policy will follow that course.
      Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: I am a stranger to social security debates. I take the view, as do a number of my colleagues, that normally just a few dozen hon. Members on both sides of the House understand the more obscure points of social security and, alack, they are riot saying what they are thinking; they are merely saying what they have been told to say.
      This debate is significant. It marks where we are as a Government and where we are tending in social terms. I remember hearing, when in opposition, my Front-Bench

      715
      colleagues explaining to the House how important this new child benefit would be. Above all, we were told, at last something would be done about the poverty trap, which we were all busily discussing at the time. We were told that it would be a simple system, that there would be a high take-up rate, and that it would be easy to administer. It was a time of considerable inflation, at levels far greater than today. No doubt my right hon. and learned Friend the present Secretary of State for Health had that in mind when, speaking in Committee on the Child Benefit Bill in 1975, he introduced an amendment for the statutory uprating of child benefit every six months in line with inflation. His words are worth remembering:
      "I cannot see how a reputable case can be raised against that proposal."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 24 June 1975; c. 150.]
      To catch the flavour of those days, I point out that my right hon. Friend the then Leader of the Opposition wrote a letter in February 1978 to the National Council for One Parent Families, saying:
      "We are impatient to implement the child benefit scheme fully. This measure will do more than any other single benefit to help families in caring for their children".
      A number of things have changed since that letter was written, one of which has been pointed out by the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field). In 1987, he wrote a letter to The Times, saying:
      "If we leave to one side how poverty is defined, there is general agreement across the political spectrum that, over recent years, there has been a significant increase in the numbers on low incomes. Child benefit directly relates a family's income to the size of its responsibilities."
      We are faced as a country with a growing problem of poverty in our inner cities. The family credit way forward is not a working option. To start with, the form on family credit—I do not have the latest document but the one that I have from my social security office has 15 pages—is a Becher's brook of a form, and we should do better. It is not good enough. The take-up rate is only 50 per cent.
      We can take any other walk of life. Suppose that we were told that a shop was open for only 50 per cent. of normal shop hours or that a train service was only half operating. They would not be taken seriously and would not be seen to be going concerns. Family credit falls into that category.
      There is one personal point which, surprisingly, has not come up before in this debate. We are talking about index linking. I think that it is recognised that index linking is the norm. We have a row about pensions—should they be based on historic rates of inflation or forecasts of inflation —and the Government are winning that hands down, but no one is saying, "How terrible it is that they are index linked". In personal terms, every right hon. and hon. Member has his parliamentary salary, car allowance and London allowance index linked. All those who will vote against the new clause tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) and his colleagues will be saying, "What applies to me in 1989 does not apply to those mothers in my constituency who are struggling to bring up families. Other factors have crept into the argument. The situation is entirely different."
      We have heard about those well-heeled ladies who are worried that they are getting child benefit when they do not need it. Letters from them have not been filling my postbag. If they did, I would say to them, "This benefit
      716
      must be physically collected." I have sometimes collected it on behalf of my wife. One has to go to the post office, perhaps on a wet and windy day, stand in a queue and collect it. I would say, "If you are well-heeled and you and your children do not need child benefit, stay at home shampooing the dog or watching EastEnders. Do not waste time". I am told that the great system quietly puts the money aside and it goes back into the common wheal, and no time and effort are wasted by the bureaucracy finding out why Mrs. Jones has failed to collect her benefit. There is, therefore, an easy solution.
      This is a serious debate. The family is under great strain in this country and throughout the western world, and I need not enlarge upon that point. The divorce rate, the number of children in care and child poverty are up. Here we have a system that does something about the poverty trap. If we are genuine in our belief that the family is the basic social unit of our society, is it not incredible that we are allowing the financial support for it to diminish over the years? My right hon. Friends must reply to this point: how can we claim to be looking after families when, year by year, we have singled out child benefit to be reduced?
      There is also the wider point of where we are tending to go as a Government and a party. What has been the point of running our economy more efficiently and getting greater wealth rippling out through society if we are not prepared as a nation and a Parliament to tackle those pools of poverty that disgrace our cities, if we are not prepared to take note of how many people are homeless in Greater London, sleeping in miserable cardboard boxes, and if we are not prepared to notice that poor families in our towns, cities and constituencies are suffering and we are supposed to represent them?
      Winston Churchill had a good phrase. He used to talk about bringing in the rear guard, meaning, in social security terms, looking after those who have fallen behind. If year by year we cut child benefit, or, worse, if in the next Parliament we chop it off altogether, we are not bringing in that rear guard—it will fall further behind and become increasingly isolated and vulnerable.
      Mr. Marlow: If I may, let me take the House back to the eloquent, if in my belief mistaken, speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Maples). He seemed to be saying that it was wrong to give benefits to those who were earning more than, say, £15,000 a year. He is an intelligent and civilised man and I expect that he would accept that that is to a certain extent simplistic. He almost suggested that there is a zero sum and that there are those in our society who are financially givers and that there are those who are takers. It is not like that at all. The reality is that we are all givers—we are all taxpayers.
      7 pm
      I believe that the basis of the case of those of us who support new clause 2 is that even for those who are on more than £15,000 a year—which is hardly the wealthy in this day and age and many have very large mortgage commitments—we would like the net take by the state, that is, net of allowances and benefits, to be less from those with children than from those without children. Knowing what a civilised man my hon. Friend is, I would expect him to support that objective.
      Let us suppose that two young people set up home and decide to settle down together. There are two mouths and two incomes. A child is born. There are three mouths and,

      717
      most typically, one income. Is this the time to freeze or—if I may interpret—to reduce still further their relative financial situation? I believe that it is not, and I think that my hon. Friend will believe that it is not. Housing costs are at an all time high and young couples, some of whom in my hon. Friend's terms are relatively wealthy, have stretched their finances to the limit to get on the housing ladder. Rising interest rates have seen those costs rise still higher—higher than they would have feared and higher than they would have imagined. No one would start a family in order to acquire, or for the sole purpose of acquiring, child benefit, but given the massive financial and other pressures which today discourage young people from having children, it would seem to me to be the politics of bedlam to make life even more difficult. I imagine that it is hardly part of the Government's policy that the race should begin to die out.
      I wish to concentrate on one aspect of child benefit and that is the part of child benefit that replaces child tax allowance. I do not know whether my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West or my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mrs. Shephard)—who is not here at the moment—are against child tax allowance. I asked them the question. I know that there were a lot of Members who wanted to speak and perhaps they felt that it was not appropriate to answer it at that time. Let me try to sell them the concept of child tax allowance—let me even try to sell it to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
      When we had child tax allowance, it was universally approved and universally acceptable. There might have been people who were against the family allowance, there might have been people who said, "Why give money to people just because they have children?", but nobody was against the child tax allowance.
      Why should we return to it? First, it allows people to keep more of their own income—a philosophy that is very close to the Government's heart. Secondly, it takes people out of tax, which is particularly important for wage earners seeking to support large families. It is a powerful incentive against dependence—if I may say so, pure Thatcherism. Maybe I have sold it to my hon. Friends, maybe not. If I am trying to sell it to the Government, let me try a more machiavellian approach. At a stroke, by reintroducing child tax allowance, we would reduce the amount of money taken in tax and, at the same time, reduce Government expenditure. I am offering to the Government, overnight, the ability significantly to reduce Government expenditure as a proportion of gross national product. They should grasp that opportunity with both hands.
      Child tax allowance was—as child benefit is—the only fiscal measure that recognised the additional burden of families with children at all levels of income. As I intend to support new clause 2 later this evening, I shall probably be in trouble with the Whips—not much, because they are a fairly civilised bunch—but as I am known to be ambitious let me try to curry favour with them at the same time.
      May I quote my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones)? He said, quite rightly:
      "Child benefit was introduced to take the place of the old child tax allowance … They were there to achieve some sort of equity at all income levels for families with children as compared to families without children."—[Official Report, 3 February 1981; Vol. 998, c. 204.]
      718
      He was right then in 1981. Although he has taken the Trappist vows, let me encourage him by saying that the point he made then is equally valid now. It is particularly valid for the very large numbers of near poor. The Government's policy is targeting. In general, I support that policy, particularly if it hits the right target. But we have a problem with the near poor, especially those who are seeking to maintain their independence, be they elderly or be they families. The problem is that every time we miss the target, we hit the finances of the near poor.
      On the Government's own terms, let us look at the argument behind this debate—targeting. If child benefit is frozen, it is decreased. As hon. Members have already said, we are transferring resources from those with children to those without children. Is that what the Government want from targeting? The married man's tax allowance, as has been said, has increased by some 22 per cent. in real terms since 1979.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West said that tax rates have been reduced. That is true. My hon. Friend is, no doubt, very proud of that and I am sure that my hon. Friend will go along with me and be quite modest about it and say that, of course, the married man's tax allowance has not increased by 22 per cent. in reality because there has been an 8 per cent. reduction in levels of taxation and it has therefore only increased by 14 per cent. That is not bad—it is an increase. But child benefit has gone down by 12 per cent. and, as I have said before, benefits and allowances are two sides of the same coin.
      The question before the Government is that if they want to target—and we should want to target—why target by taking resources from those with more mouths to feed and give them to those with fewer mouths to feed? I am an easy man—a simple man, some might say. I have said that I intend to support new clause 2. However, if my right hon. Friend would undertake to the House that he Wll target—as a Conservative should target—and accept the new clause, or, if he will not accept it, will give some indication to the House that we will go back to the system of child tax allowances, I am sure that I and a lot of my hon. Friends would be satisfied.
      Mr. Kenneth Hind: I welcome the opportunity to say a few words about the new clause, I urge the House to reject it for a number of reasons.
      We must have a flexible approach to the provision for families. We are faced with the fact that, whatever happens in terms of income or other changes, we have indexing and uprating. The hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), who is not in his seat, pointed out that we are now enjoying record living standards. The situation has changed since the introduction of child allowances. When they were introduced, we were living in a high-tax society. We are now living in a much more prosperous and low-tax society, which calls for alternative ways of directing aid to the poorer families in our society.
      There are two fundamental reasons for rejecting the new clause. First, no targeting is involved. The top 5 per cent. of earners receive the child allowance in exactly the same way as the bottom 5 per cent. My hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend) says that the top 5 per cent. should stay at home and wash the dog. The fact is that they do not. They go out and obtain child allowance; 98 per cent. are claiming it, whether they need it or not. Members of Parliament who, like myself, have children have a disposable income of £300 a week and do

      719
      not need extra money in child allowances. Those on low incomes, on the other hand, genuinely need the money and we should target it to their benefit, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is trying through family credit to target those who are worse off. That is what we should be doing, and I welcome the fact that my right hon. Friend is using the media very effectively to seek to encourage a better take-up. I hope that he will succeed.
      Mr. Lester: At what level of income would my hon. Friend decide that he could do without his mortgage interest tax relief and his married man's allowance?
      Mr. Hind: My hon. Friend makes a good point, and I shall go on to deal with that very question.
      My hon. Friends who support the new clause believe that there is no alternative means of protecting the poor and worse-off families. There is an alternative. We should be turning back the pages of history and re-examining the proposals on tax credits in the 1972–73 Green Paper. If we work towards an integrated tax and benefits system, we shall be working towards a progressive method of aiding families with children, whereby those who are worse off get the most and those paying 40p in the pound in tax do not receive benefit. That is a proposal for the future, and the new tax reform proposals will help us to achieve that.
      Under a tax credit system, a woman could be given the credit for her children, which would overcome one of the major objections. Child allowances should be paid to the mother. I commend those considerations to the House.
      The new clause does not solve the problem; it is too rigid for the future and I shall vote against it.
      Mr. Favell: Anyone listening to the debate might go away with two misconceptions. The first is that the debate is about the abolition of child benefit, which it is not. The Government are committed to retaining child benefit. The second misconception is that the inflation-proofing of child benefit—that is what it is all about—will somehow benefit the very poorest, which it will not. If the new clause is passed, 3 million children and 1·5 million families will be not one jot better off.
      The thrust of the Government's social security proposals has been to target benefit on those in the most need. I shall be grateful if my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will tell the House just what the Government have done for the very poorest.
      Mr. Lester: I support all those who have spoken in favour of the new clause and congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) on the able way in which he introduced the subject. My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) hit the nail on the head: if child benefit were still a tax allowance, there would be no argument about indexation. It would have been indexed along with all the other tax allowances. It is because the House decided, in order to reach those who do not pay tax, to change to child benefit—which should be called child credit—that we have this argument every time.
      My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sir I. Gilmour) pointed out the variations in the amounts that go in tax allowances and in child benefit. Perhaps it would help if we renamed child benefit "child credit" and presented the Treasury with the fixed amount
      720
      of credt for the majority, which converts automatically into a fixed tax credit, and attributed to the budget of the Department of Social Security only the sums that went to people who do not pay tax. That might help people to understand that child benefit is a hybrid measure. Our argument is not with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State; it is whether the element that goes to those who pay tax should be a tax allowance while the rest is added to my right hon. Friend's budget.
      7.15 pm
      Another point that has not been made clear is that child benefit is a poverty-preventive benefit. It is all right to talk about those in need and about targeting the very needy, but the fact that child benefit is paid to many families—some with apparently high incomes—is poverty-preventive. In the London area in particular there are families on average incomes of about £11,000 a year who, because they have heavy mortgage payments, may have a net income that would bring them within family credit. Because they have a mortgage, however, they are not allowed to claim it. They may have a net income less than the maximum for income support, but, because they are in work, they are not allowed to claim income support. More than 60 per cent. of families with incomes of less than £15,000 a year benefit greatly from child benefit. I cannot believe that a benefit that is easy to understand, popular, fair, poverty-preventive, family-friendly, incentive-friendly, inflation-friendly and targeted to people who genuinely need it is withering on the vine in this way.
      Denmark, which subjected child benefit to proof of need in 1977, removed the means test in 1987 largely because of the disincentive effect. Do not let us make the same mistake. I hope that all my hon. Friends will support the new clause.
      Mr. Squire: It is no criticism of hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber to suggest that there is an element of predictability about the debate. I suspect that my speech will be subject to the same criticism. I echo those who have said how much we miss Sir Brandon Rhys Williams, who always made his mark in debates such as this. It is only fair to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend) who, in a return to a subject in which he was notorious—if that is the right word—a few years ago, powerfully argued the case for uprating child benefit.
      There are various issues that divide the Conservative party from time to time. We usually manage to find a compromise. On this issue, however, we seem to be having to struggle to find a compromise. Perhaps a tax allowance is the answer. Several of my hon. Friends have argued forcefully the case against the present system, essentially on the ground that they dislike the idea of people with higher incomes receiving the benefit. It does not seem to matter that only 5 per cent. of taxpayers pay the higher rate. It does not even seem to matter that, as we know from last year's figures, 60 per cent. of child benefit goes to those earning less than £15,000 per annum, which I do not necessarily regard as a high income. Presumably, my hon. Friends would support that take-up; we have not reached 60 per cent. take-up of family credit. In considering the direction of benefits, my hon. Friends who object to the uprating of child benefit should recognise that it reaches the poorest, even if it also reaches the richest.

      721
      More than one of my hon. Friends said how difficult it was for their wives, who seem to be forced to go along to claim child benefit. I realised that child benefit was a universal benefit, but I had no idea that it was compulsory. Clearly, things have advanced somewhat, and my hon. Friends' wives are being dragged, kicking and screaming, to the post office to claim the benefit—a horrible thought. They do not have to claim child benefit and, more seriously, if that is their concern we should change the arrangements through the tax system, not by messing around with the benefit system.
      For reasons that some of my colleagues have advanced, child benefit remains the most effective way of tackling family poverty. With a take-up of about 98 per cent., it is the only income that many women receive in their own right. Most important—this point has not been stressed in the debate—it is worth the same, whether one is in or out of work. That means that, over the next decade, when we will wish to encourage many more people back into work, it will not have the negative effects of the poverty-employment trap whereby people lose money simply by coming off benefits, compared with what they might earn in employment.
      There is a danger of family credit being viewed as a panacea. I unreservedly welcome the campaign that the Government have just announced. I wish to see a higher take-up. But that cannot solve the problem. We must welcome any reduction in the 250,000 families who are estimated to be eligible for family credit but are not currently receiving it. In their wildest, most optimistic moments, my right hon. Friend the Minister and his colleagues do not imagine that the take-up will remotely approach the present take-up for child benefit. Every family that is not receiving that benefit will lose out under a system of increasing family credit only.
      An article in The Times of 25 March suggested, among other things, that the Government were considering stopping the payment of child benefit to better-off working mothers. I am the last person to suggest that The Times is invariably a paper of record. I hope that, in this case, the Ministers have been wrongly quoted. In the relief of poverty, particularly for single mothers, child benefit will be as critical in the 1990s as it has been during the 1980s. In the United States, an almost permanent under-class was created because of an almost total reliance on means-tested benefits. We want to avoid that. If we want to encourage people back to work, we must use the available weapons, and there is no better weapon than child benefit.
      We talk a lot about the value of the family, but surely it should also have some cost to society and to the Government. It is not a phrase that should be trotted out when we want to say something about the family, but not backed up in any way by money. The intellectual argument for continuing to freeze child benefit is, presumably, that is should ultimately disappear or become relatively irrelevant. There is an intellectual argument for doing away with it. There is an intellectual argument for the case put forward by my hon. Friends who agree with me. There is no intellectual argument for freezing it as it is at present.
      The first aims of any benefit system are to make receipt more certain and future escape from poverty more likely. That is the power of child benefit. It does that at present. That is why it is necessary and why I hope that hon. Members will support new clause 2.
      Mr. Moore: I will try to move at a reasonable pace, because I appreciate that the House is anxious to move on. An awful lot of points have been made and I should like to address the three inter-related themes or sets of arguments that I have detected. The first surrounds those who misunderstand—some genuinely and some wilfully—the history and the purpose of child benefit. Then there is a set of arguments surrounding those—of course they had to be among the Opposition—who want to use the Government's decision this year to pervert the truth of the Government's outstanding record and their commitment to the family. The third strand of the debate surrounds those who, with their deep and long commitment to helping families with children, are worried that the present judicious mix of child benefit, the new income support and family credit structure may be a less effective way of targeting help than through higher universal child benefit. I shall try briefly to address those three arguments.
      It is important to remind the House of the history, and, as the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) said, of what we are debating. We are debating a 1975 statute and I, as Secretary of State, have a beholden duty to the House and to the country to seek to put it into effect. I shall briefly discuss what it replaces. It has been a constant theme in the debate on child tax allowances and family allowances. It is also critical to remind hon. Members about what we never sought it to be.
      My right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison), whose speeches I always enjoy, indelicately said that child benefit was introduced by Pitt and dropped out for a period during the 19th century. Pitt introduced CTAs in 1799, and they dropped out in 1805, not to reappear again until 1909. Ninety four out of 100 years is more than just a period. My right hon Friend legitimately asked us to go back to the beginning of the debate on child benefit. It is essential to do so. It lies at the back of the puzzlement of the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook). He continues to say that questions have not been answered about the nature and role of it.
      I remind the House of the agreed basis upon which I, as Secretary of State, seek to put the arguments behind the introduction of child benefit. I will quote from the late Alec Jones in the debate in 1975, and I will also quote Mrs. Castle. She made it absolutely clear that the Social Security Act 1975 laid down
      "formal provisions for annual review of benefits paid under that Act and requires uprating of those benefits in line with earnings or prices as appropriate. We do not propose that there should be anything similar for child benefit because it is a totally different kind of benefit, fulfilling a different purpose.
      In the first place it is a new kind of benefit—a hybrid, which amalgamates a social security benefit with a tax allowance. In the second place, most of the people receiving it will be people at work."
      She went on to state:
      "It will be raised from time to time in the light of inflation and other developments. But just as neither family allowances nor child tax allowances are subject to the rigid pattern of upratings that has been evolved for social security benefits nor will their successor benefit be."—[Official Report, 13 May 1975, c. 330–400.]
      The position was made clear. At the conclusion of the debate, after our late hon. Friend, Sir Brandon Rhys Williams sought to intervene, Mrs. Castle went on to say:
      "There is a difference between routine national insurance benefits and this new benefit. Indexation of the child benefit is inappropriate. National insurance benefits are major means of support when earning capacity is interrupted, but the chtld benefit is a tax-free supplement to families whose major

      723
      source of income is earnings. Clearly maintenance benefits must be capable of moving automatically in line with changes in the cost of living. The child benefit is in a different category."—[Official Report, 7 July 1975; Vol. 895, c. 238.] She went on precisely to describe what her statutory duty was, which is the duty that I seek to carry out.
      That is the background to the history of the introduction. What did it replace? My hon. Friend the Member for Broxstowe (Mr. Lester), the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell), my right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury and my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) said that, if it were a tax allowance, it would be inconceivable that it would not be annually increased. That is not what happened in practice. During the longest clear period straddling major parties from 1946 to 1970, child tax allowances went up, not 25 times in 25 years, but five times. Family allowance rose four times. There was no increase between 1963 and 1968. My right hon. and hon. Friends should take more pride in the fact that in eight out of 10 years since 1979 we have increased child benefit. However, no Governments have ever sought to suggest that child benefit reflects the cost of a child.
      I hope that the hon. Member for Livingston will state the Opposition's view on this clearly. The hon. Member for Birkenhead has a consistent and coherent view and he has argued genuinely that child benefit should be much higher than it is now. He repeated his arguments tonight. There is a consistency in his arguments and their inter-relationship with the rest of the relief system. However, I have great difficulty understanding what the hon. Member for Livingston believes.
      7.30 pm
      I want to refer to an excellent interview in "Poverty" magazine which appeared in autumn 1987. In that article the hon. Member for Livingston was asked about the taxation of child benefit. He said:
      "At some future date, it may or may not be appropriate to tax child benefit … there is no case for taxing it until you get to a level which actually matches the cost of a child and we are a long way from that."
      On 18 January, the hon. Member for Livingston said that
      "At a time when it reflects one third of that cost"—
      the cost, he said, of looking after a child—
      "it appears utterly ludicrous to suggest that we lower its value by another quarter."—[Official Report, 18 January 1989; Vol. 145, c. 352.]
      Later in that debate, he changed that from one third to a quarter. We cannot debate different levels in that way. What is the official Opposition's position? If the hon. Member for Birkenhead is voicing the Labour party view or if that view is truly expressed by the hon. Member for Livingston, there will be an additional current expenditure cost of £9 billion to raise child benefit by tripling it and of £13·5 billion to raise it by quadrupling it. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Livingston is interjecting now gently and in an amusing way. I want to remind him that earlier today he said:
      "Child benefit should be a stable constant support for the expense of children."
      The Opposition cannot have it both ways. It is either a supplement based on the history of child benefit which we all recognise or, as the hon. Member for Birkenhead has said, if it is more than a supplement what extra expenditure
      724
      —substantive expenditure as opposed to making indexation permanent—would the hon. Member for Livingston desire?
      My hon. Friends the Members for Lewisham, West (Mr. Maples) and for Norfolk, South-West (Mrs. Shephard), in their excellent speeches, both questioned my statutory duty. I do not have the choice of looking at child benefit in isolation. I must rightly consider the relationship between child benefit and the economic and social patterns in our country. I want to remind the House of what has happened to the average male wage earner. I accept the limitations of considering him, but we have income support systems and family credit for people below the average wage level. The take home pay of the average male wage earner in 1987–88 rose per week by £18·86. To January 1989, the latest clear figures that I have to show the latest comparisons, the average male wage earner's increment has gone up by £20 per week. That is the pattern against which I must judge child benefit among other forms of help and assistance for families with children. I will not belabour the House with the pattern of change over the past 10 years which is equally relevant and would be equally successful.
      Mr. Lester: When my right hon. Friend quotes those increases in net income, should he not also put against that the increase in net mortgage payments? We are really talking about the net disposable income after paying for accommodation rather than net take-home pay.
      Mr. Moore: My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West made those points clearly. I am not suggesting that other features have not occurred. When I try to make judgments, I must take into account the relevant factors as I am statutorily bound to do, as the hon. Member for Birkenhead constantly reminds me.
      Mr. Robin Cook: It is perfectly proper for the Secretary of State to take account of those matters in reaching his decision on whether to uprate child benefit. However, he will be aware that the same figures about growth and take-home pay will be before the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he makes his decision about the married man's tax allowance. Why, over the past two years when he was confronted with those figures, did the Chancellor of the Exchequer think it appropriate to increase the married man's tax allowance, but the Secretary of State for Social Security thought it inappropriate to raise child benefit? Why should it be right to recognise the increased costs of sustaining a wife, but wrong to recognise the increased costs of sustaining a child?
      Mr. Moore: The hon. Gentleman seems not to have listened to what I have been saying for the past five minutes. I have tried to show that it is impossible to compare the nature of child benefit with the whole of the tax and benefits system which is regarded as a fundamental feature of the way in which families should be supported. We must consider the way in which a family has seen its net benefits increase. For example, with a reduction in real terms in the overall tax level, the married man's allowance changes have not had quite the significance that the surface figures might suggest. Beyond that, we must take account of the relevant position of the family—its actual net disposable income. In that respect, I will not just consider average male earnings.

      725
      If we consider those on half average income, it is clear that over the past decade their net take home pay has risen by 25 per cent. That is not a bad comparison with the 4·2 per cent. it rose under Labour. We must compare those huge increases in net disposable income with this debate about a potential 45p increase for those who would benefit from entitlement.
      My next point relates to the character of this debate. Some Opposition Members have sought to focus on an attempt to pervert the truth of the Government's astonishingly successful record in trying to improve the overall position of families with children. My hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) made a valid point about that. He reminded the House—which should not need reminding—of the relevant records over the past decade in comparison with the Labour Government's period of office. We must remember that family support is not simply child benefit.
      The hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham) made an emotional speech and I do not deny that emotion exists in these areas. However, he is trapped in the belief that child benefit is the only support structure for families with children.
      Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I t is for women.
      Mr. Moore: With respect to my hon. Friend, it is not the only benefit which goes to women. The same applies, by statute, to family credit. There is similarly an option with income support.
      We must consider the support structure provided by this Government over the past decade for families with children. There has been a staggering 27·3 per cent. increase in real terms in that respect in comparison with a reduction during the Labour Government's period of office of 7 per cent. The challenge by the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) was wrong. I draw her attention to the precise figures which have already appeared in Hansard. Unfortunately, I do not have the references for them at the moment.
      Mr. Marlow: I am afraid that my right hon. Friend seems to be answering the questions that were put to him by producing a series of statistics which relate to a question which has not been put to him. Perhaps my right hon. Friend can strengthen his position by telling the House how much more generous we are in this country with our support for children than our European partners?
      Mr. Moore: I could, but I was trying to make progress.
      Perhaps I can correct the misapprehension created by the incorrect figures quoted by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sir I. Gilmour). I am sure that he did not mean to create that impression. He quite rightly congratulated us on our help for one-parent families. For a two-parent family with one child aged under two, the United Kingdom stands ahead of every other member state in its child benefit payments. For a two-parent family with two children aged under six, the United Kingdom ranks third behind Belgium and Luxembourg. That is not a bad comparison. Perhaps the hon. Member for Derby, South would like me to pursue that point.
      The relevant figures that I read out in regard to support for families with children are not due to increased unemployment. Neither unemployment benefit, supplementary benefit nor income support for the
      726
      unemployed is included. This is entirely consistent with the definition of "family", in the breakdown of expenditure by client group, that has appeared regularly in public expenditure White Papers over the past eight or nine years. For the benefit of the House, I repeat that that means one-parent benefit, family income supplement, family credit, child benefit or its equivalent, maternity grant and allowance, statutory maternity pay, supplementary benefit and housing benefit for lone parents, and additional personal tax allowance for lone parents. This touches in a very minor way on the elderly, because the figure includes benefits paid to lone parents and to people looking after elderly parents. In the data the two cannot be disaggregated, but the difference is likely to be very small indeed. It does not in any way deny the astonishing contrast in records of support for families with children.
      However, it is astonishing, in detail, that the Opposition, as opposed to my right hon. and hon. Friends, can in any way question the specific in regard to child tax allowances, family allowances and family credit. I remind the House that the real value of child benefit has been higher throughout this Government's period of office than it was at any time during the Labour Administration, except when they increased it in their last month in office. I will not go into too much detail, because it might be quite painful to Opposition Members—[Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman wants me to go into precise detail, I shall be only too delighted to do so.
      I do not know how many Opposition Members who have not been here throughout the debate would like to be reminded of the situation. Clearly, some of them would. Well, I have plenty of time to do so. I might remind them, for example—[Interruption.] I can tell hon. Members who keep interrupting that I have lots more details of their appalling handling of government. For example, during the period 1976–77 to 1977–78, the equivalent of child benefit—family allowance—and in fact the whole of child tax allowances saw not just a reduction, in real terms, of £1.4 billion, but a cash reduction of nearly £300 million. That is the miserable record with which the Labour party thinks that it can challenge the Government.
      Finally, I want to touch on areas that genuinely worry some of my right hon. and hon. Friends, who are concerned that the present mix of child benefit, the new income support system and family credit may be less effective in targeting help than simply increasing child benefit would be. First, I must remind my right hon. and hon. Friends that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West said, we have an entirely new structure. The hon. Member for Livingston, quite understandably, keeps trying to compare child benefit with family credit. In truth, it must be compared with the whole structure of income support and family credit. There, of course, we are talking about 1·4 million families in all, including only those currently in receipt of family credit, with nearly 3 million children. As my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Rowe) said, none of those families benefit, in effect, from any increment in child benefit.
      My right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury rightly asked why we did not use the new structure. That is precisely what has been done, last year and this year. The structure of new child premiums has enabled me, as Secretary of State, to give an additional £270 million to those specific families who have an entitlement but who would not see a direct benefit if I were simply to increase child benefit.

      727
      There was a great deal of debate about targeting. Our experience of targeting is not quite as difficult as right hon. and hon. Members seem to think. They seem to have forgotten the history—and I can give them only the data of the past pattern as opposed to the present position in regard to family credit. The hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) seemed to think that targeting had failed. Our experience is that £9 of every £10 of means-tested benefit reaches those for whom it is intended. As my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West said, the lone parents do not see it as demeaning. Indeed, they take up 97 per cent. of expenditure on their means-tested benefits.
      As I said earlier, family credit goes to the mother. Contrary to what one or two hon. Members have said, all the research suggests that inhibition is caused not by the demeaning nature of means-testing, but by lack of knowledge of the character of family credit. As several right hon. and hon. Members have indicated, we are seeking to improve that knowledge.
      7.45 pm
      The House will be delighted to know that in the first week of the new take-up campaign the number of new claims—not repeat claims—has tripled to over 20,000. That is before we have gone into the major street campaign. I remind the House that in the first year of family credit—unlike the 17 or so years of family income supplement—expenditure take-up is going at 65 per cent. There has been a very sizeable increase, to £422 million, in the amount of money actually being spent on families with children.
      Those who argue that targeting child benefit is an effective way of reaching people must be reminded that, as one or two of my hon. Friends have said, £1 billion of actual child benefit money goes to families earning more than £20,000 a year. We are discussing the current child benefit situation, a situation that continues.
      Bearing in mind the 25 per cent. of families, with 3 million children, on income support and family credit that will benefit in no way at all from an increase in child benefit, one wonders why it is such an excellent illustration of targeting. That does not, of course, take into account the 2·25 million children in families earning £20,000 a year.
      In urging the House to reject the new clause, I ask hon. Members to remember the flexibility that has contributed to the Government's outstanding record of support for families. That is a record that, between 1979 and 1985, has raised the living standards of lone parents by 10 per cent.; of couples with children by 9 per cent.; and, in contrast, of couples without children, and single people without children, by 6 per cent.
      The record is clear. Our economic success allows me to help with a judicious mixture of universal child benefit and targeted help through income support and family credit. Our record suggests that it is in the interests of families that we retain the flexibility in the present statute, and I urge the House to reject the new clauses.
      Mrs. Beckett: Clearly the House is in a mood to bring this most interesting debate to an end, and I shall seek to be extremely brief.
      When child benefit was introduced, it was generally agreed that it was the most fair and effective way not only of giving support to families with children, but of giving
      728
      support particularly to the poorest families with children because it tended to reduce the poverty trap. Indeed, this is the view that prevailed as recently as two years ago and lay behind the assurance given in the Conservative manifesto at the last election. That assurance was given against the background of the existence of family credit, for example, which was already on the statute book, and today child benefit remains what it has always been—one of the most popular benefits, with the highest take-up and the most efficient administration.
      It is far from clear what all its opponents are really saying. Some seem to imply that there should be no form of child support at all, that those who choose to have children should simply maintain them to the full, without any support from society as a whole. Other hon. Members appeared to suggest that that support, where it is paid, should go only to the poorest families.
      The hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Maples) asked why a constituent of his, a single taxpayer, should pay tax to help to fund child benefit. I will give him two reasons. The first is that, because of injustice, the chances are extremely high that that young person benefited from the payment of child benefit, and it is only fair that he should return to the pool what he himself received. The second reason, which may have rather more appeal to the hon. Gentleman than justice, is self interest. If we do not encourage people to have children and give them a reasonable degree of financial and other support, there will be no one to pay for that young woman's pension when she retires, because that is how our social security system works.
      If the Government believe that there should be no form of child support, with due deference to my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) and remarks about the present duty on the Secretary of State, they have a duty to tell us that as soon as possible so that the parents of 12 million children know precisely where they stand. It is only right to put on record our belief that that signal would be as profound as it would be depressing. Moreover, it would be a signal not just of indifference but almost of hostility towards families.
      The general approach has been that support should come, but only to the poorest. I remind Conservative Members who advocated that view what that might mean. As usual, they talked only of wealthy families who now receive child benefit and as if a means-tested system would be a reasonably generous one. Under the means-tested system of family credit, all help with rent or rate rebate is withdrawn at a gross income of £90 a week. If that model were to be followed for child benefit, no child support would be paid to any family with an income of more than £5,000 a year. That would be targeting all right. That would be means testing, but it would be means testing in the mould of that already followed by the Government.
      The hon. Member for Lewisham, West said that benefit should be withdrawn at £9,000 or perhaps £10,000. If that is the policy of his party, let it be known, published and publicised as soon as possible. Let every family with an income of over £9,000 a year know that it will cease to receive any form of child support.
      If child benefit were abolished and the money saved were put to fund a cut in the rate of tax, no two-child family with an income of less than £28,000 would be better off. That is the scale of the assistance which hon. Members seek to withdraw from families.

      729
      Hon. Gentlemen who argue for a means-tested benefit should look not only at those examples, but more widely at their Government's approach to the social security system. They should consider how the child addition to unemployment benefit was first frozen and then, when it declined in value, abolished; and how the number of those allowed free meals has declined—not those who need them but those who are permitted to take them.
      There has never been an answer, not even in this debate, to the question, put over and over again, why the Government put into action policies which recognise the increase in the cost of maintaining a wife, yet apparently see a decrease in the cost of maintaining a child.
      Most of all, hon. Gentlemen who argue that child benefit should be means tested should have learnt from the examples of this year. The money saved by freezing child benefit did not, even on the most generous interpretation—the Government's own—go to families in greatest need. A third of it went to families who were least well off and the rest went into the Treasury's coffers, despite the fact that those on the lowest incomes, whether on income support or family credit, are still worse off from the Government's net changes to the social security system. The call for a means-tested child benefit is a call for a mean child benefit indeed.
      One other possibility that has been mentioned is the return of the child tax allowance. I pay deference to my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead and to the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow), who appeared reluctantly drawn in this direction because of Government policy on child benefit. I cannot support a proposal which means that those who pay no tax get no benefit and help with the costs of raising a child or a proposal that, instead of giving the same to the Duchess of Westminster as every other mother, gives her substantially more. That proposition should not commend itself to the House.
      Many in this House and outside it fear that the true source of the hostility to child benefit is the wish to see a cut in public expenditure. That may be unfair to Tory Members who support the Government on this matter and genuinely believe, however mistakenly, that they are supporting a policy to give help to those in most need. Even if that is hope triumphing over experience, hon. Gentlemen for whom that is genuinely the cause of their approach should look at the weight of the argument and the experience which goes against their belief. If they cannot vote with us tonight, they should at least abstain. If they are honest in their concern for children, particularly for children in the poorest families, and if they do not vote with us tonight, they will live to regret it; but the children will regret it most of all.
      I believe that it would be for the convenience of the House if I were to withdraw new clause I so that we might vote on new clause 2. I shall ask leave to withdraw new clause 1.
      Mr. Raison: With the leave of the House, may I say that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services has spoken with his usual courtesy. I do not believe that he has convinced those who have listened carefully that it can possibly make sense for the Government to allow child benefit and support for children to fade away at the same time as they continue with tax relief for earning pensioners, on mortgages and various forms of income tax, and now tax relief for those
      730
      over 60 who take out private health insurance—all on a completely universal, indiscriminate, non-targeted basis. Therefore, I urge the House to support new clause 2.
      Mrs. Beckett: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    New Clause 2

      SOCIAL SECURITY ACT 1986
      `In section 63(3) of the Social Security Act 1986 for "(c) or (d) above" there shall be substituted "(c), (d) or, in any Order having effect on or after 1st April 1990, (f), (child benefit), above".'—[Mr. Raison.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 194, Noes 294.

      Division No. 171]

      [7.56 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

      Anderson, Donald

      Faulds, Andrew

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Fearn, Ronald

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

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

      Ashton, Joe

      Flannery, Martin

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Flynn, Paul

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

      Foster, Derek

      Barron, Kevin

      Foulkes, George

      Battle, John

      Fraser, John

      Beckett, Margaret

      Fyfe, Maria

      Beith, A. J.

      Galbraith, Sam

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Galloway, George

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

      Garrett, John (Norwich South)

      Benyon, W.

      Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Gordon, Mildred

      Blair, Tony

      Graham, Thomas

      Blunkett, David

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Boyes, Roland

      Grocott, Bruce

      Bradley, Keith

      Hardy, Peter

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

      Haynes, Frank

      Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

      Healey, Rt Hon Denis

      Buchan, Norman

      Henderson, Doug

      Buckley, George J.

      Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

      Callaghan, Jim

      Hinchliffe, David

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

      Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

      Holland, Stuart

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      Home Robertson, John

      Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

      Hood, Jimmy

      Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

      Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Hoyle, Doug

      Cohen, Harry

      Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

      Cook, Robin (Livingston)

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Corbett, Robin

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

      Critchley, Julian

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Crowther, Stan

      Illsley, Eric

      Cryer, Bob

      Ingram, Adam

      Cummings, John

      Janner, Greville

      Cunningham, Dr John

      Johnston, Sir Russell

      Dalyell, Tam

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Darling, Alistair

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Kennedy, Charles

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

      Kilfedder, James

      Dixon, Don

      Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

      Dobson, Frank

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Doran, Frank

      Knox, David

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Lamond, James

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

      Leighton, Ron

      Dykes, Hugh

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Eadie, Alexander

      Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

      731

      Lewis, Terry

      Reid, Dr John

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Richardson, Jo

      Loyden, Eddie

      Robertson, George

      McAllion, John

      Robinson, Geoffrey

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Rogers, Allan

      McCrindle, Robert

      Rooker, Jeff

      Macdonald, Calum A.

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

      Ruddock, Joan

      McKelvey, William

      Sedgemore, Brian

      McLeish, Henry

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Maclennan, Robert

      Sheerman, Barry

      Madden, Max

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Madel, David

      Skinner, Dennis

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Marek, Dr John

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

      Marlow, Tony

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Snape, Peter

      Martlew, Eric

      Soley, Clive

      Maxton, John

      Spearing, Nigel

      Meale, Alan

      Squire, Robin

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Strang, Gavin

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

      Straw, Jack

      Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

      Morley, Elliott

      Wall, Pat

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

      Wallace, James

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Walters, Sir Dennis

      Murphy, Paul

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Nellist, Dave

      Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Wigley, Dafydd

      O'Brien, William

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan

      Parry, Robert

      Wilson, Brian

      Patchett, Terry

      Winnick, David

      Pendry, Tom

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Pike, Peter L.

      Wray, Jimmy

      Radice, Giles

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Randall, Stuart

      Rathbone, Tim

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Redmond, Martin

      Mrs. Llin Golding and

      Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

      Mr. Ray Powell.

      NOES

      Adley, Robert

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

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Browne, John (Winchester)

      Alexander, Richard

      Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Allason, Rupert

      Burns, Simon

      Amery, Rt Hon Julian

      Burt, Alistair

      Amess, David

      Butcher, John

      Amos, Alan

      Butler, Chris

      Arbuthnot, James

      Butterfill, John

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

      Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Ashby, David

      Carrington, Matthew

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Carttiss, Michael

      Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

      Cash, William

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Batiste, Spencer

      Chapman, Sydney

      Bellingham, Henry

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

      Bendall, Vivian

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

      Bitten, Rt Hon John

      Colvin, Michael

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Conway, Derek

      Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

      Body, Sir Richard

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Cope, Rt Hon John

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Couchman, James

      Boswell, Tim

      Cran, James

      Bottomley, Peter

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

      Curry, David

      Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

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

      Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Day, Stephen

      Brazier, Julian

      Devlin, Tim

      Bright, Graham

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Dicks, Terry

      732

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Latham, Michael

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Dover, Den

      Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

      Dunn, Bob

      Lee, John (Pendle)

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

      Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

      Evennett, David

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Fallon, Michael

      Lightbown, David

      Favell, Tony

      Lilley, Peter

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

      Lord, Michael

      Fishburn, John Dudley

      Luce, Rt Hon Richard

      Forman, Nigel

      Lyell, Sir Nicholas

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

      Forth, Eric

      Maclean, David

      Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Fox, Sir Marcus

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

      Franks, Cecil

      McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

      Freeman, Roger

      Major, Rt Hon John

      French, Douglas

      Malins, Humfrey

      Fry, Peter

      Mans, Keith

      Gale, Roger

      Maples, John

      Gill, Christopher

      Marland, Paul

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Maude, Hon Francis

      Gorst, John

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Gow, Ian

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

      Mellor, David

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Miller. Sir Hal

      Gregory, Conal

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Grist, Ian

      Mitchell, Sir David

      Ground, Patrick

      Moate, Roger

      Grylls, Michael

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Hague, William

      Moore, Rt Hon John

      Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

      Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Moss, Malcolm

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Moynihan, Hon Colin

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Mudd, David

      Hannam,John

      Neale, Gerrard

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

      Needham, Richard

      Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

      Nelson, Anthony

      Harris, David

      Neubert, Michael

      Hawkins, Christopher

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Hayes, Jerry

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Hayward, Robert

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Heddle, John

      Norris, Steve

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

      Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Page, Richard

      Hill, James

      Paice, James

      Hind, Kenneth

      Patnick, Irvine

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

      Patten, Chris (Bath)

      Holt, Richard

      Patten, John (Oxford W)

      Hordern, Sir Peter

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Howard, Michael

      Pawsey, James

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

      Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

      Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

      Portillo, Michael

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Hunt, David (Wirral W)

      Price, Sir David

      Hunter, Andrew

      Raffan, Keith

      Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

      Redwood, John

      Irvine, Michael

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Jack, Michael

      Riddick, Graham

      Janman, Tim

      Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

      Ridsdale, Sir Julian

      Key, Robert

      Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

      King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

      Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Knapman, Roger

      Rossi, Sir Hugh

      Knight, Greg (Derby North)

      Rost, Peter

      Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

      Rowe, Andrew

      Knowles, Michael

      Rumbold, Mrs Angela

      Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

      Ryder, Richard

      Lang, Ian

      Sackville, Hon Tom

      733

      Sainsbury, Hon Tim

      Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

      Scott, Nicholas

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Thornton, Malcolm

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Thurnham, Peter

      Shelton, Sir William

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

      Tracey, Richard

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Tredinnick, David

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      Trippier, David

      Shersby, Michael

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Sims, Roger

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Viggers, Peter

      Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

      Waddington, Rt Hon David

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Wakeham, Rt Hon John

      Soames, Hon Nicholas

      Waldegrave, Hon William

      Speed, Keith

      Walden, George

      Speller, Tony

      Walker, Bill (T'side North)

      Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

      Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Waller, Gary

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Ward, John

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Steen, Anthony

      Warren, Kenneth

      Stern, Michael

      Watts, John

      Stevens, Lewis

      Wheeler, John

      Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

      Whitney, Ray

      Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

      Wilshire, David

      Stokes, Sir John

      Wolfson, Mark

      Stradling Thomas, Sir John

      Wood, Timothy

      Sumberg, David

      Woodcock, Mike

      Summerson, Hugo

      Yeo, Tim

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

      Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones and

      Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

      Mr. Tony Durant.

      Question accordingly negatived.

    New Clause 5

      INCOME SUPPORT TRANSITIONAL ADDITIONS
      'In regulation 14 (A) of the Income Support (Transitional) Regulations 1987, after the word "claimant" there shall be inserted the words "or an up-rating order under section 63 of the Social Security Act 1986 comes into force".'.—[Mrs. Beckett.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, That the clause be read a Second time.—[Mrs. Beckett.]
      Mr. Robin Cook: A fortnight ago the House debated a motion on a Labour Supply day calling for the uprating of all claimants' benefits. That motion was specifically addressed to those people who, this April, found that they had not an extra penny in their benefit of whom there were 570,000 pensioners and other claimants. The reason why they found that they did not get an extra penny in their pension or their benefit was that they were locked into the politely termed "transitional protection", which might be more accurately described as a deep freeze.
      A fortnight ago I attempted to get the House to agree to extend the uprating to embrace those 570,000 people. I failed and tonight I do not propose to reopen the case for uprating benefits for all 570,000 people in the current year. I want to address the mind of the House to next year's uprating. Virtually none of those 570,000 will get the full uprating next year either. All of them will find that next year's uprating, whatever it might be, will be reduced by the amount that they currently receive in transitional protection. A number will receive nothing in next's year's uprating, again because their transitional protection will exceed the total amount of next year's uprating. We have an idea about how many of such people there might be. In March the Government replied to a parliamentary question in which they put the number of people in that
      734
      group at 140,000. That slightly understates the number who, next April, will receive nothing, because that 140,000 is measured at the mid-point of the year. At the beginning of the year there will be rather more. It might be helpful if the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State could tell the House how many there will be in April who will not receive a penny in next year's uprating.
      Even though the figure affected turned out to he only 140,000, that is bad enough. We are talking about a large population who will not have received any increase in 1988, who have received no increase in 1989 and who are, under the existing rules, fated to receive no increase next year.
      For some of those affected the story does not stop next year. Some who are receiving rather more than £2 or £3 in transitional protection can expect to get no increase for years to come. I have received a letter from a pensioner from Christchurch who now knows that he will not receive an increase in uprating until 1992. As he says:
      "Like many others I am below the breadline and yet I face even worse conditions".
      What makes that letter particularly moving is that that pensioner is 81. It must be an open question whether he will live to claim any increase in his benefits. I received a letter from a disabled woman in Putney who has worked out that she does not qualify for any uprating at present rates of inflation until 1994—four years from now. She says in her letter:
      "This just about finishes me."
      She is registered disabled, but, by definition, all those 140,000 people experience some form of disability arid some form of chronic sickness. They are among the most vulnerable and the most frail people in Britain. After all, that is why they got the extra allowances that were abolished last year. Those allowances were to help them with the extra cost of laundry if they were incontinent, to help them with the extra cost of diet if they had special health needs for a particular diet or to help them with the extra cost of bathing if they required daily bathing. Such people are still disabled, they are still chronically sick arid they still have the same health needs, but they are no longer able to afford to do anything to meet those needs.
      So far the defence of the Government—the Parliamentary Under-Secretary has boldly and trenchantly made that defence on other occasions—is that to extend uprating to such people would be unfair to other claimants in identical circumstances who have claimed since April and who never got the allowances—therefore they never had the allowances to lose—and who are even worse off than those whose benefit was frozen last April. I concede that point to the Minister before he makes it. It is true that people who have come on to benefit since last April are getting even less than the people to whom I have referred. I am surprised, however, that Ministers are anxious to draw that to the attention of the House because what they are drawing attention to is how much lower benefits are as a result of the April cuts and how badly disabled people fare under the new system of benefits.
      8.15 pm
      There is one reason why I believe that the Government should distinguish in favour of claimants who were on benefit before last April and have found their benefit frozen since. The longer one has to subsist on social security income, the deeper one is likely to find oneself in poverty. By definition, all those who find themselves on transitional protection will have been on benefit for a

      735
      minimum of three years by next April—most of them for much longer. God knows, the real value of their benefit was little enough in April 1987, the last time they received any uprating. By next April their benefit will have been cut by one fifth in real terms. In the past two years it has already been cut by 12 per cent. It must be difficult for any of us in the House, necessarily and by definition receiving reasonably comfortable salaries, to imagine what a 12 per cent. or 20 per cent. cut means to people living at the margins of existence.
      A single person on transitional protection—no increase this year and no increase next year—could be on an income of just under £50 a week. Where is there room for a cut of one fifth in real terms in that standard of living? Which of us gathered in this Chamber tonight could manage to achieve a cut of a fifth in such an income? Leaving aside the hardship that such a cut causes and the risks and the danger to the health of frail and disabled people, there is an appalling mental stress from having constantly to juggle to balance the budget.
      I have with me a long letter from a lady from Lancashire, a pensioner, who has sought to express to me what life is like living on the fixed income on which she and her husband must subsist. That income has now not increased for two years. She says:
      "It is a day and night worry you cannot escape. You are isolated with it. It dominates your life. Nothing else matters (apart from other people's tragedies). If you wake in the night, it is your first thought and you cannot go back to sleep. I often have to get up at 4 am and 5 am as I cannot stay in bed. I have never told anyone this before … I have to try to keep my invalid husband happy, but I cannot keep such problems from him".
      It is not just the financial hardship and not just the difficulty of making ends meet; it is the humiliation that accompanies the daily struggle of trying to make the budget stretch through the day that is so difficult.
      The last of the letters to which I shall refer is from Abingdon, Oxfordshire. Many of the letters that I have received come from Conservative-held constituencies. This is not a problem that affects merely Labour constituencies; it also affects the constituents of Conservative Members. It is a matter of regret that, given the importance of this debate, there are so few Conservative Members present to represent their constituents who are so affected. The letter from Abingdon states:
      "this morning I have received through the post a demand for my electric bill or I will be cut off … I just cannot pay it out of the £26 I have left each week, I still have the water and the sewerage to come. I just cannot take any more. I have been up to the dustbins at Gateways and found half a pound of butter dated for 10 April"—
      two days before the letter was sent to me—
      "and one or two rashers which will be my dinner today. Most days I can find six eggs if I am willing to get in the skip."
      That is the reality of life on the breadline for a pensioner who finds that her pension is not only modest and meagre but has been cut, in real terms, since April 1987. Some pensioners will receive an increase of £2·50 by October. I welcome the fact that the Government will provide that increase to those on transitional protection. However, lest the Minister raise that matter in defence of the Government, I point out that the two letters to which I have referred are from pensioners much younger than 75
      736
      who will receive no extra help in October but will be stuck on a level of benefit that is not only meagre but is declining and will continue to decline as inflation rises.
      Last Wednesday night, at a single sitting, I read more than 100 such letters that had been preserved for me by my office. I confess that I had not intended to read all of them and that I had prepared a standard reply, as that seemed the only way to deal with the large volume of letters I had received from pensioners since the publicity a fortnight ago about the forthcoming debate. However, having started reading, I found I could not stop and I read every single one of those 100 letters. By the time I had finished, I was left not in a state of anger at the situation but feeling deeply humble at the poverty that those who had written to me had to cope with. I also felt humbled by my inability, given the present majorities in this Parliament, to do anything material to assist them in their poverty. Many of them described heroic sacrifices that they had made in their lives. I particularly recall a letter from one widow who had nursed her disabled bed-ridden husband for 28 years. For the past 16 years he could not even speak. The reward she has received from society for that immense personal sacrifice and dedication is to be left with a frozen pension on which, she wrote to me, she was unable to afford cereals.
      What comes from all those letters is a sense of bewilderment. People are bewildered as to how they can cope on a declining pension. They are also bewildered at how any Government or Minister with knowledge of their circumstances could choose to deny benefits to them. The letters are marked, too, by a bleak despair felt by those correspondents who now realise that next year, too, there will be no relief for them.
      Let me acquit the present Ministers and the Department of Social Security of the responsibility for inventing the rules of transitional protection. They did not invent the rules—they inherited them from their predecessors, who were sensible enough to make good their escape before the reality hit the claimants. I do not blame the present generation of Ministers for the problem, but I will blame them if they do not act now to remedy the problem with which they must be as familiar as I am, because many of the letters I read last Wednesday were copies of letters addressed to the Secretary of State and the Minister of State. Therefore, it is for them, knowing the problem and the desperate extent of the poverty, to start tonight by giving these pensioners an assurance that their pensions will keep pace with inflation. They should tell the House that they accept the compelling evidence of poverty among those whose benefits were frozen last year and that, next year, the Government will do them the elementary justice of bringing them in from the cold.
      Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I support the amendment for basically the same reasons put forward by the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) in a measured speech that will repay careful study. The situation regarding pensioners is now fairly untenable. I have said before in this place that those of us who served on the 1986 Standing Committee that dealt with the legislation with which, essentially, we are now dealing—the Social Security Act 1986—predicted that the present situation would come about and that this House would have to return to debating the difficulties brought about by the 1986 Act. It is unreasonable to expect people who are affected by the withdrawal of transitional protection to

      737
      suffer an increase in costs of 12 per cent. this year, adding up to 20 per cent. next year, if they do not also enjoy a cash benefit increase in the uprating in April 1990.
      The disabled are particularly badly hit. 1, too, receive letters, probably the same copy letters as referred to by the hon. Member for Livingston; letters addressed primarily to the Secretary of State and the Department. I suppose that as the Parliamentary Under-Secretary is the most junior Minister in the Social Security team, these letters are pushed to him to read. I do not want to suggest that the Minister of State or the Secretary of State are uncaring, but I presume that they have other things to do and that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary picks up all the time consuming jobs, amongst which must be the reading of some of these letters.
      Ministers may be too busy to read some of these letters themselves. When did the Parliamentary Under-Secretary last take some time—an hour or so would be enough—to get the flavour of these letters, as reported by the hon. Member for Livingston? I know that Ministers have little spare time, but I would like the Parliamentary Under-Secretary to say when he was last able to find the time specifically to read some of the letters and to see what is being said about the financial hardships being occasioned by the withdrawal of transitional protection? Anyone who reads the letters cannot help but be moved.
      The letters come from constituencies represented by sitting Conservative Members. They are pleas from the heart from genuine people, not from rabble-rousers or troublemakers. The information in the letters shows that the writers are deeply hurt and aggrieved. The level of morale and the psychological state exhibited by the writers of the letters shows that they feel that life is no longer worth living.
      Mr. Tony Banks: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising this point, because I would like an answer, too. As my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) made clear, these letters are also written to Conservative Members, and I would like to know why they do not appear to move those hon. Members. I remember that last week we had a debate on an SDP motion on the Health Service. The British Broadcasting Corporation's "Yesterday in Parliament" programme said that only one Labour Member of Parliament was present. In that case there was merely a debate taking place, whereas tonight we can actually vote, but how many Tony Members are present? The Minister, the Parliamentary Private Secretary and the Whip are here. Why are the Tory Members not moved by the experiences to which I have referred? I hope that the Tory Members, when they come back from the restaurants or wherever else they have gone, will be asked why they are not moved by the letters they must be receiving.
      Mr. Kirkwood: What the hon. Gentleman has said illustrates and develops my point. I do Conservative Members the justice of saying that I believe that they probably ask for official ministerial replies on this subject. I get official ministerial replies as well. The civil servants put a slant on these matters, and this may be a trap into which the Parliamentary Under-Secretary is prone to fall as well. Prima facie, such replies can be fairly plausible, because they do not actually look at the question raised and because of the tone in which they are given. Therefore, even if Conservative Members are getting the Department
      738
      to respond to constituents, hon. Members are not looking behind what the ministerial replies are saying. A matching of the original requests with the replies from the Department shows that they are miles apart.
      Compared with the circumstances of the claimants who write these letters, the Department is living in the financial stratosphere. The word-processed replies to these letters are glib and plausible to anybody who gives them a cursory glance but, when looked at in detail and against the background of the personal suffering shown by those who write in, they are completely inadequate. I am left humbled and frustrated, and feel completely helpless in dealing with the cases of constituents and others who complain about transitional protection.
      8.30 pm
      The Government cannot go on in this way because the problem will become more acute. The number of claimants may decrease as transitional protection fades away, but the problem for those caught in the trap will become worse and worse. For the foreseeable future, and at least for the rest of this Parliament, we shall return to this issue year in and year out. If the Government think that they can face down these representations, the Under-Secretary has a harder heart than I had credited him with.
      The Government do not have huge sums of money, but help could be given in different ways. During the time between now and the Autumn Statement, when the upratings for next year will be made, will the Minister settle down and read some of these letters himself and cause some empirical research to be carried out into this subject? He has time and could get some experts to look at the suffering and hardship that this is causing. If he did that, it would become clear that there are ways to alleviate this problem, and they should be adopted.
      As a direct result of studying the representations that have come from my constituency, I believe that the Under-Secretary has a moral duty, if not a legal duty, to take time now to advise people who are likely to lose, in cash terms, next April that transitional protection and the cash increase.
      One of the most heartbreaking things this year is that people did not see this happening. I am not surprised by that, because even those who study these matters find them technically difficult to comprehend. Disabled people and others who have suffered this year, who did not expect to have to forgo a cash increase, must have found the problem even worse. Their budgets are carefully calculated under the established social security upratings system and in many cases they report to me that they did not expect to suffer this, to them, swingeing loss. Some do not know whether it will happen again next year. What, if anything, are the Government doing to prepare those who may be in that situation this year and, to a greater or lesser extent, next year? The Government have a duty to do something.
      I have less to complain about than other hon. Members, who did not serve on the Committee examining the Social Security Act 1986. I underscore and support wholeheartedly the approach that the hon. Member for Livingston took. I do not complain as stridently as some other Opposition Members about social security issues or indulge in the trench warfare that sometimes breaks out. However, I can say to the Under-Secretary, hand on heart, that I think that this is a duff deal—unfair and unjust. In the next 12 months, something must be done to prevent such terrible cases happening again.
      Mr. David Winnick: The new clause, so ably moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), deals with the poorest pensioners—those who count every penny and who live a life of poverty that should concern us all. I take the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) in his intervention in the speech of the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood). Across the Chamber on the Government Benches I can see only the junior Minister, the duty Whip, and the Minister's Parliamentary Private Secretary. There is no other Tory in the Chamber.
      Mr. Michael Foot: There should be a senior Minister.
      Mr. Winnick: My right hon. Friend is right. The Government are responsible for this legislation and in half an hour or less Tory Members will be voting in their hundreds for the Government's case.
      I have received a number of letters from my constituents and I shall read out one or two of them, although I shall not identify the people concerned. One lady wrote:
      "I have had a reduction in my money. I am a widow living alone with no other income at all. I am 68 years old and have some difficulty in getting about, so, as you will understand, Sir I am in no position to relieve the situation myself."
      She has received no increase in income. I took the matter up with the local DSS office. Like every other DSS office, it is bound of course by Government regulations. The manager said:
      "I realise that this will be a disappointing reply, but I hope that it explains the reasons behind the decision not to increase her benefit."
      In all these cases, like other hon. Members, I take the matter up either locally or nationally. I think it only right and proper that I do so, although I have no illusions that my intervention in such cases can help to improve the situation locally. These are the rules, and the rules are decided by the Government.
      Another constituent, a lady, wrote to me:
      "Last year, I was given a transitional allowance, bringing my pension to £47·86 with my late husband's and my own credits. I had a letter from the DHSS saying my extra money had to go down, and when I received my new book and look up the sum I was going to be paid"—
      she found that she was to receive the same £47·86 that she had received before. She goes on:
      "Why are they allowed to do this? Food is going up all the time. I have to watch what I eat—no red meat, no other extras. There arc a lot of things I can't have because of my low income."
      I make no apology for reading these letters. As Members of Parliament, our responsibility is to reflect here on the Floor of the House, not just through correspondence, the hardship and deprivation suffered by our constituents, the elderly among them.
      Another letter, this time from a male pensioner, says:
      "I am 75 years of age. I have been on income support. I get a bit extra as a result of a work pension. There was about £3 a week. It was just over the limit. I live in my home and they have now stopped everything for me, apart from the pension."
      He has a stomach difficulty and worse. He continues:
      "I have been down to the DSS and they have stopped all my allowances. I do not know how long I am going to carry on."
      As the House will understand, in some cases constituents do not always write the most coherent letters, but they certainly make the valid points that we must and do understand.
      740
      I received a reply from the local DSS office, which explained to me that everything was in order and that these are the Government's regulations. The manager says that he is sorry, and I am sure that he is genuinely sorry. However, he has no alternative. He says:
      "In connection with your constituent being diabetic"—
      the Minister should listen carefully to this—
      "you are probably aware that under the income support there are no additions for special circumstances and therefore no extra benefit can be paid."
      That is one constituent who has certainly suffered as a result of the change from supplementary benefit to income support.
      I have another letter which runs:
      "Our joint pensions have increased to £72·02 from £71·79 making a grand total of 23p increase … The rates have increased 49p this week making a shortfall of 26p and as you know the MEB have increased charges 9 per cent. However, I have lost my income support grant."
      Perhaps the Minister will be interested in another sentence in the same letter which reads:
      "Is this the thanks that we pensioners are receiving after the sacrifices made during the 1939–45 conflict? If this is so, thank this corrupt Government will you please?"
      The constituent then writes that he hopes to see me at my surgery this coming Saturday.
      That illustrates how pensioners who have written to me have expressed their deep concern about the way in which they have been treated. We have all said that if one person is wronged, that is a matter of concern to the House. I understand, however, that there are at least 800 cases in my constituency alone and the same is likely to be true all over the country.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Livingston said that some people in Conservative-held constituencies have written to him. Tory Members are not here now, but have they written to the Minister? It might be said that they do not want to embarrass the Government. That is hardly a justification. If my party were in office and treating pensioners like this, I would be making the same kind of speech here and at the party meetings upstairs—
      Mr. Robin Cook: And I would be resigning.
      Mr. Winnick: The Minister smiles. Perhaps he does not believe me, but I can assure him that we would not be Labour politicians if we would not take our own Government to task if we disagreed with them on such matters as this.
      I doubt whether, when constituents write to Tory Members on these issues, much representation is made on their behalf. If there is, what impact does it have on the Secretary of State and the Cabinet? I do not blame the junior Minister, although that is easy, as, in some respects, he is no more responsible than I am except that it might be said that he could resign. The decisions are made by the Cabinet. He carries out his duties as a Minister—he does not consider it appropriate to resign. That is a matter for him. I do not blame him—I blame the Cabinet.
      People who claim transitional protection in regard to housing benefit have lost out too. Those who have applied to the Glasgow unit of the DSS have already lost £2 a week this month. No doubt another £2 or more will be taken next year, until the transitional benefit is phased out.
      The retirement pension has not been increased as it should have been. That makes the case even worse. If retirement pensions had been increased in line with earnings, as was the case under Labour, the Library informs me that a retired married couple would now be

      741
      £17·55 a week better off, and a single pensioner would be £11·10 better off. That is money that they have been cheated of as a result of the Government's decision in 1979–80 to increase pensions only in line with prices.
      8.45 pm
      My constituents ask about electricity, gas and water charges. It is interesting to note that the retail prices index has increased by 110 per cent. since the Government have been in office. It could be argued that that is not a great victory in the battle against inflation. The price of gas has increased by 146 per cent., electricity has increased by 123 per cent. and water charges have gone up by 183 per cent. in the past 10 years.
      Pensioners, including the poorest, have got to pay for gas, electricity and water out of a pittance. As a result of what has happened some pensioners have received no increase, or a pittance—23p just as I have pointed out. What are they to do about gas, electricity and water charges? What are they to do about food, the price of which constantly goes up? That is the background to new clause 5.
      I understand that Tory Members have been asked to give £10 to celebrate the Prime Minister's being in office for 10 years. I do not know whether there is a three-line Whip on it. It is thought that the money will buy an appropriate present for the Prime Minister, who will have been in No. 10 for 10 years on 3 May.
      Mr. Tony Banks: Can we get together a scheme to give £20 if she will go?
      Mr. Winnick: My hon. Friend will be seconded with great enthusiasm by the entire parliamentary Labour party.
      What are the feelings of pensioners, such as the four whose letters I have quoted, about the past 10 years? They are in a far worse position than they would have been. They live in conditions which no retired person should endure in an advanced industrial society. They have to suffer the misery and humiliation of poverty. They are unlikely to agree that the Prime Minister's 10th anniversary in office should occasion celebration.
      Nothing can be done about this year, but the damage could be limited if new clause 5 were accepted. We all know what will happen to new clause 5. If there was any justice or any feeling of fairness, the Government would ensure that the poorest pensioners never again had no increase, or just a pittance. The new clause reflects the feeling of pensioners who are adversely affected and the large majority of people who, however they vote, know that it is wrong and unjust to penalise and harm pensioners as the Government are.
      Mr. Tony Banks: I support new clause 5. Like others, I feel frustration and disbelief when Ministers and Conservative Members allow circumstances such as these to develop and to continue once they know they exist.
      I hold my advice surgery every Friday and I am invariably left on Friday evenings with a feeling of wonderment that people can exist from day to day. Of course, we may see the most extreme cases. We do not see the generality, but it is those extreme cases who should concern us most. They exist in some number. We do not whip ourselves up into some synthetic anger on this issue. We do not delude ourselves. This is not propaganda which
      742
      has been dreamed up to embarrass the Government. These are real cases involving real people. It is the reality of everyday life in the London borough of Newham.
      Many hon. Members are not here tonight. Many are having good dinners. I do riot begrudge anybody a good dinner. What I resent is the fact that people who are having such good dinners will come in and use their votes to deny good dinners to others.
      I am not trying to score cheap party political points by pointing out how few Conservative Members are present. There should be more Opposition Members present, but we can point the finger at the Government because they take the decisions. Conservative Members are responsible for the situation in our constituencies and they allow it to persist. That is why we have the right to point the finger at the Conservative Benches and ask "Where are they? Why are they not here to defend their own constituencies?" If they disagree with us, think that we are alarmist, misleading the House or making it up, or if they can say, "On the contrary, in my constituency everyone is absolutely delighted with the new benefit regime and no one is any the worse off under the new system"—if they can put their hands up and say that that is an honest statement of the truth we shall listen to them. But they are not here. Perhaps many of them are absent because they do not want to hear the facts. They want to keep their consciences clear and do not want to hear about the realities of life for so many millions of our fellow citizens in Britain today. That is why I have drawn attention to the absence of Conservative Members.
      I know that the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security is a decent man, and that perplexes me. He cordially received me and some people from the actors' union Equity so that we could explain a particular problem that actors are experiencing because of the change in the legislation and he courteously listened to what we had to say. I have no animus against the Minister, but I want to know whether he reads letters from individuals, and whether those letters touch his heart. They certainly touch our hearts, but the difference between us and the Government for the time being is that the Government can do something about it. All we can do is fulminate and say to the Government, "Surely you must realise how much suffering you are causing", and ask Ministers and Conservative Members to do something about it.
      I feel that I am speaking in great hope but with no real expectation. When the Division is called, they will all come back from the bars, the dinners they are being bought outside, or the dinners that they are buying here and they will vote without knowing or being interested in what the arguments were, and the suffering in my constituency and in constituencies represented by Labour and Conservative Members will continue. Unlike the Conservative party, the Opposition are at least prepared to do something about it.
      Mr. Battle: The contrast between the debate on new clause 5 and the previous debate is the absence of Conservative Members who are prepared to tell us how wealthy everyone is in Britain. It may be that they do not wish to hear the other side, but during the debate about child benefit they were keen to defend the tax cuts and the illusion that everyone on benefit was well protected. But that is not the reality.
      One element that has been neglected in the debate is the time gap—the fact that the upratings are worked out in the Autumn Statement and the pension levels are set months

      743
      ahead of the March Budget statement when the taxes are changed. There is a six-month lag, so this year the benefits were uprated taking into account the rate of inflation of the previous October—5·9 per cent. When the pensioners receive the money from this April, inflation is 7·9 per cent., so pensioners lose out from the first week simply because of the inflation figure. If anyone feels that that is not important, they should remember that it means that a single pensioner loses 43p a week and a pensioner couple lose 71p a week. As my hon. Friends have reminded the House, I am sure that we are all aware that people on very low incomes keep account of every penny because they have to make ends meet. Because they have to pay the price for the cuts, they can certainly do the arithmetic. They know that their income is reducing because when they go to the shops they cannot get what they could get the previous week, and that should be taken into account before Conservative Members simply suggest that the average figure should be used to work out incomes and everyone is doing fine under the benefit system.
      As was made clear in the reply to a parliamentary question that I tabled, had pensions been increased every year in line with earnings, as was done before the present Government came to office, a single pensioner would receive £49·30 a week and a pensioner couple would receive £79 a week. Before this year's uprating, pensioners had already suffered two hidden losses. After the uprating a single pensioner receives £43·60, yet it is interesting to compare that figure with what the Government consider pensioners should receive, as expressed in the income support applicable amounts—£48·60, or £5 more than the basic pension. In other words, in their calculation of benefit figures, the Government accept that the pension is underpaid.
      One million pensioners live below the poverty line, a further 2 million live at the minimum level of income support and a further 3 million live only 40 per cent. above that minimum level. A total of some 6 million pensioners—three fifths of all British pensioners—live on or near the margins of poverty. It is no wonder that many pensioners are now writing to Members of Parliament and demanding a fair deal.
      If Conservative Members are convinced that we are drawing attention to hard cases that do not bear any relation to the structure of the benefits system, will the Minister spell out how many pensioners living on or below the poverty line would benefit from an uprating in line with inflation? I do not apologise for citing a case. A pensioner in my constituency—I shall refer to her as Mrs. J—receives a total weekly income of £51·24, and it has been at that level since November 1987 due to a payment of transitional allowance in April 1988 of £7·19 to protect the additional allowance she had been receiving due to her diabetes. This year, although her bills have gone up, her money remains the same as she loses the £2·04 from her transitional addition. When we take up constituency cases we write to the Department of Social Security, and I received the following reply:
      "Thank you for your letter … Mrs. J … is currently receiving a combined payment of Retirement Pension and Income Support amounting to £51.24 per week, calculated as follows:
      744

      Personal Allowance

      £33·40

      Pensioner Premium

      £10·65

      Transitional Addition

      £7·19

      £51·24

      … Expenses like a special diabetic diet are no longer separately itemised and added to an individual claimant's benefit, and I am afraid Mrs. J … will not be entitled to any additional benefit even though she now has to pay for special foodstuffs."
      The letter goes on to explain how the transitional addition was a temporary cushion to which she is no longer entitled. At the end of the letter is the statement:
      "I hope this explains the situation to your satisfaction: I am sorry my reply could not be more favourable to Mrs. J."
      Will the Under-Secretary tell us how long the phrase
      "I am sorry my reply could not be more favourable"
      will he logged into the word processor used to reply to the letters sent to him week after week? Hundreds of our constituents come to us spelling out in fine detail how much income they have lost per week. The person at the DSS may be sorry about it, but our constituents have to make do. They have to visit the same shops and purchase their goods with less money. For those claiming housing benefit the problems are the same. A total of 40 per cent. of those claiming the transitional addition lost out on 10 April this year.
      There is a gentleman in my constituency who spends about 20 per cent. of his working hours trying to tackle forms and write to the Glasgow unit. He was asked to fill in and return a form for his pension increase even before the social security office could work out what he was entitled to. Therefore, he missed out because he missed the deadline. He lost a further £2 last week but was told that he could receive £2·05 for an original loss of £6·50 if he filled in another form. The people I represent are tired of filling in complicated forms to try to keep their incomes at the same level.
      The Minister may say that Opposition Members have again quoted from a few letters and that they are isolated, difficult cases, but we could quote from such letters thousands of times. Taken together, they demonstrate the flaws in the structure of the social security system put together by the Government. A structural fault is pricing many pensioners down into poverty. The holes in the safety net are so large that thousands of pensioners are sinking through it.
      In the previous debate Conservative Members suggested that there is a trickle down of wealth to everyone at the bottom. That is not so. It is not the case that, as one Conservative Member suggested, the average wage will pull everybody up. The incomes of those most in need of protection are falling behind weekly. Tonight we have an opportunity to do something about that for next year. We have an opportunity to ensure that those in need receive some basic justice.
      9 pm
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Peter Lloyd): I know that there is concern among hon. Members that not all their constituents will have received an increase in benefits at this uprating. I also realise that there are understandable worries about hard cases such as those that hon. Members have used to illustrate their arguments.

      745
      The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) asked how long I spend reading letters and when I last read any. I spent about four or five hours yesterday reading letters because I receive many of them. They were not all about transitional payments; in fact such letters were in a minority. However, I read them. As the hon. Gentleman suggested, many of them make hard and painful reading, but no more so than many of the other letters I receive. I reflect upon the letters that my predecessor would have been reading before the changes were introduced last April and I am convinced that many of the individuals who wrote those letters will have been helped by the changes. It is necessary to see the changes that occurred last April in that balanced way. There are difficult cases and I do not seek to dismiss them or push them to one side. However, the social security system is designed to tackle many difficulties and transitional payments and those in receipt of them are not always the most difficult cases.
      The hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) quoted some cases. He said that if one makes an assessment of the inflation rate it seems that on present estimates about 200,000 people will still be on transitional payments after the uprating. He ased me to consider the position of the disabled who will have no increase to look forward to for some years. The hon. Gentleman forgets that in October there will be an increase in income support rates for disabled persons over 60 years of age. As I said during social security questions last week, we shall keep all the premiums under review and act if pressure on a particular group of claimants becomes manifest.
      The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) complained about the absence of Conservative Members. It is worth putting on record that when he made those observations four Labour Back Benchers were present, of whom he was one. The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) was open enough to acknowledge that, so I acknowledge his honesty.
      Mr. Kirkwood: I have just finished digesting the Minister's earlier remark that the Government can review the levels of flat-rate premiums if the need arises. Is the Department actively trying to identify categories that are suffering particular hardship? If so, will he be prepared to make a statement at a later stage?
      Mr. Lloyd: We review the categories from statistical information and information about individuals. All the examples that we are given, which we read, form a picture. The fact that we shall be improving premiums in two cases this October shows that monitoring has an effect. We shall continue to consider the information available to us, and where it is evident that there is pressure on a particular group we shall act accordingly.
      The hon. Member for Walsall, North referred to price increases, especially fuel price increases. Over the past five years, electricity and gas charges have fallen in real terms, which has benefited those on supplementary benefit and income support. I remind him that in the years after 1979 supplementary benefit increased by 5 per cent. above the rate of inflation. It was a more generous benefit than when the Labour party left office. The total amount paid in supplementary benefit was redirected to income support last April.
      I am grateful to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West for saying that I listened courteously to the
      746
      small delegation that he brought to see me. I took full note of what was said, and he will find that the arguments that were put will be reflected in the guidance that is issued to local benefit officers. I confirm what I said to the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire that we shall take note of the pressure points that have been mentioned this evening by hon. Members.
      Mr. Winnick: Does the Minister intend to comment on the four cases that I brought to the House's attention, in three of which there was no increase and in the other an increase of only 23p for reasons explained by the local DSS office? Will the Minister comment on information from the Library that if the pension had been increased in line with earnings since 1979 a married person would be £17·55 and a single person £11·10p a week better off?
      Mr. Lloyd: That set of figures is frequently produced at Question Time and the Opposition repeatedly make the point that state retirement pensions increased faster under the Labour Government. This Government respond, more convincingly, by saying that, overall, pensioners' incomes have increased much faster than under the Labour Government. It is total incomes that are of interest, not any special part of income.
      Mr. Battle: How many pensioners have to live solely on state pensions? That factor obviously affects the hon. Gentleman's statement. Does he suggest that the pensioners with supplementary incomes other than the state pension, the richer pensioners, get richer? The poorer pensioners are obviously worse off.
      Mr. Lloyd: From memory, about 1·7 million pensioners are on income support. I have been asked how many of those are getting their full increase this year. The answer is 1·2 million. To do the sum for the hon. Gentleman, that leaves 300,000 pensioners who will get an increase in part and 200,000 who will get no increase this year.
      Mr. Winnick: The poorest.
      Mr. Lloyd: They will not be the poorest. That is where the hon. Gentleman misapprehends what the changes do. Pensioners with transitional additions will have had incomes from income support above the incomes of those coming on to income support since last April.
      The hon. Member for Walsall, North asked me to comment on particular cases. I do not have the details of all of them, and it would be wrong to comment on them individually. The hon. Gentleman made an observation about the special addition for the diabetic diet. We would in any case have had to review—as would a Labour Government—those special additions that were failing Ito reach all the people who might have qualified for them. They were complex, and considerable knowledge was needed to know what to apply for. Medical opinion makes it clear that a diet suitable for diabetics is no more expensive than a sensible, healthy diet for someone who is not a diabetic. It would therefore have been right to look again at those additions.
      It is essential to keep the whole issue and the particular cases which have been raised in proportion and context, real though they are. The majority of income support claimants will gain and have gained at uprating. We estimate that 73 per cent.—nearly 3·25 million—will receive their full increase and that about 610,000, or 14 per cent., will receive a partial increase. That will leave about

      747
      600,000 whose benefit will stay the same. After the uprating in 1990, we estimate that rather fewer than 200,000 claimants will still need this protection—a tiny minority of the millions of social security benefit recipients who will get increases.
      There are important reasons for reducing transitional protection at the annual uprating. There is the question of resources. As hon. Members are well aware, our aim is to target help on those groups identified as having the greatest need. Transitional protection is expected to have cost some £200 million in its first year. By its nature, it is poorly targeted as it reflects the inequities of the old scheme. To continue to pay protection indefinitely would not be a good use of resources.
      I shall also say, as the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) expected me to do, that there is a question of fairness. Claimants with protection are necessarily better off than those in similar circumstances who claimed after the start of the new scheme and who do not have access to protection. It would be wrong to perpetuate that inequality between different groups of claimants.
      9.15 pm
      That is not to say that important improvements should not be made in particular circumstances. I have already emphasised that on a couple of occasions and we have shown our readiness to listen to particular problems by, for example, providing special protection rules for severely disabled people going into certain types of respite care. This autumn's improvements for older and disabled pensioners who are entitled to income support will be welcomed. We believe that they are in special need of extra help and they will be exempted from the normal transitional protection rules. Although I am unable to accept this general relaxation to the transitional protection rules, we are looking carefully at the different categories and how they are affected. What I have said shows that we are prepared to act.
      I am also pleased to be able to announce a specific improvement for a certain group of people who try to become independent of public funds. Hon. Members, especially those who served on the Committee, will be aware of an amendment to the Bill, brought forward in Committee, to remove a disincentive to work for a trial period by amending the transitional protection provisions. The Government consider it crucial that people who want to work should not be discouraged from doing so. We have, therefore, introduced some special rules to enable certain people to take a job for a trial period without incurring the risk of benefit sanctions if they leave their job voluntarily within a specified period. The new rules do not extend to transitional protection. We promised to look at this limitation and I can now tell the House that steps will be taken, through regulations, to ensure that the people to whom these work easements apply will not lose their transitional protection.
      As I said at the outset, I appreciate that there are some hard cases and hon. Members have understandably and properly raised them this evening. I do not want to make light of them or to dismiss them. However, it must be said that all those who have transitional protection are, by definition, receiving more than those in the same general circumstances. Erosion of this protection does no more than move them towards the same level.
      748
      It would not have been possible to make the radical changes to our benefit system, which were so badly needed, without there being losers as well as gainers. We should not lose sight of the fact that in the changeover from supplementary benefit to income support, the number of gainers exceeded the number of losers. Of the 60 per cent. estimated to have gained in cash terms, the average gain was £3·85, not counting the sum that was built in for compensation for 20 per cent. of rates. Some 600,000 are expected to have gained more than £5 and another I million are expected to have gained between £2 and £5.
      The new system is simpler, making it easier to administer and, more importantly, easier to claim. It is better targeted to groups whose need is greatest, such as the sick, the disabled and families with young children. It is also fairer between individuals in similar circumstances. We always recognised that the transition from the old system to the new would be uncomfortable and sometimes painful for the minority who lost. Such a choppy period, as the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) said, would be inevitable if the changes he seeks were made. That is why we introduced transitional protection, which cushions reductions at the point of change. But it is an essential part of the much needed improvement to our system that those transitional additions should be reduced as personal circumstances change and as benefits are generally uprated. I ask the House to reject the new clause.
      Mr. Robin Cook: By leave of the House, I want to respond briefly to the Minister. I begin by welcoming the fact that he complimented hon. Members on a serious and moving debate five times in his reply, appearing vaguely embarrassed about what he had to read to the House.
      In the light of our debate, I regret that the Minister should again have taken refuge in quoting the numbers on who came out better on the cash transfer from the old system to the new. As he will know, that has been utterly discredited as a way of measuring the change. He should be measuring those who came out better in real terms and those who came out worse off in real terms.
      Perhaps it is worth stressing that point because the immense irony of the figures claimed by Ministers last April is that every single one of the cases described in this debate would be corralled in the 88 per cent. who Ministers told us last year would be no worse off or would be better off as a result of the changes. I defy Ministers to explain to those who have written to me and my hon. Friends that they are no worse off as a result of last year's changes.
      The Minister challenged the statement by my hon. Friends that we are talking about people who are among the poorest. He said that they receive rather more in income support than others. That is true. They have a marginally higher income than others on income support, but they have a higher income because they have higher costs. They still have the costs; they now no longer have the income to meet those costs.
      The Minister's observation that there is no extra cost in suffering from diabetes suggests to me that some damage has been done by the separation of the Departments of Health and Social Security. Perhaps it is possible to cope with a diet for a diabetic with the same amount that one would pay for a sensible healthy diet for an average person, but the trouble is that income support payments do not provide for a sensible healthy diet for an average person, and certainly not for a diet for a diabetic.

      749
      The Minister has enlightened us in one respect. He has confirmed that next April 200,000 pensioners and other claimants can expect no uprating in their benefits. Their incomes will be frozen at exactly the same level as the claimants first received in April 1987 and half those claimants can expect their benefits to be frozen again in 1991. That cannot be acceptable. I regret that the Minister chose to make resources one of his defences. It would cost a beggarly £30 million to extend uprating to that category. Only last month in the Budget the Government confirmed that they are sitting on a record surplus of £14,000 million. If Ministers tell us that they cannot find £30 million to assist this group, although they recognise that the cases make hard and painful reading, their arguments deserve to be treated with contempt, and we shall vote against them.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 171, Noes 299.

      Division No. 172]

      [9.21 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Flannery, Martin

      Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

      Flynn, Paul

      Anderson, Donald

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Foster, Derek

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Foulkes, George

      Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

      Fraser, John

      Ashton, Joe

      Fyfe, Maria

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Galbraith, Sam

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

      Galloway, George

      Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

      Garrett, John (Norwich South)

      Barron, Kevin

      Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

      Battle, John

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Beckett, Margaret

      Gordon, Mildred

      Beith, A. J.

      Graham, Thomas

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

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

      Grocott, Bruce

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Hardy, Peter

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Henderson, Doug

      Blair, Tony

      Hinchliffe, David

      Blunkett, David

      Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

      Boyes, Roland

      Holland, Stuart

      Bradley, Keith

      Home Robertson, John

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Hood, Jimmy

      Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

      Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

      Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

      Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

      Buchan, Norman

      Hoyle, Doug

      Buckley, George J.

      Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

      Callaghan, Jim

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

      Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      Illsley, Eric

      Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

      Ingram, Adam

      Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

      Janner, Greville

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Kilfedder, James

      Cohen, Harry

      Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

      Cook, Robin (Livingston)

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Corbett, Robin

      Lamond, James

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Leighton, Ron

      Crowther, Stan

      Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

      Cryer, Bob

      Lewis, Terry

      Cummings, John

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Darling, Alistair

      Loyden, Eddie

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      McAllion, John

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

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Dixon, Don

      Macdonald, Calum A.

      Dobson, Frank

      McKelvey, William

      Doran, Frank

      McLeish, Henry

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Maclennan, Robert

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

      Madden, Max

      Eadie, Alexander

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      Mallon, Seamus

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

      Marek, Dr John

      Faulds, Andrew

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Fearn, Ronald

      Martlew, Eric

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

      Maxton, John

      750

      Meale, Alan

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Sheerman, Barry

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Morgan, Rhodri

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

      Morley, Elliott

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

      Snape, Peter

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Soley, Clive

      Murphy, Paul

      Spearing, Nigel

      Nellist, Dave

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Strang, Gavin

      O'Brien, William

      Straw, Jack

      Parry, Robert

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Patchett, Terry

      Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

      Pendry, Tom

      Vaz, Keith

      Pike, Peter L.

      Wall, Pat

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Wallace, James

      Radice, Giles

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Randall, Stuart

      Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

      Redmond, Martin

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan

      Reid, Dr John

      Wilson, Brian

      Richardson, Jo

      Winnick, David

      Robertson, George

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Robinson, Geoffrey

      Wray, Jimmy

      Rogers, Allan

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Rooker, Jeff

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Ruddock, Joan

      Mr. Frank Haynes and

      Salmond, Alex

      Mr. Allen McKay.

      NOES

      Adley, Robert

      Cash, William

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Chapman, Sydney

      Alexander, Richard

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

      Allason, Rupert

      Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

      Amess, David

      Colvin, Michael

      Amos, Alan

      Conway, Derek

      Arbuthnot, James

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

      Cope, Rt Hon John

      Ashby, David

      Couchman, James

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Cran, James

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

      Critchley, Julian

      Batiste, Spencer

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

      Curry, David

      Bellingham, Henry

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

      Bendall, Vivian

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Day, Stephen

      Benyon, W.

      Devlin, Tim

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Dicks, Terry

      Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Body, Sir Richard

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Dover, Den

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Dunn, Bob

      Boswell, Tim

      Dykes, Hugh

      Bottomley, Peter

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

      Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

      Evennett, David

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      Fallon, Michael

      Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

      Favell, Tony

      Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Brazier, Julian

      Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

      Bright, Graham

      Forman, Nigel

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

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

      Forth, Eric

      Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

      Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Fox, Sir Marcus

      Burns, Simon

      Franks, Cecil

      Burt, Alistair

      Freeman, Roger

      Butcher, John

      French, Douglas

      Butler, Chris

      Fry, Peter

      Butterfill, John

      Gale, Roger

      Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

      Gill, Christopher

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

      Carrington, Matthew

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      Carttiss, Michael

      Goodlad, Alastair

      751

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Marland, Paul

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Marlow, Tony

      Gorst, John

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Gregory, Conal

      Maude, Hon Francis

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Grist, Ian

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Ground, Patrick

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Grylls, Michael

      Miller, Sir Hal

      Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Hague, William

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

      Mitchell, Sir David

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Moate, Roger

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Hannam, John

      Moore, Rt Hon John

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

      Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

      Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

      Moss, Malcolm

      Harris, David

      Moynihan, Hon Colin

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Mudd, David

      Hawkins, Christopher

      Neale, Gerrard

      Hayes, Jerry

      Needham, Richard

      Hayward, Robert

      Nelson, Anthony

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Heddle, John

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Norris, Steve

      Hill, James

      Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

      Hind, Kenneth

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

      Page, Richard

      Holt, Richard

      Paice, James

      Howard, Michael

      Patnick, Irvine

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

      Patten, Chris (Bath)

      Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Pawsey, James

      Hunt, David (Wirral W)

      Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

      Hunter, Andrew

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

      Portillo, Michael

      Irvine, Michael

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Jack, Michael

      Price, Sir David

      Jackson, Robert

      Raffan, Keith

      Janman, Tim

      Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Rathbone, Tim

      Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

      Redwood, John

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Key, Robert

      Riddick, Graham

      King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

      Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Ridsdale, Sir Julian

      Knapman, Roger

      Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

      Knight, Greg (Derby North)

      Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

      Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Knowles, Michael

      Rossi, Sir Hugh

      Knox, David

      Rost, Peter

      Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

      Rumbold, Mrs Angela

      Lang, Ian

      Ryder, Richard

      Latham, Michael

      Sackville, Hon Tom

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Sainsbury, Hon Tim

      Lee, John (Pendle)

      Scott, Nicholas

      Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Lightbown, David

      Shelton, Sir William

      Lilley, Peter

      Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

      Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      Lord, Michael

      Shersby, Michael

      Luce, Rt Hon Richard

      Sims, Roger

      Lyell, Sir Nicholas

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      McCrindle, Robert

      Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

      MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Maclean, David

      Soames, Hon Nicholas

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Speed, Keith

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

      Speller, Tony

      McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

      Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

      Madel, David

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Malins, Humfrey

      Squire, Robin

      Mans, Keith

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Maples, John

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      752

      Steen, Anthony

      Waddington, Rt Hon David

      Stevens, Lewis

      Waldegrave, Hon William

      Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

      Walden, George

      Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

      Walker, Bill (T'side North)

      Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

      Waller, Gary

      Stokes, Sir John

      Walters, Sir Dennis

      Stradling Thomas, Sir John

      Ward, John

      Sumberg, David

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Summerson, Hugo

      Warren, Kenneth

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Watts, John

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Wheeler, John

      Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

      Whitney, Ray

      Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Wilshire, David

      Thornton, Malcolm

      Wolfson, Mark

      Thurnham, Peter

      Wood, Timothy

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Woodcock, Mike

      Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

      Yeo, Tim

      Tracey, Richard

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Tredinnick, David

      Trippier, David

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Trotter, Neville

      Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones and

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Mr. Tony Durant.

      Viggers, Peter

      Question accordingly negatived.

    New Clause 6

      INCOME RELATED BENEFITS
      "(1) In paragraph 1 of Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Income Support (General) Regulations 1987, after the words '(applicable amounts and polygamous marriages)' there shall be inserted the words 'except that, for this purpose, any person aged less than 25 to whom any paragraph in Part II of Schedule IA applies or would apply if he were aged 16 and had not reached the relevant date determined under regulation 13A(3)(b) shall be treated as if he were aged 25'.
      (2) In paragraph 1 of Part I of Schedule 2 to the Housing Benefit (General) Regulations 1987, after the words '17(a) and (b)' there shall be inserted the words 'except that, for this purpose, any person aged less than 25 to whom any paragraph in Part II of Schedule IA to the Income Support (General) Regulations 1987 applies, or would apply if he were aged 16, claiming income support and had not reached the relevant date determined under regulation 13A(3)(b) of those regulations, shall be treated as if he were aged 25'.".—[Mr. Flynn.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 106, in clause 10, in page 8, line 4, at end add—
      "(3) In section 22 of the 1986 Act (income related benefits) after subsection (8) there shall be inserted—
      '(9) In relation to income support and housing benefit the applicable amount for a person in board and lodging accommodation shall include an amount in respect of his being a person in board and lodging accommodation.
      (10) For the purposes of this section "board and lodging" accommodation means—

      (a) accommodation provided to the claimant or, if he is a member of a family, to him or any other members of his family, for a charge which is inclusive of the provision of that accommodation and at least some cooked or prepared meals which are both prepared and consumed in that accommodation or associated premises: or

      (b) accommodation provided in a hotel, guesthouse, lodging-house or other similar establishment; or where facilities for the preparation of food are inadequate to the needs of that person.

      (11) Regulations may prescribe the circumstances in which the facilities for the preparation of food are deemed to be inadequate.'.".
      Mr. Paul Flynn: I beg to move, That the clause he read a Second time.
      This issue raised the most passionate feelings in Committee, when we heard heartbreaking stories of young people who were suffering as a result of the social security changes. The purpose of new clause 6 is to remove some of the worst excesses of the Government's calamitous changes, which have made tens of thousands of the most vulnerable young people into outcasts of the social security system. Last week, we generously and gratefully acknowledged the speed with which the Government had moved. They promised in Committee that they would put some improvements on the fast track, and, in fact, they delivered some improvements within a few days of the final Committee sitting. However, while we are happy about the speed of the Government's action, we are less happy about the substance of the changes, which are not adequate to meet the problem.
      A large group of young people in this country are gratuitously exposed to poverty. The object of the new clause is very modest. What we seek to do is to extend the rates of income support and housing benefit for the over-25s to people under 25 in the following categories: those who are married; those who were previously in care and are not living with their parents or anyone acting in the place of their parents; those who are living away from the parental home, in accommodation that they entered as part of a programme of rehabilitation or resettlement, to avoid physical or sexual abuse, or because of mental or physical handicap or illness; and those living away from the parental home because the parents cannot afford to support them as they are chronically sick or disabled, or because they are in prison or prohibited from entering the country. In short, these are the very young people who are married, who do not have a parental home to which they can safely return, and who therefore are obliged to pay for their own accommodation, whether as boarders or as householders.
      At present, the existence of this group of people is recognised only to the extent of allowing those aged 16 to 17 in these categories to receive income support during the three months child benefit extension period.
      As a result of the great pressures that have been exerted on the Government by the Opposition, many organisations, local authorities and hon. Members on both sides of the Standing Committee on the Bill, the small concessions announced by the Minister on 13 March came into effect. Again, these affect only those aged 16 to 17. From next July, if they happen to qualify for income support—which most of them do not—they will get the rate that is applicable to those between 18 and 24. In other words, they will receive £27·50 a week instead of only £20·80. That is still £7·40 below the normal rate of £34·90 payable to people 25 or older.
      We must question the basis of having separate rates for young people and it is worth looking at the Government's justification for it. When they introduced the lower rate of income support for under-25s, the grounds were explained in the 1985 Green Paper, "Reform of Social Security". It stated:
      "it is clear that at the age of 18 the majority of claimants are not fully independent and that the great majority of claimants above age 25 are … In 1983 nearly 90 per cent. of all claimants over 25 were getting the higher householder rate. By contrast the clear majority of claimants under 25 were living in someone else's household. The Government have concluded that an appropriate dividing line is age 25."
      754
      The Minister nods. It is simplicity which the Government seek but, unfortunately, there are casualties of simplicity. The young people involved, like all other categories forced into simplified little boxes, do not fit neatly into them. The fact that many claimants under 25 were independent householders, whether through choice or necessity, was ignored altogether. All under-25s were to get a lower rate of benefit, regardless of their circumstances. Boarders under 25, as well as householders, were affected and until this month they were subjected to time limits which meant that their board and lodging charges were met for only a few weeks, after which they received only the basic under-25 income support rate. Under the new arrangements introduced this month, income support no longer covers board and lodging charges and the under-25 rate applies from the start of the claim. Despite the abolition of the time limits, board and lodging accommodation will remain out of reach of most claimants in this age group. They will no longer be able to afford it, even temporarily. Amendment No. 106, which is coupled with the new clause, deals with that.
      The aim of new clause 6 is specifically modest. It aims to be practical and acceptable to the Government. It does not seek to abolish the under-25 benefit rate entirely, as we should like, although there is a strong case for doing that. It does not even seek to abolish it for all young people who are living independently, for which an even stronger case can be made. The new clause concentrates exclusively on those who set up home because they are married or do not have parental homes to which to return, even if they wish to do so. There is no justification for paying a lower rate of benefit to people in those circumstances simply because they are under 25.
      We heard a great deal in Committee about care leavers. Each year approximately 8,000 young people leave care. The majority of them have no suitable parental home. Usually they have not lived in a parental home for many years. Research shows that about 70 per cent. of our young care leavers live on their own compared with less than 1 per cent. of the general population of the same age. Successive surveys also show that young people who have left care are over-represented among the homeless.
      Centre Point in London estimated that 25 per cent. of the homeless that it looks after and knows of previously came from care. A Government report has suggested that the figure is 33 per cent. Several local authorities have recently noted that they are having to keep young people in care longer or, on occasions, readmitting them into care—sometimes into inappropriate placements.
      There has been a deluge of submissions from local authorities and local authority associations pointing out that there is an increasing problem. Some social services departments are now reporting that young people over 16 are seeking their assistance because they cannot return home, often as a result of abuse within their families. Many of them have waited until their 16th birthdays to leave home. The social services departments are reporting that most of those youngsters were unknown to them previously.
      9.45 pm
      Since the changes were announced on 13 March, we have received dozens of examples from Barnardos, the Association of Directors of Social Services, and the bodies representing local authorities. We have a wide choice of cases from which to choose. We could choose some

      755
      spectacular ones or some sad ones, often the result of mistakes and inefficiency, where young people have been left without any income at all. I will not quote those cases, but I shall cite the cases of two youngsters from the prosperous area of Canterbury, who have come to the attention of a small charity called Rented Accommodation for Teenagers. RAFT has cited two cases and told us how they will be affected. The cases are typical of the position of young people and they show what will happen to them after July.
      The first case is Wilfred, who is 17 years old. He was thrown out of home by his unemployed stepfather last year after months of hostility that had threatened to break up his mother's marriage. After sleeping on friends' floors he went to RAFT, because his stepfather was adamant that he could not return and Wilfred believed that it was not safe to do so. After eight months with a family, under the supervision of the charity, Wilfred has progressed well and is ready for a place of his own.
      The charity is negotiating with the city council to manage a few small units of accommodation to sublet to young people, whom it will continue to support. The rent and rates bill is £36·41 a week and Wilfred receives a training allowance of £28·50. He gets £23·02 housing benefit, leaving him with £15·11 for total weekly outgoings. He pays his first £3 travel costs to work, so that leaves £12·11 for food, electricity and clothes.
      Following the Minister's announcement on 13 March, Wilfred will look forward to receiving £15·66 from July. That is a totally inadequate amount to meet all his needs.
      The second example that the charity provides is that of Tracy and, sadly, is a case that is typical of many others that we heard about in Committee and in a very moving press conference that was held afterwards.
      Tracy was 16 years old when she went to RAFT as an alternative to going into care, which she did not want, partly because that would have disrupted her last year of school. She had alleged sexual assault by her father. She had been staying with a family, which was involved with the charity, while hoping to get back to her mother if her father was put in prison for the offence.
      Following the transfer of board and lodging payments from the Department of Social Security to housing benefits at the city council, Tracy, being on a YTS placement, has £2·20 a week to pay for her fares to work, her clothing, her toiletries and her entertainment. As she has to pay the first £3 of her fares, she has minus 80p for all personal expenses. Her mother, who—again not unusually in these circumstances—blames Tracy in part for the family tensions, gives her no money.
      Following the announcement on 13 March, from July Tracy should receive the princely sum of £2·50 a week for toiletries, for clothing and for entertainment.
      Those figures have been verified. Those income levels are punitive to those young people who have been victims for long periods.
      It is worth comparing the benefits received by those young people with the average pocket money enjoyed by children in families where everything is found, including food, accommodation and clothing. The average pocket money for a 12-year-old, according to a survey conducted by the Halifax building society, is £2·30 a week while for a 16-year-old it is £8·99. Therefore, the average
      756
      12-year-old receives in pocket money more than Tracy does after a full week's work on YTS. The new clause covers those who, in the Government's view, are essentially, necessarily and without any possible escape, living away from their parental homes.
      The Government should consider the sobering example of what is happening in the United States—reference has already been made to that country. The changes that have taken place in Britain in the past few years parallel those that have occurred in the United States, which is suffering a peculiar anguish of 3 million tent people, homeless, itinerant street dwellers who have been rejected by the state and who are despised by society. Many of those people started life in care and many suffer from all kinds of inadequacies, especially from forms of mental illness. President Bush has said that they represent the nation's shame. There are 3 million of them. They are the walking wounded, the casualties of a social security system that has been wrecked by the same mean-spirited forces of malice and ignorance and neglect that have corrupted the judgment of the Government. Visitors to the United States ask how unimaginable wealth can live as a close neighbour to such poverty.
      Earlier today, the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Maples) asked what would happen if someone from another planet came to study our social security system. A year ago someone from another world, the Third world, came to London. Mother Theresa wept on the streets of our capital. In a society where the average family is as rich, or has command over as many resources, as a Tudor monarch, we consciously fail our more susceptible young people. They are the very people who have been spurned by their parents from early childhood, as well as those who have endured the long, hideous nightmare of parental abuse. From birth, many of them have been cheated by nature or short-changed by life. They are the embittered, bewildered, frightened victims of society who deserve better than the Hobson's choice that we give them of poverty, or drugs, begging, crime and prostitution.
      I appeal to the Government and to the House to listen to the voices of good people who are crying out to us to stop adding to the physical and emotional turmoil of adolescence the cruel, ugly and unnecessary burden of destitution.
      Mr. Kirkwood: I support the new clause that has been ably moved by the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn). I wish to address my remarks to amendment No. 106 which stands in my name and which deals with a slightly different but related topic—the financial plight of people who must live in bed-and-breakfast accommodation. The amendment seeks to provide a special level of income support for people living in such accommodation and similar lodgings. In consultation with housing pressure groups, particularly Shelter, I am extremely worried that the changes for boarders introduced a fortnight ago on 10 April could have a potentially disastrous effect on the health and well-being of homeless families.
      The changes effectively abolish the so-called "eating out" allowances which families in bed-and-breakfast have relied upon to supplement their incomes. Many families in such accommodation have totally inadequate cooking facilities and are forced to exist on take-away food which, as we all know, is extremely expensive.

      757
      It is right that the House should spend some time considering the changes with a view to putting right some of the anticipated difficulties before they cause more trouble than they already have. On 10 April, housing costs for boarders—those living in bed-and-breakfast accommodation, hotels, in lodgings and in so-called "supportive lodgings"—were switched away from income support to housing benefit. Residents of hostel accommodation will he transferred to that new regime in October.
      These changes have been designed to rationalise the situation and to place boarders on the same footing as people in self-contained and permanent accommodation. Until April and under the old system boarders received a higher rate of income support, including a payment for meals or the eating out allowance to which I referred earlier. That was designed to compensate for the lack of proper cooking facilities in many bed-and-breakfast establishments. Eating out allowances have now been abolished, so boarders receive the same rates of income support and personal allowances as all other claimants and they may also have to meet certain amenity charges out of their own income support that are not catered for by housing benefits.
      It is worth considering the definition of "boarder". For social security purposes, the term "boarder" is not related to security of tenure or to the occupation of any particular type of accommodation. For example, there are circumstances in which an assured or an assured shorthold English tenant, as well as licensees, can all be considered as boarders and accordingly get support. Income support regulations state that a boarder is a person who does not live with a close relative and pays an exclusive charge for accommodation and some meals or lives in a hotel, guest house, lodging house or similar establishment. Essentially the test is commercial.
      Sir William Clark: Is the hon. Gentleman reading a brief?
      Mr. Kirkwood: The hon. Gentleman says that I am reading a brief. I am reading very carefully the representations put forward by Shelter because they are technical and difficult to understand. I make no apology for doing that, because these changes will have serious financial effects. Many people have to live in this sort of accommodation. I am therefore anxious for the House to hear about the details of the old system and of the new system.
      Mr. Corbyn: Would it not be helpful for Conservative Members who are making half-baked remarks to read the details of the Bill so that they might realise how horrific it is for young people who are seeking to live independently rather than being put in danger of risk by this proposal?
      Mr. Kirkwood: I believe that that would be a considerable advance, but I do not think it is likely to happen. I was saying that the test of who and who is not a boarder is essentially commercial. Two of the clauses in my proposed amendment No. 106 seek to rearrange the definition of a boarder. I refer particularly to the definition of "supportive lodgings". As I can find no definition of that term in the regulations, I should be obliged if the Minister of State could supply information on that. For example, the Department of Social Security intends to embrace adult care placements. The case of someone placed with an ordinary family which provides a degree of
      758
      personal care and assistance is to be included in that category. I do not believe that such schemes have to be registered by the local authorities, and I am worried about this aspect. I may be wrong, and I hope that the Minister will clarify the situation.
      The changes that affect people's incomes which were introduced on 10 April altered the previous situation which allowed a weekly income support payment to be paid to a boarder made up of three basic elements: an accommodation charge; a meals eating out allowance; and a personal allowance. Under the old system, the accommodation charge covered the weekly cost of board and lodgings. The meals allowance covered the cost of extra meals not included in the weekly charges, and that was made up either of the cost of the meals or the daily charges set out—£1·10 for breakfast, £1·55 for lunch, and £1·55 for an evening meal. A total weekly allowance, excluding breakfast, amounted to £21·70. That is a substantial sum on which people in bed-and-breakfast accommodation substantially relied.
      In addition, there are personal allowances. That for a single person is £10·30, and that was doubled for a couple and less for dependent children. Any person who satisfied the conditions for income support premium would have received the full sum of £11·50 for a personal allowance. The personal allowances for those in bed-and-breakfast accommodation were smaller.
      On top of that there were ceilings on board and lodging charges and accommodation charge and meals allowance were subject to regional maximums. In my constituency, it was £55 and in London it is £70 for a single person. The sums for those under 25 were subject to time limits and that caused all sorts of legal difficulties and the Government kept having to change the rules of the game. Boarders were not eligible to receive additional income support payments.
      It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
      Ordered, That at this day's sitting, the Social Security Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.]
      As amended (in the Standing Committee), again considered.
      Question again proposed, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Kirkwood: From 10 April, boarders will receive an income support personal allowance and housing benefit. That will lead to a substantial drop in income for most boarders, particularly homeless families in bed and breakfast. Under income support, personal allowances are flat rate and are paid regardless of differences in personal circumstances. The premiums will be paid where appropriate, but will not be adequate to compensate for the loss of eating out allowance. Income could be further reduced if families are expected to pay any immediate amenity charges to their hotel.
      The new rate of income support personal allowance is £20·80 for a single person aged under 18. There are higher rates for those between 18 and 24 and a rate of £34·90 for those aged 25 or over. The lone parent is expected to live on £20·80, a couple both aged under 18 on £41·60 and a couple with at least one over-l8-year-old £54·80, with additions for children or young people.
      I understand that the time limit for boarders under 25 has been abolished. Income support changes are severe enough but, taken together with housing benefit changes,

      759
      they are worse. There are two kinds of housing benefit changes. First, the rent allowance will be applied to private or housing association tenants and there will be different rent rebates for council tenants. Housing benefit will cover only eligible rent and rates, so that some charges included in rents will be excluded when calculating benefit. These charges must be met from the weekly income support. As if these housing benefit changes were not enough, the ineligible charges also include 20 per cent. poll tax charges and 20 per cent. general rate and water rate charges.
      These changes in the housing benefit allowances and rebates will have a severe effect. In addition, local authorities must make weekly deductions for meals when paying rent allowances or rebates. For members of the household aged over 16, deductions of £12·50 have to be made. For those aged under 16, the deduction is £6·25. Is addition, there are fuel deductions. If one room is occupied, £4·20 has to be deducted for heating, hot water and lighting, and for more than one room the sum is £7. In addition, there are other services, the most common being those for cleaning and laundry, for which deductions will be made.
      When we examine how the changes will affect the income of boarders, we have to examine the effect that the changes will have when the boarders are split into those who are receiving either rent allowances or rent rebates. In the former group, claimants who move into bed-and-breakfast accommodation after 10 April will be referred to the rent officer, who will assess whether they are paying an unreasonably high rent for housing benefit subsidy purposes and also whether the accommodation is too large.
      The space standards applied by rent officers are fairly restrictive—children of the same sex may have to share a bedroom. Local authorities will receive no subsidy for housing benefit paid out above the rent officer's assessment. Some local authorities will therefore be unable or will refuse to pay housing benefit on rent at that level, and boarders will be left to meet the difference themselves. I understand that a 50 per cent. subsidy is payable in some circumstances when some of the housing benefit regulations apply.
      Rent rebate claimants will not be referred to the rent officer in that way. It must be noted that the DSS has confirmed that housing benefit claims from homeless families that are placed in bed-and-breakfast accommodation by local authorities will legally be treated as rent rebates. That is to say that, as with council tenants, rents will be paid by homeless families to a local authority, which will be entitled to make a reasonable charge for accommodation.
      These cases cannot be referred to the rent officer as can those involving private tenants, but the DSS has announced that subsidy limits are to be imposed by using the rent threshold limits which were brought into force in 1988. They will continue to apply to tenancies which commence before this April. When a local authority places a family in bed-and-breakfast accommodation outside its area, the threshold that applies is that of the placing authority. Authorities will receive maximum subsidies up to the rent threshold and thereafter only a 25 per cent. subsidy.
      Sir William Clark rose—
      Mr. Kirkwood: The hon. Gentleman need not bother to interrupt to say that I am reading and to complain. He can make his own speech. I make absolutely no apology for ensuring that some of the details of these changes are put on the record accurately.
      Sir William Clark: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it not a tradition of the House that, although a Back Bencher can refer to notes, he should not read his speech verbatim? The hon. Gentleman has been speaking for some time and he has been reading. Has the tradition been changed?
      Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): The hon. Gentleman knows that there is no Standing Order that governs speeches. I have noticed that the hon, Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) has been making copious use of his notes which, according to tradition, is not done in the House. If, however, he insists on making copious use of his notes, there is nothing that the Chair can do about it. I hope that he will bring his remarks to a speedy conclusion.
      Mr. Kirkwood: Of course I shall respond to that, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have three other points to make. I hope that the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Sir W. Clark) will listen carefully.
      A couple with two children—I am reading, carefully —aged nine and seven will lose £31·90 a week as a result of the changes of a fortnight ago. Secondly, a couple with four children aged three, seven, 11 and 12 will lose £51·20 —carefully read from the notes—and, thirdly, a person aged 19 will lose £4·60 a week under the new system. That also is carefully read from the notes. I hope that the hon. Gentleman understands the effect that the changes will have on such people.
      Mrs. Rosie Barnes: I want to be brief. The case for new clause 6 and amendment No. 106 has been made very eloquently.
      Many young people aged 16 and 17, through no fault of their own, cannot live with their parents, because they do not have parents, because they have parents who have not acknowledged them for many years or because they have been rejected by a step-parent on remarriage. An increasing number of marriages break down. Remarriages take place and young people are rejected by step-parents. Very often, the dominant male insists that a young person leaves home. Such young people are very vulnerable.
      I read the figures very carefully and found them quite convincing. Many young people simply do not have enough to live on. They do not have enough to feed themselves and they certainly do not have enough to clothe themselves or buy their own toiletries. Let us not mince words. Young people, particularly girls, have to provide certain essential toiletries. We are not talking about perfume behind the ears, although I believe that 16 to 17-year-olds are entitled to a little luxury.
      As the mother of teenage children, I know how much they spend on hamburgers, tapes and detailed accessories when their food, accommodation, hot water and home comforts are provided. We have to examine seriously the amounts of money being made available to young people. I welcome the changes which have already been made, but, looking carefully at case studies which have been sent to us by various responsible bodies, we have to acknowledge that young people will be short of basic essentials,

      761
      including food. Unless we do something, those young people will get into serious trouble. They will have to turn to crime or prostitution to make ends meet. If they go to work, on the amount that they receive at present, they will not have enough money to pay their fares for the whole week, they will become poor employees and stand to lose their jobs through no fault of their own. We have to take the matter very seriously. It is our duty to address the situation and remedy the financial problems faced by many young people.
      Mr. Bill Michie: I shall not read copiously from my notes because for most of the time I cannot read my own handwriting. I have also put my finger on my glasses and cannot see out of them.
      We are discussing a very serious subject, which I am sure most hon. Members have encountered in their surgery—the most vulnerable group of people in Britain today. To say that those young people have homes, accommodation or other support is nonsense. For any Administration to ignore the experience that has been drawn to their attention in the past few years, and the fact that those young people are vulnerable and independent in the sense that they are living in isolation and then to assume that they can get care, attention and resources from other sources is tantamount to criminality.
      All right hon. and hon. Members must at some time have come face to face with cases which have been created by recent legislation. People say that the poor are with us all the time. Of course they are, but, unfortunately, various social security Bills in the past few years have created a new poverty for young people. All the voluntary groups and most local authorities have given chapter and verse to the suffering that continues today. Sometimes accommodation can be found. I am sure that we have all had cases for whom we have been delighted to find accommodation. At one time that would have been the end of the problem, but nowadays it is only the start. Often, those people are provided with four walls, a roof and a door, but nothing else. Many single payments have been abolished and other resources are no longer available.
      We have all heard reports about key money, deposits and so on. In my constituency this morning a young man told me that he had found accommodation—I will check this with the Minister in writing—but that even the electricity board is asking for a deposit because he has never before been registered as a consumer and it wants some form of guarantee. That is yet another burden for people who are already in a mess.
      10.15 pm
      It is wrong to assume that, because of their age, young people can find income or resources from some other source. I do not think that new clause 6 goes far enough, but obviously we will support it. Whether young or old, people living independently and with no resources should receive equal treatment. Whether one is 16 or 30, the price of food and electricity is the same. To assume that for some strange reason a young person who has even less experience of how to manage can make do with fewer resources is beyond comprehension. In fact, it should be the other way round. Young people with no experience need extra support. They should not be fined or penalised because of their age.
      762
      There is a case in my constituency—I shall not dwell on it—of a 16 or 17-year-old girl who is pregnant. She was found accommodation—it is not very good, but it is better than nothing. Her general practitioner and the doctor dealing with her at the hospital insisted that she leave her previous house because she had been subjected to sexual abuse year after year. It is an impossible situation. However, just removing that young person from that house does not solve her problems. If anything, it creates more problems. Because of her young age, she does not qualify for the benefits that older people would receive automatically.
      Last Wednesday, thanks to the Methodist Church, I had the privilege—if that is the right term—of visiting some London hostels. It was traumatic in many ways. The Methodist Church is doing a good job within its limitations. It wanted Members of Parliament from all parties to visit the hostels and I spent most of my time in Lambeth. Despite the love and care that the ordinary authorities and charitable organisations provide, there is no way that they can resolve all the problems. They are basically keeping the young people's heads just above water. The legislation is making matters worse. The plight of those people is desperate and I am sure that anyone who is aware of it, no matter how hard-hearted they may be, must be touched by it. They are the most vulnerable people in our society.
      No one can deny that, although the caring services do a good job for such people, they do not have the necessary resources and should not have the ultimate responsibility. The legislation passed by the Government has been partly responsible for the problems and only the Government can change that. New clause 6 attempts to go some way along that road, but not as far as most of us would like. It is an extremely modest clause and I hope that the Government will read, understand and accept it. They should listen not just to me and my colleagues but to the voluntary organisations and other groups that have been pleading for months for some change which will help those in desperate need. We cannot justify passing legislation that allows young people to continue to exist in a living hell.
      Mr. Brian Wilson: It is significant that all we heard from Conservative Members was a point of pedantry rather than anything to do with the substance of these serious matters.
      I support new clause 6, which was eloquently moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn). I shall focus especially on the problems faced by 16 and 17-year-olds who have been robbed of every penny of income by the Government.
      Mr. Favell: I have never heard so much rubbish. Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that a 16 or 17-year-old should be able to live in semi-luxury without training or trying to find a job? The Opposition, by encouraging this idleness, are not doing young people any favours whatever.
      Mr. Wilson: I am delighted that I allowed the hon. Gentleman to intervene. I am reminded of the old maxim, "All you expect from a pig is a grunt." The hon. Gentleman eloquently gave the true views of Tory Members, and I hope that in the days and weeks before the county council elections his words will be well trailed around England and Wales. There spoke the true voice of Toryism. We shall hear later from the Minister for Social Security, the polite face of Toryism. It will be interesting to

      763
      see whether he dissociates himself from those remarks. It will be interesting to hear whether the Minister for Social Security, who trails his wet reputation round the dinner tables of Kensington and Chelsea, shares his hon. Friend's views of 16 and 17-year-olds living in semi-luxury.
      The Government have made a modest retreat on the treatment of some 16 and 17-year-olds. When I raised the subject in an Adjournment debate last December there was no evidence of any Government awareness of the need to retreat. On the contrary, the strong impression given by the Minister was that he was doing the 16 and 17-year-olds from whom he had robbed every penny of income a favour. He told the House that there was
      "nothing more debilitating for the mass of youngsters leaving education and entering the adult world than to have automatically to depend on state benefits."
      We were not talking then, and we are not now, about the mass of youngsters. By national standards, we are talking of relatively few youngsters. It is more debilitating for 16 and 17-year-old youngsters leaving education and entering the adult world to have no state benefit, no job, no training and not a penny of legal income on which to depend than a few pathetic pounds of state benefit on which to subsist.
      The philanthropist Minister, who was saying that he was doing youngsters a favour, continued:
      "I can think of no greater danger than for young people to be attracted to leave home and have the opportunity to live on state benefits and come into some sort of life in inner London or any of our other big cities and be exposed to the dangers, moral and otherwise, that can confront them."
      The Minister is a positive salvationist, but I tell him that there is one bigger danger than having to live on state benefit in inner-London facing moral dangers—to live on no state benefit in inner-London or other big cities facing moral dangers.
      Mr. Favell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Wilson: Get out of my road. Very well, I give way.
      Mr. Favell: Is the hon. Gentleman honestly suggesting that an able-bodied person of 16 or 17 cannot get a job in central London? I could find that person a job within five minutes if he really wanted one.
      Mr. Bob Cryer: Another little gem.
      Mr. Wilson: Another little gem. It is on the record.
      Mr. Battle: Conservative Members seem to think that youngsters have a life of semi-luxury on the streets of London. My hon. Friend may care to remind the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Favell) of what happens. I bumped into a youngster and asked him why he was sleeping out in London. He said that he had a job but one reason why he had to live out was that he could not even raise the deposit to rent a flat. He had to work for eight weeks before he could get the income to rent a flat. Perhaps Conservative Members do not reflect on what is happening in our society.
      Mr. Wilson: My hon. Friend's point is well taken.
      On 5 December the Minister went on very much in the same vein as the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Favell).
      He declared:
      "All that young people have lost as a result of the implementation of the new arrangements is the option of doing nothing at the public's expense."—[Official Report, 5 December 1988; Vol. 143, c. 146–47.]
      764
      That was and is a lie of Goebbelian proportions. In many parts of the country there is no option of work or training. The youngsters who have been robbed of every penny of their income and forced into dire circumstances have been treated callously. It is almost beyond belief that any society could treat its youngest and most vulnerable members in that way as they enter the adult world.
      The consequences are all around us to be seen. Unfortunately, we cannot get statistics. Part of the Government's trick is that by depriving youngsters of a legal existence and making them ineligible for benefit, those people no longer have to be counted. It is a double benefit from the Government's point of view. Tens of thousands of youngsters who lost all entitlement to income when these measures were introduced no longer feature in the unemployment count. Every month we hear that unemployment has fallen by so many thousands, but, especially when there is a new wave of school leavers, the figures include many youngsters who have lost entitlement to benefit because they are 16 or 17. The Minister is responsible for that.
      What is the position of 16 or 17-year-olds who find themselves without a penny of income? They seek advice, thinking that surely this cannot happen to them. Nine times out of 10, social security offices and others tell them that because they are 16 or 17 they have no means of appeal and no entitlement. In rare cases they are given the correct advice, which is that any 16 or 17-year-old can appeal on the ground of severe hardship. They will not normally get that advice from the offices for which the Minister is responsible. Those youngsters are presented with a 15-page form to fill in. I know of several youngsters who have made eloquent testimony of their circumstances and have described the poverty, misery and hopelessness in which they live, but, because they have failed to use the magic words "severe hardship", their applications are automatically rejected. That is a splendid trick for the Minister to pull on these 16 and 17-year-olds. Even if youngsters get through that 15-page form, the likelihood of their getting beyond that form is remote. The Government cynically count on that.
      I urge all 16 and 17-year-olds who have been robbed by the Minister of every penny of their legal income to get the necessary information to lodge appeals on the ground of severe hardship. When, for some spurious reason, their appeals are turned down, as they will be, they should seek legal advice to challenge the grounds on which the decision was taken. Perhaps the trick can be turned back on the Minister: because those youngsters have been left without a penny of legal income, by definition they will qualify for legal aid. They should take their case to the courts and large numbers should challenge the Minister on his Department's actions. I hope that that piece of practical advice will go out to 16 and 17-year-olds.
      10.30 pm
      The vast majority of Conservative Members, unaware of what is happening in large parts of the areas that they represent and among large social groupings in those areas, will be unaware, too, of cases that have arisen. I want to cite one example from my constituency, to make the Minister aware of what his handiwork has meant in human terms. It concerns a 16-year-old who left school last August. He lived—as many do—in very poor circumstances. He came from a low-income, single-parent family struggling to make ends meet. He lived in an area

      765
      in which there are no YTS places and no pretence of YTS places so when the bridging allowance ran out he was not offered a YTS place, but he was disqualified from benefit. He became one of the tens of thousands of youngsters in Britain who are left without a penny of income.
      After being disqualified from benefits, he made a mistake. The House will agree that 16-year-olds sometimes make mistakes and that they should pay for them with rather less harsh penalties than my constituent paid. When 16-year-olds at public school make mistakes, they are called jolly japes. This lad's mistake was to pilfer from his mother's purse. Perhaps 16-year-olds with no money and no access to money sometimes do things like that. He was put out of his family home in the extreme circumstances that I have described. He then lived rough—[Interruption.] I hear sniggers from the Tory Benches. He lived rough for several weeks—in hedgerows and in haylofts.
      He became involved with a family of experienced criminals. He was then used, Fagin-like, to steal for his keep. That was in December and January. A few weeks ago, he was united with his mother and is back in the family home, still without a penny of income. He has now paid the price for his activities in December and January: he was taken to court and sentenced to three months' detention for the petty thieving offences from which, as the court recognised, he gained no personal benefit. He stole for his keep because he had no money and had no home. It was the Government who put him in that position.
      All of that was utterly predictable. Any fool can see —and the Minister can see—that if one condemns tens of thousands of youngsters to living without a penny of income, many of them will, as night follows day, find themselves in circumstances that are a threat to their morals and to their well-being, but, above all, to the possibility of their ever having a decent life.
      In the name of any humanity that may exist in Britain, give us an assurance tonight that no 16 or 17-year-old will be left in the streets or the hedgerows or the haylofts without a penny of income.
      Mr. Corbyn: Tonight in London it is an ordinary wet miserable night. Earlier this evening I went to a meeting at the London School of Economics. On my way back, I counted the number of people getting ready to spend the night on the pavement in Arundel place, just in sight of the Savoy hotel, where a room costs £400 a night. Just before 9 o'clock there were already 12 people getting ready to spend the night in sight of the Savoy and just near the law courts.
      When I go home there will be more than a dozen people begging for money outside Finsbury Park station near to where I live. There will be young people begging so that they can exist in this city.
      Tomorrow, at a convent near my home, a pathetic stream of half a dozen or a dozen—it is sometimes more —will be asking the nuns for a cup of tea and a piece of bread and butter. That is a normal night and a normal day in this city at this time.
      Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Savoy hotel. Some years ago, I was the chairman of a welfare committee in Camden. As such, I was in charge of a common lodging house in Parker street.
      766
      The deputy head chef of the Savoy was one who went there from choice. He could certainly have chosen to go elsewhere.
      Mr. Corbyn: I am not quite sure what that intervention adds to the sum total of human knowledge. The hon. Lady was not in her place earlier in the discussion. I was not talking about the chef at the Savoy. I was making a comparison between the poor people who sleep in the streets and the people who walk past them to spend £400 for one night in the Savoy hotel. If the hon. Lady does not understand the difference between what I was saying and what she is thinking, heaven help us all.
      We have an appalling problem of homelessness and destitution among young people in London. My hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) spoke about the plight of young people being forced into crime and all sorts of indignities to make ends meet. That is happening all the time in London. They are young people—some from London, some from outside London, some from institutions, and some from what one would call normal family homes. Eventually, the disputes with parents become worse and worse, because the flat is overcrowded, and because a younger child wants the bedroom. All the pressures and tensions build up, and we end up with young people out on the streets.
      If they are out on the streets, sleeping rough and looking dishevelled, it is difficult for them to get a job. It is difficult to get a job if they have no address and they cannot say where they live in the first place. They get into a cycle of despair. The ways out of that cycle of despair are often crime, drugs, prostitution, and so on. That is happening now in this city. Complacent Conservative Members choose to ignore it, to wish it away, and to decide that it is the problem of a few feckless youths who are trying to fiddle the social security system. They are creating a crisis of unimaginable proportions.
      If Conservative Members bother tonight to go to Waterloo station or Charing Cross and to walk around, they will not find that only old tramps sleep there. Often quite young people are there. They should go to Crisis at Christmas. They will find that every year a growing proportion of people there are under the age of 25. These are signs of a real crisis in our society.
      What is the Government's response? They say that under 25-year-olds should be partly dependent on their parents and that, if they are trying to live independently, they should get less than those over the age of 25. The same Government are making large cuts by closing long-stay institutions of various sorts. In some ways, some of us welcome closures of long-stay institutions, provided that they are compensated for by real spending on real community care that gives real support, and provided that we do not ignore people and leave them to try to fend for themselves, often in a vulnerable situation.
      Mr. Jack Thompson: Is my hon. Friend aware that, last year, Centrepoint, a charity in Soho in London, said that its research showed that, each year. 30,000 young people from the north of England come to London simply because there are no jobs in the north? They are trapped into lower-paid jobs in London where they cannot pay for their accommodation.
      Mr. Corbyn: My hon. Friend made a valid and correct point. I and many other London hon. Members regularly meet young people in our surgeries. They have been unable

      767
      to get jobs in the north or other parts of the country—not through any fault or lack of effort on their part. Often, they have tried hard at school and at any educational opportunities that are offered to them.
      Young people cannot get work so, not unreasonably, they come to London. Even if they can find jobs, which is difficult, they cannot find anywhere to live. They then go to Centrepoint where they are told that there are thousands like them and they cannot be helped. They traipse around advice bureaux, crisis centres and Members' surgeries. At every turn they are told "No".
      All the London local authorities have appalling housing crises. On average every London borough has a waiting list of between 5,000 and 10,000. Those young people are not eligible to be rehoused under the homeless persons legislation unless they can be judged to be totally vulnerable, which many of them are. It is often claimed that they are intentionally homeless when they seek rehousing. Those young people either have to go back home to a part of the country where there is no work and where the family is often in such a tight spot that it cannot cope with the young person's return, or they end up trying to fend for themselves on the streets of London.
      This Government are creating a generation of criminals by forcing people into crime because of the social conditions that prevail in this country. Conservative Members should consider what they are doing in relation to this particularly nasty piece of social security legislation which builds on something which was even nastier two years ago.
      There is no shortage of money in this country. There is no shortage of resources to ensure that everyone has a roof over their heads and that every unemployed and homeless person has sufficient income to keep body and soul together. There is a political will not to provide it. That is the problem.
      With regard to independent living, the 1985 Green Paper entitled "Reform of Social Security" states:
      "it is clear that at the age of 18 the majority of claimants are not fully independent and that the great majority of claimants above the age 25 are…In 1983 nearly 90 per cent. of all claimants over 25 were getting the higher household rate. By contrast the clear majority of claimants under 25 were living in someone else's household. The Government have concluded that an appropriate dividing line is age 25."
      If ever there were a self-fulfilling prophecy that is it. Of course the majority of young people are living in someone else's household—they cannot afford to live anywhere else. Sometimes they are more or less sleeping on floors. The Government have decided that the age of 25 should represent entitlement to a lower benefit level than that available to those over 25.
      I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Michie). The new clause is limited because it does not go as far as I would like. There should be equality of payment for all people adjudged to be living independently, whether they be over 25 or under.
      I conclude by considering the question of income support for young people aged 19 who are trying to complete secondary education, but are estranged from their parents and receive no income support and are therefore unable to continue their education.
      I have received a letter from the Minister about a constituent of mine whose name I will not refer to because that would be unfair to her. The Minister wrote:
      768
      "Thank you for your letter about…a nineteen year old student estranged from her parents and is no longer entitled to Income Support.
      I sympathise with her position but I am afraid that extra-statutory payments can be made only where claimants are deprived of all or part of their entitlement in a way not foreseen or intended when the law was drawn up. This is not the case here, so a payment would not be in order."
      Of course it could not have been foreseen when the law was drawn up that this particular young person would reach such a pass in her relationship with her parents that they would throw her out. However, it falls on the social security system to support her now that she has been thrown out, to allow her to complete her education and develop her abilities to the full. The same does not apply to the children of very wealthy parents who do not get thrown out. They do not get into those disputes or have those problems. They have a family safety-net. There is no such safety-net for people like my constituent.
      I hope that for once the House will recognise that many of the social problems facing young people today have been created by the social security legislation which deliberately ignores them. I hope that hon. Members will at least support the new clause as going some way towards alleviating the misery of those young people as it gives them the support, resources and recognition by society that they crave and which we should give them.
      10.45 pm
      Mr. Seamus Mallon: Until I heard the intervention of the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Favell) I had not intended to contribute to this debate. The hon. Gentleman's inspired prejudice will have touched many hon. Members very deeply—in such a way, indeed, that they may have second thoughts about their intentions in relation to the new clause.
      The acid test of the maturity of any society in the world is the way in which it looks after those who are most vulnerable—by definition, surely, the aged and those who are not fully come of age. Since time began, there has never been a decade—indeed, there has never been a century —when young people did not find themselves in the type of situation that hon. Members have cited tonight. I will not tabulate cases; suffice it is say that we can all cast our minds back to the story of the prodigal son, from which there is a lesson to be learnt. The choice facing that father was whether to allow his son to continue on the prodigal road or to bring him back into society by adopting a humanitarian attitude such as we are not seeing here tonight.
      It is a characteristic not of this generation or of this decade, but of the human condition, that young people will always find themselves in a position of vulnerability, wanting to assert their independence. There are three groups of such young people. First, there are those who have to leave home because of various circumstances there, some of which have been mentioned by hon. Members—child abuse, alienation from parents, or whatever. In any case, it is imperative that they leave home because they have no control over the circumstances. Very often young people, in order to protect what society cannot protect for them, find themselves with no alternative to taking steps that will make them homeless. Society owes a debt to those young people. They are entitled to the protection of society because they are at

      769
      risk, and if society does not give them that protection it is demonstrating the callousness that this legislation represents.
      The second vulnerable group of young people are those who wish to assert their independence. I am sure that there is not in this House a parent who has not seen a child take the tent into the garden to show that he can stand on his own feet. Such people will come back into society if society helps them back. But they are at a crossroads; they can either turn towards the type of life that hon. Members have illustrated, or return to society, more mature from the experience of having lived away from home.
      The third vulnerable group must surely be those who are physically, emotionally or psychologically scarred by experiences at school, within the family, or otherwise in their own environment. We cannot allow those people to go unaided. Staying in their situation of vulnerability can only lead to further problems.
      I realise that in the cause of people like the hon. Member for Stockport I will not be able to appeal to humanitarian considerations, so perhaps I should appeal to the calculating machines that sometimes masquerade as their minds. What is the net cost of this attitude? What is the cost of recycling the problems from one decade to the next? What is the cost in terms of keeping people in prison and other institutions, of keeping people on the verge between being law-abiding citizens and being law breakers? The net cost of such an approach is quantifiable and is something that the hon. Member for Stockport might understand.
      The recycling effect is very serious indeed—not just for the young people, not just for others affected by their lives, not just for the parents, not just for the immediate environment, but for the whole of society, which adopts the faulty premise that if people are left on the dunghill the height of the dunghill will somehow be lessened.
      A serious principle is at stake. It is based on the choice of the type of society that we want to create and sustain. Is it a society which will honour its commitments and responsibility to the most vulnerable or one that will work on a false premise? There is a false premise in the legislation. It is the notion that leaving people to stand on
      770
      their own two feet, cold baths, bodily exercise and a little starvation will put the matter right. It does not. We have centuries of experience to show that it does not. It simply exacerbates the problem and recycles the difficulties that our young people are facing now.
      Those young people in every city and in rural areas could well be guided into productive lives if a humanitarian approach were adopted by the caring services and in this legislation. If we have this cold, callous heartlessness in our legislation, it must reflect a cold, callous heartlessness in our legislators. We are the legislators. Is that the type of condition that we want to recycle for further generations?
      Mr. Favell: I shall be brief, but I must reply to that attack.
      I have nothing against young people standing on their own two feet. My objection is to encouraging young people to stand on the state's two feet. That is precisely what the Opposition have been trying to encourage for years. For a long time the Labour party encouraged young people to think that they could leave school at 16, go immediately into accommodation provided by the state and live on the state, rather than look for a job or even train for one. That was not in the long-term interests of young people.
      I remember early after my election a lady coming to my surgery and saying, "Mr. Favell, I have a daughter of 16. She is being encouraged into idleness and immorality by the state. She has left a perfectly good home and set up home with a young man who is also 16. She is living in luxury and has no intention of getting a job. What is the state doing?" I have heard that story over and over again. I am glad that the Government have grasped the nettle and are insisting that young people find a job, if possible, and are not encouraged to think that they can live on the state for ever and a day.
      In many areas young women have illegitimate children and those children are condemned to the same cycle of deprivation as their mothers. That should be discouraged. My hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security is doing exactly the right thing in discouraging such behaviour.
      The Minister for Social Security (Mr. Nicholas Scott): I must take issue with the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon). He cited the parable of the prodigal son, but he seemed to get it on its head. The prodigal son left with plenty of capital, blew the lot and went back to the bosom of his family where he was welcomed back. He certainly did not have the opportunity to live on state benefits when he was away from home.
      I assure the hon. Gentleman that we seek to ensure that, whatever changes we make in the provision for young people, the most vulnerable are given special protection. I hope that I can persuade the House that that is exactly what the Government are doing. I am absolutely certain —I echo the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Mr. Favell)—that the state should not be seen to encourage or give a perverse incentive to young people to leave home.
      Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Disgraceful.
      Mr. Scott: Perhaps the hon. Lady would allow me to develop the argument before she decides whether what I shall say is disgraceful. I represent part of London which under Conservative and Labour Governments has seen the problems of young people. They come to London and chance their luck, and I have seen the dangers and difficulties with which they can be confronted.
      Mrs. Dunwoody: Does the Minister ever ask why those children come to London? It was clear from a survey that I carried out on homosexuality and on the use of small boys for male prostitution that many of those children were driven out of existing homes by the conditions and the abuses that they there suffered. Will the Minister not use as an excuse the suggestion that all those who come to London are driven here by some extraordinary greed for the future? Will he not accept that many of them are driven out by things that none of us would accept for our children or for anyone else's?
      Mr. Scott: I am sorry that I gave way to the hon. Lady. I hope that I shall be able to persuade the House that we have taken special account of young people who find themselves in the situation that the hon. Lady has described.
      The hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) did not speak to the new clause, but launched into a violent attack on the broad thrust of the Government's policy for 16 and 17-year-olds. I do not blame him for doing that, but I am confident that the broad thrust of the Government's policy is right. Many of his arguments during his passionate address to the House were based on emotion and prejudice rather than on the facts of the case. He talked about the lack of places on YTS. At the end of February there were virtually 144,000 unfilled places on YTS throughout the country, and an excess of places over demand in every region.
      Mr. Wilson: Will the Minister accept that in February, in the Training Agency area which I represent, there were three times as many people seeking YTS places as there were places?
      Mr. Scott: There was an excess of places in the region as a whole. If the hon. Gentleman would like to write to me with the figures, he will receive a considered response.
      The hon. Member for Cunninghame, North spoke as though young people, when they asked for consideration under the severe hardship provisions, were inevitably turned down. From 12 September 1988—when the new system came into existence—up to 21 April, there were 7,464 decisions on severe hardship, and 4,839 of those were favourable, which is some 65 per cent. Those decisions are, therefore, taken on a fair and rational basis.
      Mr. Wilson rose—
      Mr. Scott: The hon. Gentleman had his say. He gave the impresson that young people who came forward and pleaded severe hardship inevitably had their cases rejected out of hand. That is not true. Some two thirds of those who came forward were given a favourable decision.
      Mr. Wilson: The Minister has confirmed my point with his figures, because 7,000 odd is a small number of young people to have claimed on grounds of severe hardship. Will the Minister join me in encouraging every 16 and 17-year-old who has had benefit taken away from him and who has been left with no means of income to appeal on grounds of severe hardship? If a person has no income, potentially he or she has severe hardship. In particular, will the Minister give a directive to every DSS office that in no circumstances must it tell or lead those youngsters to believe that they are disqualified from income support merely on the ground that they are 16 or 17-years-old?
      Mr. Scott: Every 16 or 17-year-old is guaranteed the offer of a place on the youth training scheme. It is possible that some people, who have to live independently, may need to be considered under the severe hardship provisions. In those circumstances, I believe that it is right that we should look with compassion and sympathy at the circumstances that confront them. Two thirds of those who have come forward and who have asked for consideration have had a favourable response.
      I am grateful for the Opposition's guarded welcome for the concessions for treating 16 and 17-year-olds that I was recently able to announce. The effect of the new clause is to give 16 and 17-year-olds who have no parents or who for a prescribed list of reasons are unable to live at home the over-25s rate of income support. The difference between us is not the treatment that should be accorded to those people, but the level of benefit to which they should be entitled. I believe that our list accords closely to the list that the hon. Member for Newport, West has in mind. Should such youngsters get the 18 to 24-year-olds rate of benefit or should they get the rate for those aged 25 and older? I shall advance a number of reasons why we should stay where we are in this regard.
      First, we have only recently introduced the concessions that I was able to announce—[interruption.] When we introduced the reforms in April 1988 I undertook that we would carefully monitor their effect. One result of the monitoring has been the concessions that I have announced. We should wait to see how those concessions work out. I believe that the 18 to 24-year rate is appropriate for the youngsters in question.
      Under-25s on income support get the personal allowance, £27·40. They also get housing benefit, 100 per cent. of their rent and 80 per cent. of their rates. I accept

      773
      that, having paid their housing costs, they are left with an amount that is not generous. I believe that it is adequate and I do not want to reach the situation where we restore the perverse incentive that existed before April 1988 for young people to leave home and seek to live independently when the vast majority of them should be given every encouragement to remain with their families.
      Mr. Bill Michie: What is the difference between someone under-25 and someone over-25? The Government recognise that, at the age of 18, when called upon, one can don a uniform and die for one's country. For some strange reason, however, the Government do not recognise that person as an adult with the same problems as those over-25.
      Mr. Scott: I believe that people aged 16 and 17 are more vulnerable and, as far as we can encourage them to do anything, they should be encouraged to stay within the bosom of their family.
      Mr. Battle: Some cannot stay.
      Mr. Scott: If they cannot, the hon. Gentleman knows full well that special arrangements are made for them.
      There is a difference between the under-25s and the over-25s not least in their earning capacity. Young people under-25 earn a great deal less than those over-25 and most live in other people's households rather than independently. I do not want to return to the situation where we must reintroduce the complexities and difficulties of the householder test that existed before April 1988.
      I accept that the arrangements that are made are not generous, but I believe that they are sufficient. We shall extend the provisions that are made during the child benefit extension period to include those who are genuinely estranged from their families. At the end of that period it will be possible, virtually automatic, for such cases to be considered under the severe hardship provisions should a youngster say that he still needs that help. It is right that that should happen.
      We shall, of course, continue to monitor the impact of our changes. Such monitoring is not a one-off exercise but a continuing process. I pay warm tribute to the voluntary organisations which have helped to monitor the changes and which have given considered judgments about the cases they have identified. In part they led us to make the changes that we have announced.
      The hon. Member for Newport, West raised the cases of Wilfred and Tracy, which were highlighted by the National Childrens Bureau. The House knows that I never comment in detail on the Floor of the House on individual cases that are brought forward because the facts underlying those cases may well turn out to be inaccurate. At first glance, the examples quoted by the National Childrens Bureau seem to have some inexplicable defects, but I should like to consider them rather more carefully and study the figures. I shall then respond to the National Childrens Bureau and, if necessary, will place the letter in the Library.
      The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) spoke to amendment No. 106. I shall read his speech, as he did, and I shall study the details that he went over rather quickly. Whereas the new clause seeks to overturn something that has existed for just over a month, he is seeking to overturn an arrangement that has existed
      774
      for three weeks. We abolished the special rates, which were a carryover from the old board and lodging supplementary benefits scheme.
      I believe that the old board and lodging system really provided an incentive for claimants and landlords 10 behave in a quite perverse manner. We know that some landlords who provided accommodation of this type used to hang signs in their windows saying "DHSS claimants only", because they could get from claimants on the board and lodging allowance rents they could not get from people in work, and they were prepared to specialise in this type of operation. Knowing that the claimants could get a benefit, landlords could make higher charges, often providing no extra services whatever and meals which were mere tokens. Claimants knew that they could get the personal allowance as well as the eating out allowance. The result was an explosion of this sort of provision, a trebling in only two years. It was therefore right to seek to change such a provision.
      In essence, in the changes to the hostels and board and lodging areas we are attempting to provide that the social security system is neutral when it relates to the type of accommodation provided. Therefore, all claimants should have their housing cost met through the housing benefits system, and other needs met through income support. The amendment that the hon. Gentleman will be able to move on another day would negate the effect desired.
      I also find it very difficult to support a system that encourages local authorities to provide bed-and-breakfast accommodation for homeless families. I do not believe that it is in the interests of the homeless families or of the local authorities concerned. Many boroughs are able to get by without using that sort of provision. By using short lease or short life property, they avoid resorting to bed-and-breakfast accommodation. That is the right way to go.
      Of course, as we make the changes to board and lodging provisions, we are providing transitional protection for varying periods to the most vulnerable groups. I cannot ask the House to accept the amendment or the new clause.
      Mr. Flynn: The Minister refers to perverse incentives for people to leave home. I recall the words of the Prime Minister who, after promising that all young people would have a YTS place to go to, when questioned about the many thousands of young people from many parts of the country who found they still had no YTS place after the bridging period, replied that places were available if they were prepared to leave home. Is that not a perverse incentive for people to leave home? The Minister should look at the Government's own regulations relating to non-dependent relatives. In such cases, a large deduction is made from the family housing benefit—another perverse incentive for people to leave home.
      When referring in my opening remarks to the malice and ignorance of some Conservative Members, I thought that I might have overstated the case, but then I heard from the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Favell) the genuine voice of malice and ignorance that inspires the Government. The tabloid understanding of reality of Conservative Members has driven them to this extreme of using the device of poverty to force confused, unhappy, damaged young people to do the Government's bidding.
      The Minister appears not to understand this clause. Many Labour Members have said that it does not go far

      775
      enough. There is a case for saying that there should not be a cut-off at the age of 25. There are no signs displayed in boarding houses stating that two rates apply to a flat—one for people older than 25, and one for younger people. In the supermarkets, there are not two prices for the groceries —one for the under-25s and one for the over-25s. The Government's policy is based on that irrationality.
      We were practical and modest in framing the new clause. The people covered by it are those who will not be affected by any perverse desire to leave home and rush to the bright lights of Chelsea. They are specifically enumerated as those who have no homes to return to. They are married couples, people who have left home because of parental abuse, those who have never had a home, or have been in care for virtually all their lives, and those who are living away from the parental home for other reasons, perhaps because their parents cannot afford to support them as they are chronically sick or disabled.
      There is no reason for the Minister to reject the new clause. Out duty is to cherish these young people, not to punish them. I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to support the new clause.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 168, Noes 296.

      Division No. 173]

      [11.10 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Dewar, Donald

      Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

      Dixon, Don

      Anderson, Donald

      Dobson, Frank

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Doran, Frank

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

      Ashton, Joe

      Eadie, Alexander

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

      Barron, Kevin

      Faulds, Andrew

      Battle, John

      Fearn, Ronald

      Beckett, Margaret

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Beith, A. J.

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

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

      Flannery, Martin

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Flynn, Paul

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Blair, Tony

      Foster, Derek

      Blunkett, David

      Foulkes, George

      Boyes, Roland

      Fraser, John

      Bradley, Keith

      Fyfe, Maria

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Galbraith, Sam

      Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

      Galloway, George

      Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

      Garrett, John (Norwich South)

      Buchan, Norman

      Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

      Buckley, George J.

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Callaghan, Jim

      Gordon, Mildred

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Graham, Thomas

      Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      Grocott, Bruce

      Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

      Hardy, Peter

      Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

      Henderson, Doug

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Hinchliffe, David

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

      Cohen, Harry

      Home Robertson, John

      Cook, Robin (Livingston)

      Hood, Jimmy

      Corbett, Robin

      Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Hoyle, Doug

      Cox, Tom

      Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

      Crowther, Stan

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Cryer, Bob

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Cummings, John

      Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

      Dalyell, Tam

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Darling, Alistair

      Illsley, Eric

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Ingram, Adam

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

      Janner, Greville

      776

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Redmond, Martin

      Kilfedder, James

      Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

      Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

      Reid, Dr John

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Richardson, Jo

      Lamond, James

      Robertson, George

      Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

      Robinson, Geoffrey

      Lewis, Terry

      Rogers, Allan

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Rooker, Jeff

      Loyden, Eddie

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      McAllion, John

      Ruddock, Joan

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Salmond, Alex

      Macdonald, Calum A.

      Sedgemore, Brian

      McKelvey, William

      Sheerman, Barry

      McLeish, Henry

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Madderr, Max

      Skinner, Dennis

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Mallon, Seamus

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

      Marek, Dr John

      Snape, Peter

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Soley, Clive

      Martlew, Eric

      Spearing, Nigel

      Maxton, John

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Meacher, Michael

      Strang, Gavin

      Meale, Alan

      Straw, Jack

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

      Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Vaz, Keith

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Wall, Pat

      Morley, Elliott

      Wallace, James

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Murphy, Paul

      Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

      Nellist, Dave

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan

      O'Brien, William

      Wilson, Brian

      Parry, Robert

      Winnick, David

      Patchett, Terry

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Pendry, Tom

      Wray, Jimmy

      Pike, Peter L.

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Prescott, John

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Radice, Giles

      Mr. Frank Haynes and

      Randall, Stuart

      Mr. Allen McKay.

      NOES

      Adley, Robert

      Buck, Sir Antony

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Alexander, Richard

      Burns, Simon

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Burt, Alistair

      Allason, Rupert

      Butcher, John

      Amess, David

      Butler, Chris

      Amos, Alan

      Butterfill, John

      Arbuthnot, James

      Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

      Carrington, Matthew

      Ashby, David

      Carttiss, Michael

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Cash, William

      Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

      Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

      Chapman, Sydney

      Baldry, Tony

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Batiste, Spencer

      Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

      Bellingham, Henry

      Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

      Bendall, Vivian

      Colvin, Michael

      Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Conway, Derek

      Benyon, W.

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Cope, Rt Hon John

      Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Couchman, James

      Body, Sir Richard

      Cran, James

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Curry, David

      Boswell, Tim

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

      Bottomley, Peter

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

      Day, Stephen

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      Devlin, Tim

      Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

      Dicks, Terry

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Brazier, Julian

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Bright, Graham

      Dover, Den

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Dunn, Bob

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

      Dykes, Hugh

      Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

      777

      Evennett, David

      Latham, Michael

      Fallon, Michael

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Favell, Tony

      Lee, John (Pendle)

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Fishburn, John Dudley

      Lightbown, David

      Forman, Nigel

      Lilley, Peter

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

      Forth, Eric

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

      Lord, Michael

      Fox, Sir Marcus

      Luce, Rt Hon Richard

      Franks, Cecil

      Lyell, Sir Nicholas

      Freeman, Roger

      McCrindle, Robert

      French, Douglas

      MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

      Fry, Peter

      Maclean, David

      Gale, Roger

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Gill, Christopher

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

      Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

      McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      Madel, David

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Malins, Humfrey

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Mans, Keith

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Maples, John

      Gorst, John

      Marland, Paul

      Gow, Ian

      Marlow, Tony

      Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Gregory, Conal

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Grist, Ian

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Ground, Patrick

      Miller, Sir Hal

      Grylls, Michael

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Hague, William

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

      Mitchell, Sir David

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Moate, Roger

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Hannam, John

      Moore, Rt Hon John

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

      Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

      Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

      Moss, Malcolm

      Harris, David

      Moynihan, Hon Colin

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Mudd, David

      Hawkins, Christopher

      Neale, Gerrard

      Hayward, Robert

      Nelson, Anthony

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Heddle, John

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

      Norris, Steve

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

      Hill, James

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Hind, Kenneth

      Page, Richard

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

      Paice, James

      Holt, Richard

      Patnick, Irvine

      Hordern, Sir Peter

      Patten, Chris (Bath)

      Howard, Michael

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

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

      Pawsey, James

      Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

      Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

      Howell, Ralph (North Nortolk)

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Portillo, Michael

      Hunt, David (Wirral W)

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Hunter, Andrew

      Price, Sir David

      Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

      Raffan, Keith

      Irvine, Michael

      Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

      Jack, Michael

      Rathbone, Tim

      Jackson, Robert

      Redwood, John

      Janman, Tim

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Riddick, Graham

      Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

      Ridsdale, Sir Julian

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

      Key, Robert

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

      Rossi, Sir Hugh

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Rost, Peter

      Knapman, Roger

      Rowe, Andrew

      Knight, Greg (Derby North)

      Rumbold, Mrs Angela

      Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

      Ryder, Richard

      Knowles, Michael

      Sackville, Hon Tom

      Knox, David

      Sainsbury, Hon Tim

      Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

      Scott, Nicholas

      Lang, Ian

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      778

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

      Shelton, Sir William

      Tracey, Richard

      Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

      Tredinnick, David

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      Trippier, David

      Shersby, Michael

      Trotter, Neville

      Sims, Roger

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Viggers, Peter

      Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

      Waddington, Rt Hon David

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Wakeham, Rt Hon John

      Soames, Hon Nicholas

      Waldegrave, Hon William

      Speed, Keith

      Walden, George

      Speller, Tony

      Walker, Bill (T'side North)

      Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

      Waller, Gary

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Walters, Sir Dennis

      Squire, Robin

      Ward, John

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Warren, Kenneth

      Steen, Anthony

      Watts, John

      Stern, Michael

      Wheeler, John

      Stevens, Lewis

      Whitney, Ray

      Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

      Wilshire, David

      Stradling Thomas, Sir John

      Wolfson, Mark

      Sumberg, David

      Wood, Timothy

      Summerson, Hugo

      Woodcock, Mike

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Yeo, Tim

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Thornton, Malcolm

      Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones and

      Thurnham, Peter

      Mr. Tony Durant.

      Question accordingly negatived.

    Clause 4

      LIABILITY OF PARENTS TO MAINTAIN CHILDREN UNDER THE AGE OF NINETEEN IN RESPECT OF WHOM INCOME SUPPORT IS PAID
      Mr. Scott: I beg to move amendment No. 22, in page 3, line 22, leave out subsection (3).
      Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 23.
      Mr. Scott: The amendments are purely technical. They amend clause 4 to take account of the recent commencement order which brought into effect from 1 April 1989 sections of the Family Law Reform Act 1987 which amend section 26(4) of the Social Security Act.
      As originally drafted, clause 4 provides for amendments of section 26(4) before and after its amendment by the Family Law Reform Act. This is no longer necessary and the clause is therefore simplified by the two amendments.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendment made: No. 23, in page 3, line 30, leave out `as substituted by' and insert
      "reference to a person's children to be construed in accordance with".—[Mr. Scott.]
      Further consideration of the Bill adjourned.—[Mr. Fallon.]
      Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to he further considered tomorrow.

    NORTHERN IRELAND
    Resolved,
    That the draft Food (Northern Ireland) Order 1989, which was laid before this House on 16th January, be approved. —[Mr. Ian Stewart.]

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.), and the order [7 April].

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

  DATA PROTECTION
  That there be paid to or in respect of the Data Protection Registrar such pension as is provided for in the Pension Arrangement attached to the Home Office letter of 1st March 1989 to Mr. Howe, a copy of which was laid before this House on 15th March. —[Mr. Fallon.]
  Question agreed to.

Tenant Farmers
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Fallon.]
11.24 pm
Mr. Richard Alexander: I am grateful for the opportunity to initiate an Adjournment debate that concerns tenant farmers. From inquiries that I have made and briefings that I have received, I know that the concerns of tenant farmers are shared by the National Farmers Union, the Tenant Farmers Association and the Country Landowners Association. These organisations have come together, especially over recent months. It is a sign of the concerns of all the organisations that represent tenant farmers that they are co-operating with one another on such a vital matter. For example, the Country Landowners Association is surveying some landowners to try to ascertain what, if anything, would bring new tenancies on to the market.
The tenanted sector represents 35 to 40 per cent. of all activity in agriculture. It is estimated that it represents one half of dairy production. It is, therefore, a significant part of the agriculture scene. That being so, it is important that, as far as possible, we as a nation ensure a fair working environment for the tenant farmer.
Additionally, the tenanted sector has offered a means of entry into the industry for those without considerable means. The landlord tends to be a business investor, and often a long-term one. We need both the tenant farmer and the landlord, yet the tenant has constraints on his activities which the freeholder does not face. The tenant has to work within the legal structure of the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986. His balance sheet cannot show a capital asset in the same way as a freeholder's. His income is greatly reduced by the rent that he has to pay.
If things go really bad, the freeholder can sell up and pay his liabilities. The tenant cannot do that. He has no collateral apart from his machinery, which is often not very much and which is usually depreciating. In addition, he has his livestock. The tenant cannot sell and restructure his operation.
If the tenant is not too highly geared, he may be in a better position than the owner-occupier, who may have recently taken on his farm with very high capital and interest repayment obligations. I would suggest to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary that not many tenant farmers are in that happy position. Most of them are highly geared, and their lack of collateral causes bank managers to monitor them carefully and constantly with a view to pulling in their loans. Therefore, in matters of finance the tenant has much less flexibility than the freeholder.
The Tenant Farmers Association has produced figures to suggest that the 1988 statistics show that the value of the tenant sector per acre has fallen from £590 in 1978–79 to £322 in 1987–88. They show, for example, that the farmer who is growing winter wheat that is sold for feed has a surplus of only £40 per acre. From that, he pays his rent, his tax and his personal drawings. With so may arable farmers paying more than £40 per acre in rent, the tenant farmers' base is weakening. His reliance on short-term bank borrowing, with an increase in financial charges, is increasing.
The Agricultural Holdings Act provides a framework that imposes obligations on tenant farmers' husbandry. If

781
a tenant looks after his farm he can generally be assured of lifetime security and even more than that if his tenancy was created before 1984, as close members of his family can succeed to the tenancy.
Tenant farmers believe that the present framework of law has served them well in the past, during a period of expanding production. However, in times of restraint and diversification, they face additional problems. Most tenancy agreements allow the landlord power to serve notice to quit on two or three months' notice if the landlord gets planning permission. In addition, a county council farm tenant may be prevented from taking on more land or from having another source of income.
Government schemes such as set-aside and the concept of environmentally sensitive areas were introduced to reduce overall agricultural output and attain certain environmental objectives, but in practice they are not available to all classes of farmers. Many diversification schemes involve proposals that fall outside the legal definition of agriculture, which means that they are subject to landlords' consent. There are many supportive landlords. but in some cases landlords have refused consent to otherwise reasonable propositions that would not have affected their long-term interests. The tenant has no power to challenge such a refusal. Some tenants feel too vulnerable even to consider such a scheme, and some landlords' agents have been known to send threatening letters when a tenant has gone only as far as registering his eligibility for set-aside.
I appreciate that a wise tenant will want to consult his landlord at an early stage and should first obtain a business study, for which a grant can be obtained under the farm diversification grant scheme. It is sensible and natural that a landlord should want to see a viable proposition that has been well thought out.
The Tenant Farmers Association has suggested that a tenant should have a right of appeal to the agricultural lands tribunal if the landlord does not agree to his diversification plans. As a lawyer, I appreciate that the difficulty is that the tribunal has no power to amend a tenancy agreement. If the tenancy agreement specifically prohibits non-agricultural activity, it would require quite fundamental change to the Agricultural Holdings Act if this route were to be followed, and it would be highly contentious.
In some ways, diversification can be a disaster for the tenant, for when planning permission is needed for a non-agricultural use the grant of such permission is a ground for an incontestable notice to quit. Most incontestable grounds in a notice to quit rely on something that the tenant has done wrongly or badly, but that is not so when planning permission has been granted, even if it were granted on an application by the tenant. Usually, planning permission and the notice to quit relate to the whole farm, and the notice must be between one and two years. I learn that many tenants are being offered agreements that allow landlords to serve a notice to quit on part of the farm only, which allows much shorter notice—usually two or three months only. This is another aspect of the vulnerability of the tenant that I draw to the House's attention. As the farmhouse is often the attraction for development, the tenant may be left with the prospect of losing some or all of his farm buildings, including his farmhouse.
That brings me to the problem that a tenant faces with compensation. When he loses his holding, the tenant is
782
entitled to the equivalent of five or six times the rent of the lost area, but where that area includes a farm or buildings, it is not adequate compensation for the destruction of one's life's work.
The Tenant Farmers Association is calling for compensation for loss of potential profits and the cost of replacement of fixed equipment, among other things, to be awarded to the tenant, by arbitration if necessary. The claim seems to be fair and equitable, and I suggest it to my hon. Friend the Minister. Even though it is an abuse of the notice to quit powers under the 1986 Act, there is nothing to stop a landlord obtaining planning permission without ever intending to implement it or actually implementing it, just to gain possession of the property. I suggest that if planning permission is to be used just as a device to end a tenancy, surely the tenant should in turn be awarded proper compensation for his loss.
Had my time to speak not been limited, I would have addressed the House at greater length on the problems arising out of the dairy quotas. I should like to stress to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary the difficulties with regard to arbitration. Usually new rents are negotiated between landlord and tenant, both sides using agents, and if an agreement cannot be reached, the 1986 Act lays down factors that an arbitrator should take into account.
The hazards of arbitration are now only too apparent. In a recent case in Lancashire five tenant farmers had to carry the landlord's entire cost of arbitration of £75,000 on some 700 acres. It was an astonishing award by any standards. The fact that it happened means that arbitration is not now to be considered lightly, even by some larger farmers. Many agents are reporting that tenants are instructing them to act in negotiations, but not to go to arbitration, with the result that higher rents than can be justified economically are often agreed to avoid this. At a time in the economy of agriculture when it would be an effective argument for a tenant to press for a reduction in the new rent claimed, arbitration is of itself generating unjustified rent increases.
The remedy is clear: each side should bear his own costs of an arbitration, unless an arbitrator makes a specific finding that one side or the other was unreasonably pursuing his case to arbitration. Arbitration should be simple and cheap and should be an acceptable outcome and procedure. Without that reform, it is rapidly ceasing to be any of those things. I believe that the problem is even worse in some cases for the county council tenant, where the approach is often confrontational rather than conciliatory, with arbitration almost the inevitable outcome. Once again, the smaller farmer is the one to suffer.
The tenant farmer has historically been of the greatest importance to agriculture. When farming faces declining incomes, the tenanted sector faces particular disadvantages and difficulties, especially as agriculture moves from a period of growth to one of restraint and diversification. I hope that in his reply my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will recognise the importance of the sector and its difficulties, that he will reaffirm his belief in a healthy tenanted sector and that he will pledge the Government to take action from time to time when difficulties such as those I have outlined are brought to his notice. Only in that way will the tenanted sector continue to be a healthy one in the agricultural scene.
11.38 pm
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Richard Ryder): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Mr. Alexander), who is a distinguished member of the Select Committee on Agriculture, on his success in the ballot. I do, of course, appreciate the concern about the future of the agricultural landlord-tenant system. It is an important issue and I am grateful to him for raising it.
As I see it, there are two interrelated issues which need to be considered. First, there is the continuing decline in the tenanted sector which affects potential new tenants and established tenants who, for one reason or another, need additional land. Secondly, there are the difficulties that some existing farmers face.
As my hon. Friend knows, at the end of the last century about 90 per cent. of the agricultural land was tenanted, but, according to the 1987 June census, the figure is now about 37 per cent. There have been a number of contributory factors, but an increase in the size of the owner-occupied sector was probably inevitable. It echoes the pattern in the residential sector. However, it is clear that some landowners who do not want to farm the land themselves have been disinclined to let and have opted for other forms of contractual arrangements to maintain value and income. If the tenanted sector is to be revitalised, we must find ways of making the letting of land more attractive to landowners. I shall return to this issue a little later. First, I shall refer to those farmers who already rent a holding.
In recent years, the movement in average farm incomes showed a similar pattern for all types of tenure with declines in 1985–86 followed by a recovery in 1986–87. However, in 1987–88, the latest year for which data are available, wholly tenanted farms in the farm business survey in England recorded a small increase—nearly 5 per cent.—in average income, while their owner-occupied and mixed tenure counterparts showed falls. Incomes on particular types of farm—for example, dairying—moved in the same direction for tenanted as for other farms. Figures are not yet available for 1988–89, the year in which the sharp fall in farm incomes has been the subject of concern in the farming community.
Assets tend to be lower on tenanted than on owner-occupied farms, but borrowings are also lower. On average, the borrowings of tenanted farms in 1987–88 were only about two thirds of those of owner-occupied farms and less than half those of mixed tenure farms. In addition, about 40 per cent. of tenanted farms in the survey recorded no bank borrowing at all at the close of 1987–88. For the small business size group, about half recorded no bank borrowings.
As I have said, our 1987–88 survey showed that tenanted farms in England recorded an increase in average income of nearly 5 per cent. The annual rent inquiry for 1988 showed that in all English farms in the inquiry due a rent review between 1987 and 1988 there was an average increase in rent of 3·5 per cent. On about half the farms due a rent review there was no change in the rent. In Wales on farms due a rent review there was an average increase of 7·75 per cent. On about one quarter of the farms due a rent review there was no change.
784
There is, therefore, no evidence to suggest that rents are not coming down as quickly as profits. On the contrary, it appears that the new rent formula introduced in 1984 is working satisfactorily.
My hon. Friend has drawn attention to some recent arbitrations in which tenants have been faced with high costs. Under the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986, the arbitrator determines who should pay the costs. He must take into consideration, first, the reasonableness or otherwise of the claim of either party; secondly, any unreasonable demand for particulars or refusal to supply particulars; and, thirdly, generally all the circumstances of the case.
The usual advice to arbitrators in legal text books, as my hon. Friend, as a lawyer, will know, is that they should follow the general working principle adopted by the courts that costs should follow the award unless the particular circumstances dictate otherwise. Therefore, each party must remember that the award may go against him, in which case he is likely to have to pay the costs. He should consider carefully with his professional adviser whether it is sensible to go to arbitration or whether it would be more prudent to reach an agreement.
Arbitration costs can, of course, be reduced if parties reach agreement on as many issues as possible before the hearing. If complex legal issues are raised or parties produce a mass of evidence, an arbitration can prove expensive.
The Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors has published a booklet entitled "Minimising the Costs of Agricultural Arbitration". It is a step-by-step guide through the arbitration process, showing the correct procedures and how to avoid protracted proceedings and expensive consequences. We hope that parties to an arbitration will find it a useful guide.
I note my hon. Friend's suggestion that each party should bear his own costs, unless the arbitrator considers one side to have acted unreasonably, in which case he could be required to pay the other party's costs. The Tenant Farmers Association may wish to discuss that proposal with the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors and other organisations representing landlords and tenants. If it is felt that this approach is practical and it attracts a reasonable degree of support from the industry, we would be prepared to consider proposals for changing the legislation when an opportunity arises. We would, however, need to be satisfied that there is a genuine need for change which could not be met in some other way.
It is suggested that tenants may be unable to diversify into non-agricultural activities or to take up the opportunity of alternative land uses, but I am pleased to say that there are signs that landlords are allowing their tenants to do so. A tenant who wants to establish an enterprise must consider the terms of his tenancy agreement, and he may need to negotiate a variation with his landlord. For that reason, he will be wise to discuss his ideas with the landlord. A business study, for which a grant can be obtained under a farm diversification grant scheme, may prove invaluable in this context, as I would expect a landlord to be reluctant to give approval to a scheme of doubtful viability or which is ill conceived.
I understand that some tenancy agreements—particularly those of local authority tenants—prohibit the tenant from earning income from non-agricultural

785
sources. However, I believe that some local authorities are now being more flexible in their approach to diversification, and I find that encouraging.
More generally, I make it clear that, when we are devising new schemes, we take considerable trouble to ensure that tenants and owner-occupiers alike can participate. I am pleased to say that this is bearing fruit. For example, in the set-aside scheme nearly one third of all applications came from tenants.
My hon. Friend intimated that a tenant should be able to apply to the agricultural lands tribunal if his landlord will not agree to his diversification plans. However, in many cases an amendment to the tenancy agreement is required, and, at present, ALTs do not have the power to do that. Without fairly fundamental changes to the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986, it is doubtful whether a tribunal could give a tenant permission to engage in a non-agricultural activity if a clause in the tenancy agreement specifically prohibits the use of the land for non-agricultural purposes.
The agricultural holdings legislation aims to strike a fair balance between the often conflicting interests of landlords and tenants. The satisfactory tenant farmer is given security of tenure, but the legislation recognises that there are circumstances in which the landlord should he able to regain possession. They include the situation in which he has obtained planning permission to use the tenanted land for a non-agricultural purpose. It should be remembered that the landlord is the owner of the capital asset and should, in common with other owners of property, be entitled to any increase in value that may accrue from possible development. He has elected to enter the land market with all the risks that that involves, which, in some cases, can mean a low return and falling land values, where there is no development potential, or the land is of poor quality.
My hon. Friend said that some landlords are using the incontestable notice to quit provisions as a means of regaining vacant possession of the holdings and are not proceeding with the development for which they had obtained planning permission. I have not received any representations on this issue, and if my hon. Friend wishes me to examine this issue I would need to have further information on the scale of the problem.
The appropriate level of compensation to be paid to a tenant when his land is taken for development is clearly a contentious issue. No formula will satisfy everyone, but the current provisions in the legislation entitle the tenant to compensation for disturbance equal to up to six years' rent, plus compensation for improvements and tenant
786
right matters. The level of compensation for disturbance was last increased in 1968 at a time when loss of land to development was increasing. The rate of land lost to development—and this is not generally known—is now only about one third of what it was in the 1960s. A major difficulty noted in 1968, which is as valid today, is the shortage of land to rent. This often makes it difficult for tenant farmers who lose land to development to find other land to rent. Increasing the level of compensation paid to tenants for disturbance could be a further disincentive to landlords to let land.
That brings me back to a point that I made at the outset of my speech concerning the decline in the amount of tenanted land. Various interests in the industry are rightly considering ways of revitalising the tenanted sector. These include provision of fixed-term tenancies, retirement tenancies and complete freedom of contract. I welcome these initiatives and look forward to hearing the views of the Tenant Farmers Association on the way forward when I meet its representatives in the middle of May.
My right hon. Friend the Minister and I have made it clear that if the Government were presented with practical ways of making tenancies easier to create, we would be prepared to consider them. However, if we are to contemplate legislation—and I should stress that there are always difficulties in securing a slot in the legislative programme—there must be not only some signs of agreement in the industry but, even more important, a clear prospect of the legislation being of worthwhile practical effect.
Finally, my hon. Friend mentioned the attachment of milk quotas to land. The Government's position is clear. It would be in the industry's interest for the link between quotas and land to be broken. That would make it easier for normal structural development to take place. That requires changes in Community rules, so immediate action is in any event unlikely. The Government would certainly wish to protect the legitimate interest of landlords and tenants alike.
I thank my hon. Friend for initiating the debate and for setting out his case so clearly and cogently. If, for reasons of time, I have not been able to deal with each of his points, he can be sure that I will write to him later. This is an issue of great importance, as he stressed, and my hon. Friend has done a great service to the House and to tenant farmers by raising the subject so well.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at seven minutes to Twelve o'clock.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Lebanon
  Mr. Grylls
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he proposes to take to seek to restrain the military action by Syrian forces against the Lebanon.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The Twelve have made dàmarches to both the Syrian and General Aoun and issued a statement on 17 April calling for restraint and a ceasefire. We fully support the efforts of the Arab League to find a negotiated solution and urge all parties to work with the league to that end.

  Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if, during his visit to the United States of America on 16 April, he raised with the United States Secretary of State(a) the first preparatory committee meeting of the 1990 nuclear non-proliferation treaty to be held 1–5 May in New York, and (b) the strategy that the depository states for the non-proliferation treaty could adopt to increase the membership of the treaty.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  No. However, we take every appropriate opportunity to discuss these issues with the United States. Preparations for the 1990 non-proliferation treaty review conference are frequently discussed at official level.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if, at the recent meeting in Spain of the Council of European Community Foreign Affairs Ministers, he raised the matter of the 1990 fourth review conference of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and the non-membership of France of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  No.

  Vietnam
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the visit of the Minister of State to Vietnam with regard to the returning boat people.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  During his visit my noble Friend Lord Glenarthur discussed all aspects of the boat people problem, stressing the heavy burden placed on Hong Kong and the urgent need to find a comprehensive and durable solution. He visited some returnees in their homes. All said they were glad to have returned, and that they had been well treated.

  Israel
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Government of Israel following the killing by their occupation forces of Palestinian children in Nahalim.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The Israelis will be fully aware of our views on this tragic incident following the statement by the FCO spokesman on 14 April and our vote in favour of the UN General Assembly resolution on 20 April.

  British Citizens Overseas (Imprisonment)
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will give by reference to a common date the number of British citizens imprisoned abroad, showing the number in each country; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  To the best of our knowledge there were 1,190 British citizens detained overseas on 31 December 1988. A breakdown by country is given in the table.

  British nationals detained overseas: 31 December 1988 (Total 1,190)

  Number

  Argentina

  1

  Australia

  16

  Austria

  5

  Bahrain

  1

  Bangladesh

  3

  Barbados

  2

  Belgium

  32

  Botswana

  1

  Brazil

  4

  Bulgaria

  1

  Canada

  7

  Colombia

  1

  Cote D'lvoire

  1

  Cyprus

  2

  Denmark

  8

  Ecuador

  1

  Egypt

  4

  Finland

  3

  France

  162

  Germany, West

  116

  Ghana

  2

  Greece

  33

  Guyana

  1

  Hong Kong

  8

  India

  23

  Indonesia

  4

  Iran

  1

  Iraq

  1

  Ireland

  7

  Israel

  6

  Italy

  23

  Jamaica

  13

  Japan

  9

  Kenya

  9

  Korea, South

  1

  Kuwait

  8

  Liechtenstein

  2

  Luxembourg

  3

  Malawi

  1

  Malaysia

  3

  Malta

  7

  Mexico

  4

  Morocco

  8

  Mozambique

  1

  Nepal

  6

  Netherlands

  19

  New Caledonia

  1

  New Zealand

  3

  359

  Number

  Norway

  26

  Oman

  4

  Pakistan

  1

  Peru

  5

  Philippines

  10

  Portugal

  27

  Qatar

  1

  Saudi Arabia

  5

  South Africa

  42

  Spain

  216

  Sri Lanka

  1

  Swaziland

  2

  Sweden

  32

  Switzerland

  42

  Taiwan

  3

  Thailand

  17

  Trinidad and Tobago

  1

  Turkey

  1

  Turks and Caicos Islands

  1

  United Arab Emirates

  9

  United States of America

  141

  Venezuela

  1

  Yugoslavia

  2

  Zimbabwe

  20

  Total

  1,188

  Central America
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has on(a) the percentage of voters which elected the present Governments of Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Nicaragua, (b) the protection of opposition parties and supporters from military or para-military attacks or repression in these countries and (c) the facilities to meet and campaign enjoyed by such parties; and what regard he has to these factors when formulating his policy towards Central America.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The figures available to us are as follows:

  (a)

  Country

  Election Date

  Winning Candidate/Party

  Per cent. of votes cast

  El Salvador

  6 May 1984

  José Napoleon Duarte (Christian Democrat)

  154·05

  Guatemala

  5 December 1985

  Vinicio Cerezo Arevalo (Christian Democrat)

  168·00

  Honduras

  14 November 1985

  Jose Azcona Hoyo (Liberal)

  49·23

  Nicaragua

  4 November 1984

  Daniel Ortega Saavedra (Sandinista National Liberation Front)

  61·77

  1 Second Round Figures.

  In the most recent Presidential election in E1 Salvador (19 March 1989), Alfredo Cristiani of the National Republican Alliance (ARENA) won on the first round with 54.8 per cent. of the votes cast. He will take office on 1 June.

  (b) There were reports of harassment of the opposition in the course of all these elections. The nature of this harassment varied according to the situation in each country. In E1 Salvador in 1984 a number of Left-wing parties decided that it would not be safe for them to participate. They did however participate in 1989.

  (c) Opposition parties have in general enjoyed reasonable freedom to meet and campaign, although
  360
  according to the Socialist International, in the Nicaraguan elections in 1984 the opposition suffered harassment and censorship of their campaign materials. They were also allotted unequal time on radio and television. Several political parties did not participate because they considered conditions did not exist for a genuinely democratic election.

  Support for democracy is one of the guiding principles on which our policy towards Central America is based. We therefore take very careful account of the conduct of elections and the context in which they take place.

DEFENCE

  Aircraft Deployment
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the nature and purpose of the deployment of United States Air Force reserve C-130 aircraft to RAF Benson in September 1988.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The temporary deployment of three United States air national guard tactical aircraft units to RAF Benson in September 1988 was designed to give reservist aircrews experience of European flying conditions.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the nature and purpose of the deployment of United States marine corps F/A-18 aircraft to Edinburgh airport in September 1988.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The purpose of the deployment of United States marine corps F/A 18 aircraft to Edinburgh airport during the period 3 to 9 September 1988 was to test the staging facilities for elements of the II United States marine air wing en route to a deployment destination in northern Europe as part of a NATO exercise.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list all exercises or deployments involving four or more aircraft of visiting forces for 1988 at bases and facilities, both military and civil, in the United Kingdom, giving the number of aircraft, type of aircraft, the major base or facility used and the dates of the exercises.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The information requested is not held centrally and could not be compiled without disproportionate cost and effort.

  Imber
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the dangers to members of the armed forces training in the village of Imber and surrounding lands from (i) unexploded ordnance, (ii) metal fragments, (iii) wire entanglements and (iv) open trenches.

  Mr. Neubert
  Unexploded ordnance, wire entanglements, metal fragments, and open trenches are inherently dangerous. However, since soldiers are trained to recognise and take appropriate steps to deal with such dangers and have support from specialist explosive ordnance disposal teams, I am satisfied that risks to military personnel training in and around Imber village are kept to an acceptable minimum. Indeed there have been no recorded injuries to soldiers training in the area from unexploded ordnance in the last 10 years.
  361
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the number of injuries that have occurred to members of the armed forces training in the village of Imber and surrounding lands for each year since 1979 that are attributable to (i) unexploded ordnance, (ii) metal fragments, (iii) wire entanglements and (iv) open trenches.

  Mr. Neubert
  There are no records of injuries to members of the armed forces resulting from incidents involving unexploded ordnance whilst training in the village of Imber or the surrounding area in the years since 1979. In respect of the other data requested by the hon. Member, I regret that the information is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his reply of 3 March,Official Report, column 358, if he will list the legislation subsequent to the Defence Act 1842 that is relevant to the powers under which his Department holds the village of Imber and surrounding lands.

  Mr. Neubert
  The legislation subsequent to the Defence Act 1842 that is relevant to the power under which MOD holds the village of Imber and the surrounding lands is the Ordnance Board Transfer Act 1855 and the Defence Transfer of Functions Act 1964.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his reply of 3 March,(Official Report column 357–58, if he will reconsider his decision not to search

  Royal Navy ships

  Period of visit

  Ports visited

  HMS Trafalgar

  28 September—3 October 1987

  Liverpool

  HMS Churchill

  30 January—4 February 1988

  Cardiff

  HMS Superb

  1 March—6 March 1988

  Cardiff

  HMS Courageous

  2 March—7 March 1988

  Liverpool

  HMS Tireless

  9 March—15 March 1988

  Southampton

  HMS Torbay

  11 May—17 May 1988

  Liverpool

  HMS Sceptre

  4 June—10 June 1988

  Liverpool

  HMS Trafalgar

  12 October—18 October 1988

  Cardiff

  HMS Turbulent

  2 December—12 December 1988

  Liverpool

  HMS Tireless

  25 January—2 February 1989

  Cardiff

  HMS Churchill

  23 February—28 February 1989

  Southampton

  There were no visits to civil ports by foreign nuclear-powered warships.

  Exercise Womble
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence(a) how many soldiers were involved in Exercise Womble on Salisbury plain on 31 March, (b) which parts of Salisbury plain were covered by this exercise, (c) how many square miles, or square kilometres, were cleared by this exercise, (d) how many instances of (i) unexploded ordnance, (ii) metal fragments, (iii) wire entanglements or (iv) open trenches were found during this exercise, (e) how many injuries to personnel were recorded during this exercise, (f) how much litter was picked up during this exercise; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Neubert
  Exercise Womble formed part of the annual clean-up of all ranges, training areas and camps within the Army's south-west district area. It involved about 500 men, lasted one day, and covered some 35 square miles of the Salisbury Plain training area. Small amounts of unexploded ordnance were discovered and removed for safe disposal; these were one artillery shell,
  362
  relevant records so as to ascertain the number of representations his Department has received regarding the continued use of the village of Imber and surrounding lands by the armed forces.

  Mr. Neubert
  No, but I stress that those records that are readily available indicate that no recent representations have been received concerning the continued use of Imber by the Army.

  Ships (Visits)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on (i) the recent visit of HMS Turbulent to Liverpool, (ii) the recent visit of HMS Tireless to Cardiff, and (iii) the recent visit of HMS Churchill to Southampton.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  These visits were carried out for rest and recreation purposes and to further relations between the Royal Navy and the areas concerned.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list all visits by (i) United Kingdom and (ii) non-United Kingdom nuclear powered vessels to non-naval ports that have taken place since June 1987, giving the name of vessel, port visited and dates visited.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Royal Navy nuclear-powered submarines have visited berths in United Kingdom civil ports on the following occasions since June 1987:

  one demolition charge and three pyrotechnic devices. Eight 4-ton truck loads of metal fragments, iron pickets and the remains of metal targets were removed and 11 open trenches filled in. No serious injuries were reported although a number of soldiers were treated for minor cuts and abrasions. Some 700 plastic dustbin liners filled with a mixture of domestic civilian and military rubbish were recovered along with several discarded refrigerators and other domestic appliances.

  Arms Deployment
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will make a statement on the levels he envisages for limits on the amounts of arms a country can station in another country under the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation proposals to the conventional forces in Europe talks;

  (2) if he will make a statement on the levels he envisages for zonal sublimits on the stationing of certain categories of weapons in specific geographical areas under the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation proposals to the conventional forces in Europe talks.
  363
  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Member to rules 3 and 4 in the proposals submitted by the 16 NATO countries at the opening of the conference on conventional forces in Europe, a copy of which is in the Library.

  Harrier (Sales)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the proposed sale of RAF Harrier GR3 aircraft to Zimbabwe.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The content of discussions on defence sales matters is confidential.

  Cruise Missiles (Boscombe Down)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps were taken to notify parties to the intermediate nuclear forces agreement of the transfer of eight cruise missile launchers from RAF Greenham Common to Boscombe Down airfield between 20 March and 5 April; why they were transferred; how their transfer affects the right to access for on-site inspection under the intermediate nuclear forces agreement; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The INF treaty, which is a bilateral agreement between the United States and the Soviet Union, allows either party to deploy treaty-limited items such as missile launchers within designated deployment areas for unspecified periods of time without the need to notify the other party. This arrangement has, I understand, worked well and given neither party any cause for concern.

  As the hon. Member is aware, it is not our practice to comment upon operational details. I can, however, say that the launch vehicles were not transferred directly from RAF Greenham Common to A&AEE Boscombe Down, but spent time there during an off-base deployment which left Greenham Common on 14 March and returned there on 12 April. As this took place within the United Kingdom deployment area, there was no requirement for the United States to inform the Soviet Union, and no such steps were taken.

  On-site inspections can only take place at specified locations, which in the United Kingdom are RAF Greenham Common and RAF Molesworth. Whenever an inspection is called, which is always at short notice, it is possible that treaty-limited items will be deployed away from those locations. This is accepted by both parties.

  Nuclear Disarmament
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his oral answer to the hon. Member for Oldham, Central and Royton (Mr. Lamond) of 7 March,Official Report, column 738, what category of nuclear disarmament it is the policy of Her Majesty's Government to support.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  In common with our NATO allies, this Government support arms control agreements, whether nuclear or conventional, which enhance stability and allow Western security to be maintained at lower levels of weapons. For the foreseeable future, the Alliance sees no alternative to its policy of deterrence based on an appropriate mix of adequate and effective nuclear and conventional forces, kept up-to-date where necessary.

  Forest Fires
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, if, pursuant to his answer of 11 April, he will consider providing the British armed forces with aircraft suitable for fighting forest fires.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  No. Responsibility for fighting forest fires rests with the appropriate civil authorities.

  Computers
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many instances have been detected in his Department of computer(a) hacking, (b) viruses, (c) logic bombs, (d) trojan horses or (e) other types of computer misuse, whether perpetrated by authorised or unauthorised users of the computers; and how many unsuccessful attempts have been recorded;

  (2) if he will make a statement on all recorded cases of unauthorised access to his Department's computer files.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The information is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he can quantify the risk of damage by hackers to sensitive computerised files in his Department.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The risk of damage by hackers to MOD computerised files holding classified material is regularly assessed. It is not in the interests of national security to provide details of the current assessment.

  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether staff are briefed about computer hacking and computer viruses; and whether there are contingency plans to deal with computer downtime caused by unauthorised penetration.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Staff are trained in computer security including hacking and computer viruses. In addition, departmental instructions are circulated on computer security-related issues.

  The necessary contingency plans are in place to deal with computer downtime, no matter what the cause.

  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give details of his Department's policy on review of the security of its computer files.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  MOD computer security staff continuously review the Department's computer security policy and its application to ensure that constant and adequate levels of protection are provided for those computer systems processing or holding classified material.

  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what measures his Department has taken to protect data in transit by electronic means.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Data in transit by electronic means is adequately protected. It is not in the interests of national security to provide details of the measures employed.

  USAF Aircraft (Crashes)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will make a statement about the crash of a United
  365
  States Air Force A-10 Tankbuster jet from RAF Bentwaters at Bank farm, Benwick near Chatteris, Cambridgeshire;

  (2) if he will make a statement about each crash in the United Kingdom or its territorial waters of United States Air Force jets in the last year; what risk to life was involved; and what armaments they were carrying.

  Mr. Neubert
  During the last year, three United States Air Force aircraft have been lost in accidents in the United Kingdom, as follows:

  i. 22 December 1988: and A-10 aircraft crashed near St. Ives, Cambridgeshire, during a routine training flight. The pilot successfully ejected.

  ii. 4 April 1989: an A-10 aircraft crashed on landing at RAF Alconbury. The pilot was uninjured.

  iii. 17 April 1989: and A-10 aircraft crashed during a routine training flight on open farmland one mile south of Benwick, Cambridgeshire. The pilot was killed.

  Date

  Tail

  Type/Mark

  Station

  Fatalities

  Unit

  30 April 1975

  XX831

  Jaguar T2

  Lossiemouth

  0

  226 OCU

  5 February 1976

  XX137

  Jaguar T2

  Lossiemouth

  0

  226 OCU

  2 July 1976

  XX822

  Jaguar GR1

  Bruggen

  1

  14 SQN

  15 September 1976

  XX735

  Jaguar GR1

  Coltishall

  1

  6SQN

  17 September 1976

  XX120

  Jaguar GR1

  Coltishall

  1

  54 SQN

  14 December 1976

  XZ102

  Jaguar GR1

  Laarbruch

  0

  2 SQN

  25 February 1977

  XZ120

  Jaguar GR1

  Laarbruch

  1

  2 SQN

  14 June 1977

  XX978

  Jaguar GR1

  Bruggen

  1

  31 SQN

  29 July 1977

  XX148

  Jaguar T2

  Lossiemouth

  2

  226 OCU

  21 March 1978

  XX971

  Jaguar GR1

  Bruggen

  0

  31 SQN

  27 April 1978

  XX149

  Jaguar T2

  Lossiemouth

  2

  226 OCU

  25 July 1978

  XX823

  Jaguar GR1

  Bruggen

  1

  17 SQN

  1 November 1978

  XX759

  Jaguar GR1

  Lossiemouth

  1

  226 OCU

  26 March 1979

  XX147

  Jaguar T2

  Bruggen

  0

  17 SQN

  22 June 1979

  XX142

  Jaguar T2

  Lossiemouth

  2

  226 OCU

  18 July 1979

  XX960

  Jaguar GR1

  Bruggen

  0

  14 SQN

  23 November 1979

  XX762

  Jaguar GR1

  Lossiemouth

  1

  226 OCU

  10 December 1979

  XX755

  Jaguar GR1

  Lossiemouth

  1

  226 OCU

  10 December 1979

  XX749

  Jaguar GR1

  Lossiemouth

  0

  226 OCU

  28 May 1980

  XX964

  Jaguar GR1

  Bruggen

  0

  17 SQN

  28 May 1980

  XX961

  Jaguar GR1

  Bruggen

  1

  17 SQN

  17 July 1980

  XX817

  Jaguar GR1

  Bruggen

  0

  17 SQN

  12 February 1981

  XX827

  Jaguar GR1

  Bruggen

  1

  17 SQN

  14 April 1981

  XX973

  Jaguar GR1

  Bruggen

  0

  31 SQN

  1 June 1981

  XX828

  Jaguar T2

  Lossiemouth

  0

  226 OCU

  17 July 1981

  XXI13

  Jaguar GR1

  Abingdon

  0

  MU

  6 August 1981

  XX972

  Jaguar GR1

  Bruggen

  1

  31 SQN

  21 October 1981

  XX957

  Jaguar GR1

  Bruggen

  0

  20 SQN

  18 November 1981

  XX758

  Jaguar GR1

  Lossiemouth

  1

  226 OCU

  2 April 1982

  XX122

  Jaguar GR1

  Coltishall

  1

  54 SQN

  25 May 1982

  XX963

  Jaguar GR1

  Bruggen

  0

  14 SQN

  11 June 1982

  XX820

  Jaguar GR1

  Bruggen

  0

  31 SQN

  13 September 1982

  XX760

  Jaguar GR1

  Bruggen

  0

  14 SQN

  29 September 1982

  XX768

  Jaguar GR1

  Bruggen

  0

  17 SQN

  7 March 1983

  XZ376

  Jaguar GR1

  Bruggen

  0

  17 SQN

  19 April 1983

  XX742

  Jaguar GR1

  Coltishall

  0

  6 SQN

  16 June 1983

  XZ105

  Jaguar GR1

  Laarbruch

  0

  2 SQN

  16 June 1983

  XZ110

  Jaguar GR1

  Laarbruch

  0

  2 SQN

  22 June 1983

  XX721

  Jaguar GR1

  Coltishall

  0

  54 SQN

  19 September 1983

  XXI14

  Jaguar GR1

  Lossiemouth

  0

  226 OCU

  7 February 1984

  XX750

  jaeuar GR1

  Coltishall

  1

  6 SQN

  12 July 1984

  XZ393

  Jaguar GR1A

  Coltishall

  0

  54 SQN

  22 August 1984

  XZ395

  Jaguar GR1A

  Coltishall

  0

  54 SQN

  1 April 1985

  XZ388

  Jaguar GR1

  Bruggen

  0

  14 SQN

  9 July 1985

  XX365

  Jaguar GR1A

  Laarbruch

  0

  2 SQN

  7 October 1985

  XX728

  Jaguar GR1A

  Coltishall

  0

  6 SQN

  7 October 1985

  XX731

  Jaguar GR1

  Coltishall

  1

  6 SQN

  366
  In each case the aircraft was equipped with GAU7 anti-tank guns and practice ammunition. No civilians were injured as a result of any of these accidents.

  RAF Aircraft (Crashes)
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list in the Official Report all crashes involving RAF Jaguar aircraft since 30 April 1975, showing the date of the crash, the serial number of the aircraft, the unit it was attached to and the fatalities, if any, involved in the crash.

  Mr. Neubert
  The details of serious accidents involving RAF Jaguar aircraft in which the aircraft sustained irreparable damage are as follows:
  367

  Date

  Tail

  Type/Mark

  Station

  Fatalities

  Unit

  27 November 1986

  XX732

  Jaguar GR1A

  Lossiemouth

  1

  226 OCU

  17 June 1987

  XZ116

  Jaguar GR1A

  Coltishall

  1

  41 SQN

  24 June 1987

  XZ386

  Jaguar GR1A

  Lossiemouth

  1

  226 OCU

  7 September 1988

  XX834

  Jaguar T2

  Coltishall

  1

  6SQN

  13 April 1989

  XZ359

  Jaguar GR1A

  Coltishall

  1

  54SQN

  Low-flying Aircraft
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will prohibit RAF low-flying over cliff nesting sites for sea birds on the east coast of Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Neubert
  For flight safety reasons, areas of major bird concentration, including the locations of major seabird breeding colonies in Scotland, are already notified to aircrews who will take account of the potential hazards in the planning and execution of their low flying sorties. It is not therefore generally necessary to impose mandatory restrictions on the overflight of specific cliff nesting sites.

  NATINADS Exercise
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what role will be played by RAF Stornoway and Stornoway airport in the United Kingdom NATINADS exercise scheduled for 25 to 27 April;

  (2) what role will be played by RAF Benbecula and Benbecula airfield in the United Kingdom NATINADS exercise scheduled for 25 to 27 April.

  Mr. Neubert
  During the NATO integrated air defence system exercise MAULSTICK, which is planned to be held between 25 and 27 April, the radar facilities at RAF Benbecula will be tested by a small number of aircraft operating some miles away from the island. RAF Stornoway will not be involved.

  Defence Export Services
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when Mr. Alan Thomas will be taking over from Sir Colin Chandler as head of Defence Export Services; and what are the terms of the appointment.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Mr. Alan Thomas will start taking over from Sir Colin Chandler as Head of Defence Export Services in early July. He will assume total responsibility for the post in September.

  Mr. Thomas was appointed at a salary of £100,000 a year subject to annual review. He will also be eligible for a performance bonus.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Manaus Conference
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the results of the Manaus conference, sponsored by the Royal Geographical Society, on Amazonia, at which he was represented.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  At the Manaus conference a five volume economic survey compiled by Dr. Ratter of the 368
  Royal Botanic Garden, Edinburgh was handed over. Forty-six scientific papers were read (in Portuguese) and useful discussions on future work were held. The Brazilian authorities expressed satisfaction with the level of expertise and the degree of United Kingdom/Brazilian co-operation. A series of reports will be prepared for Acta Amazonia, the major Brazilian journal of the National Institute of Amazon Research in Manaus. The Overseas Development Administration expects shortly a written report from the Royal Geographical Society.

  Brazil
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will arrange for a member of his Department to visit the Maraca project, Brazil.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer which my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council gave him on 18 April, at column 183. We are in discussion with the Brazilian authorities on what further assistance may be given for rain forest work in Brazil. If a visit by an Overseas Development Administration team is agreed it will present an opportunity for the team leader to visit the Maraca project.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Patten), the Minister for Overseas Development, has to pay a visit to Brazil.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  Dependent on other commitments, I hope to visit Brazil later this year.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proposals he has for the forest regeneration team to return for two months to Maraca ecological reserve, Brazil.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  The forest regeneration team are returning to Maraca for two months under the project work plan funded by the Overseas Development Administration as soon as their visas have been authorised.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what funds Her Majesty's Government are providing to study the Alexa tree at the western end of Maraca, Brazil, for its potential in providing the plant alkaloid castanospermine; and what interim results are available from the clinical tests at St. Mary's hospital, London, with a view to providing a treatment for certain forms of the disease AIDS.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  The Overseas Development Administration support for research in the Maraca forests has been concerned with their management and
  369
  regeneration and not specifically with the Alexa tree. However we are aware of the great potential importance of the Alexa species for biochemical extractives. If the Brazilian authorities request support for collaborative research on the Alexa tree this will be considered sympathetically and could be looked at during the proposed ODA team visit to Brazil.

  I understand laboratory studies involving synthetic castanospermine are in progress but I have no knowledge of clinical trials at St. Mary's hospital, London. The hon. Member may wish to approach the medical authorities about this.

  Gross bilateral aid to central America 1979—1987 in current prices

  £ thousands

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  Costa Rica

  623

  606

  570

  486

  1,838

  1,666

  12,685

  10,038

  2,584

  El Salvador

  448

  265

  41

  13

  0

  205

  103

  239

  411

  Guatemala

  14

  35

  15

  4

  0

  0

  0

  10

  1

  Honduras

  230

  335

  5,002

  2,272

  6,670

  3,446

  3,653

  1,258

  811

  Mexico

  1,186

  1,577

  1,464

  34,334

  2,827

  517

  773

  803

  630

  Nicaragua

  246

  127

  91

  49

  64

  9

  116

  86

  0

  Panama

  63

  94

  102

  62

  43

  49

  67

  70

  72

  Total

  2,810

  3,039

  7,285

  37,220

  11,442

  5,892

  17,397

  12,504

  4,509

  Gross bilateral aid to central America 1979—1987 in constant 1987 prices

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  Costa Rica

  1,127

  916

  773

  613

  2,204

  1,909

  13,751

  10,513

  2,584

  El Salvador

  811

  401

  56

  16

  0

  235

  112

  250

  411

  Guatemala

  25

  53

  20

  5

  0

  0

  0

  10

  1

  Honduras

  416

  506

  6,786

  2,864

  7,998

  3,949

  3,960

  1,318

  811

  Mexico

  2,146

  2,384

  1,986

  43,277

  3,390

  592

  838

  841

  630

  Nicaragua

  445

  192

  123

  62

  77

  10

  126

  90

  0

  Panama

  114

  142

  138

  78

  52

  56

  73

  73

  72

  Total

  5,085

  4,595

  9,884

  46,915

  13,720

  6,752

  18,858

  13,096

  4,509

  Nicaragua
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish a table in the Official Report showing in ranked order the per capita contributions made by Economic Co-operation and Development member states to Nicaragua for the latest year for which figures are available, including the total aid given by each Economic Co-operation and Development country for that year.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  The information is as follows:

  Net official development assistance from OECD member countries to Nicaragua in 1987

  Donor

  Net official development assistance

  Per capita

  $US000's

  US$

  Norway

  14,350

  3·430

  Sweden

  25,590

  3·047

  Denmark

  11,370

  2·216

  Finland

  7,390

  1·498

  Netherlands

  19,800

  1·350

  Switzerland

  3,210

  0·486

  Austria

  1,410

  0·186

  Italy

  10,300

  0180

  France

  9,210

  0·166

  Germany

  6,240

  0·102

  Belgium

  770

  0·078

  Canada

  1,060

  0·041

  Ireland

  10

  0·003

  Japan

  290

  0·002

  Central America
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the level of British bilateral aid to each of the states in Central America for each year from 1979 onwards in(a) current and (b) constant prices.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  The figures for Central America and Mexico are as follows. The figures include investment by the Commonwealth Development Corporation but do not take account of joint funding provided to non-governmental organisations.

  Donor

  Net official development assistance

  Per capita

  $US 000's

  US$

  Australia

  30

  0·002

  New Zealand

  —

  —

  United Kingdom

  —

  —

  United States

  —

  —

  Total

  111,030

  0·157

  Note: Figures relate to member states of the Development Assistance Committee (DAC) of the OECD. No figures are available for non-DAC OECD members.

  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the total emergency assistance given to Nicaragua in response to Hurricane Joan.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  Including our contribution through the European Community, the total emergency assistance given to Nicaragua by the United Kingdom in response to Hurricane Joan was £413,000.

  Aid Policy
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what special allocations within grants for overseas aid will be made to ensure that women figure more highly in development projects, especially primary health care and education.
  371
  Mr. Chris Patten
  Our grant aid finances activities which benefit both women and men. We do not make special allocations for either but we aim to design projects to meet women's special needs and problems wherever an opportunity arises.

  Improvements in primary health care and education are central to promoting conditions which allow women to play their full part in development. Our recent booklet "Women, Development and the British Aid Programme", copies of which are in the Library, explains how we are helping in these fields.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Chemicals and Fertilisers
  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received on the possibilities of declaring an amnesty for those farm chemicals and fertilisers currently the subject of banning orders.

  Mr. Ryder
  No representations have been made for an amnesty in respect of fertilisers since none of these are banned. There have however been a number of representations that an amnesty should be declared so as to permit the disposal of holdings of unapproved pesticide concentrates. In each instance it has been explained that no such amnesty is warranted, since those who can demonstrate that they have taken responsible steps towards achieving disposal—that is, by at least having made arrangements with a reputable specialist waste disposal contractor—need not fear that they will be penalised for illegal stockholding. Whenever the degree of risk permits, withdrawal of approval is phased so as to allow existing stocks to be used up.

  Badgers
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Caerphilly of 11 April,Official Report, column 440, whether he intends his Department to finance the additional research necessary on the tuberculosis vaccine for badgers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  I intend my Department to contribute towards funding the further research referred to in my earlier reply.

  Potatoes
  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Gateshead, East on 2 February,Official Report, columns 399–400, whether he intends to update regularly the statistics relating to the use of tecnazene on potatoes.

  Mr. Ryder
  Yes. Pesticide usage surveys are undertaken at regular intervals and the results are published.

  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Gateshead, East on 2 February,Official Report, columns 399–400, whether he now has further details of the use of tecnazene on the 1988 potato crop throughout the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Ryder
  Details of the use of pesticides, including tecnazene, on the 1988 potato crop are still being collected.372
  These figures will cover pesticide usage in England and Wales. Results available from the 1986 crop in Scotland were given in my answer to the hon. Member on 2 February at columns 399–400. Pesticide usage statistics are not collected for Northern Ireland.

  Cereals
  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Norfolk, North,Official Report, 13 April, column 689, what was the total tonnage and average price per tonne of all cereals imported into the United Kingdom in 1986, 1987 and 1988.

  Mr. Ryder
  The following is the information:

  1Quantity (tonnes)

  2Average price (£/tonne)

  1986

  3,517,365

  142·05

  1987

  3,520,873

  133·28

  1988

  3,370,401

  134·05

  1 Quantities rounded to the nearest whole tonne.

  2 Average prices have been calculated from import values on a cost, insurance, freight basis.

  Source: UK Overseas Trade Statistics.

  ADAS
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many people have been employed in the farm and countryside service of the Agricultural Development and Advisory Service in each of the last three years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ryder
  The number of people employed in the farm and countryside service of the Agricultural Development and Advisory Service in the years requested is as follows:

  Number

  1987

  1,903

  1988

  1,774

  1989

  1,785

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the number of man years spent by his advisers working in Agricultural Development Advisory Service for each of the last three years on the following:(a) free advice, (b) extensification work and (c) chargeable advice; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ryder
  This information is in principle included in "Ministerial Information in MAFF" available in the Library of the House. However, publications to date have not distinguished between inputs to free and chargeable advice. It is anticipated such a distinction will be made in the 1989 version and the provisional figures for 1988–89 are 125 man years for free advice and 1,148 man years for chargeable advice. These figures exclude the activities of members of the State Veterinary Service who are not normally classified as "advisers".

  An extensification scheme has not yet been introduced in the United Kingdom. Some ADAS manpower has been involved in advising policy makers on the preparation of a scheme, but it is not included in the figures and cannot be identified separately.

  Milk
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what evidence he has of the use of penicillinase in milk; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  We have no evidence of such use, which would be an offence under section 2 of the Food Act 1984.

  Mr Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are his intentions with regard to the sale of green-top milk.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that my right hon. Friend gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) on 23 February at columns 712–13.

  Fishing Vessels
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information he has on(a) the number of boardings of fishing vessels carried out by each European Community member state, (b) the proportion of such hoardings which were of vessels registered in that country and (c) the number and outcome of prosecutions following such boardings over the latest period for which figures are available.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  I regret that information on hoardings of fishing vessels carried out by other member states and the number and outcome of prosecutions following such boardings is not available to me.

  Food Labelling
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when Her Majesty's Government initially pledged themselves to introduce new laws to improve food labelling; when that proposed legislation is expected to be introduced; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ryder
  We have for a number of years been following a policy of moving away from strict compositional standards for food (recipe law) which restrict consumer choice towards an improved system of food labelling, to ensure that consumers are given adequate information of food labels and are able to make an informed choice. European Community policy is also following the same course.

  As part of the Community's food law harmonisation programme, amendments to the Community food labelling directive, are expected to be adopted by the Council very shortly, following which these will need to be implemented into United Kingdom law.

  The main changes for the United Kingdom are on datemarking of foods. Proposals on nutrition labelling are also under discussion in Brussels. These aim to standardise the presentation of nutrition information so that it is easier for consumers to compare products and to achieve a balanced diet. Other proposals for improved food labelling are also expected to be tabled in the run up to 1992.

  Reprocessed Meat
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will examine the use of mechanically reprocessed meat in pies and sausages and request that all products using such material shall be clearly labelled.
  374
  Mr. Ryder
  Mechanically recovered meat is used in a number of meat products including pies and sausages. The Food Labelling Regulations 1984 require that a treatment given to a food or food ingredient should be indicated in the appropriate place on the label if the omission of such an indication would mislead the purchaser.

  Sea Bass
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress he has made with the French to limit their fishing of sea bass in the Channel.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  I announced on July 27 last year at column 298–99 a series of new steps for the conservation of bass fisheries, involving an increased minimum landing size, mesh size restrictions and plans for the establishment of a series of nursery areas to give protection to juvenile bass. The measures do not involve proposals for quantitative restrictions on the adult bass fishery in the Channel. There is no evidence at present to support the need for such restrictions though we shall continue, however, to keep that fishery under review.

  Rural Housing
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has had any discussions with interested parties on the provision of low-cost housing in rural areas.

  Mr. Ryder
  My right hon. Friends, the Secretaries of State for the Environment and for Wales are, of course, responsible for policy on this matter in England and Wales, respectively. However, rural housing is an issue which is often raised with me in the context of agriculture and countryside matters. I therefore welcome warmly the statement made by the Secretary of State for the Environment on 3 February 1989 at columns 433–34 about new guidance to planning authorities in England, which is intended to increase the provision of low cost housing in rural areas.

  I hope that following the announcement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget statement on the tax position of land sold to housing associations for this purpose, landowners will be encouraged to make suitable land available. An adequate supply of affordable housing to meet the needs of those who live and work in the countryside is an important element in the Government's policies for the diversification of the rural economy.

  Tropical Timber
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Linlithgow,Official Report, 10 April, column 362, he will make a statement on his policy in relation to ensuring where possible that tropical timber is obtained from sustainable sources, in relation to sea defences and other such projects.

  Mr. Ryder
  The source from which timber is obtained cannot be the sole criterion in judging the merits of sea defence and similar projects. Nevertheless, where possible my Department would welcome proposals which utilise timber from sustainable sources.

  Potato Marketing Board
  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on his plans for the future of the Potato Marketing Board.

  Mr. Ryder
  I refer my hon. Friends to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) on 19 April at column 175.

  Fishing (Aid)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will give the amount

  EC Aid Scheme

  Mecus

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  Belgium

  Denmark

  France

  Fishing Vessels and Aquaculture Grants

  3·95

  4·27

  0·80

  0·41

  0·10

  4·62

  7·82

  7·26

  1·25

  3·29

  12·83

  12·42

  16·98

  12·47

  4·74

  Market Support Measures

  0·44

  0·46

  0·48

  0·27

  0·08

  1·52

  —

  2·54

  1·45

  1·55

  3·21

  4·58

  6·76

  5·06

  18·22

  Marketing and Processing Grants

  0·72

  0·83

  0·12

  0·53

  0·97

  0·74

  2·81

  2·97

  0·94

  1·49

  0·82

  0·34

  4·27

  2·34

  1·78

  Germany

  Netherlands

  Spain

  Fishing Vessels and Aquaculture Grants

  3·20

  2·90

  7·71

  4·41

  1·39

  2·07

  1·33

  4·73

  0·66

  0·57

  —

  —

  2·206

  32·2

  1·814

  Market Support Measures

  1·40

  0·44

  0·17

  0·27

  0·49

  2·47

  1·11

  0·90

  —

  0·06

  —

  —

  —

  2·40

  19·38

  Marketing and Processing Grants

  0·57

  1·83

  0·95

  1·83

  1·34

  —

  0·85

  1·20

  0·41

  0·81

  —

  —

  —

  4·34

  6·63

  Source:

  (Mainly) EAGGF Financial Reports

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will give his estimate of the extent of national aid for fishing in the latest available year in Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Holland and Spain in each of the following areas(a) construction support, (b) lay-up subsidy, (c) social security support when not working, (d) fuel subsidy, (e) support for processing industry, (f) financial support for fishermen's organisations and (g) provision of port or market facilities.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  This information is not centrally available. But some indication of the national aids given by these member states is contained in the 1986 OECD publication "Review of Fisheries".

  Number of farms

  Hectares set aside

  Percentage of arable land1 in member state

  Belgium

  39

  383

  0·1

  France

  210

  2,409

  Less than 0·1

  Germany

  25,289

  170,635

  2·4

  Ireland

  97

  1,918

  0·2

  Netherlands

  98

  1,222

  0·1

  Spain

  180

  6,202

  Less than 0·1

  United Kingdom

  1,820

  57,613

  1·2

  1 May in member states other than the United Kingdom include some land not eligible for the scheme.

HEALTH

  Medical Ethics
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on medical ethics in practice and protection for patients against unscrupulous operators.

  Mr. Mellor
  It is for the medical profession itself, and in particular the General Medical Council, to lay down
  376
  of Economic European Community financial support made available to the fishing industry of Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Holland, and Spain for each of the last available five years and the division of such support between catching, processing and port and market facilities.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The information held centrally is as follows. I shall write to the hon. Member about the other information as soon as possible.

  Set-aside Scheme
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many farms have taken the option of the set-aside scheme for agricultural land; what proportion of total agricultural land this represents; and if he will give similar figures for the other countries in the European Economic Community.

  Mr. Ryder
  [holding answer 21 April 1989]: The information so far available is as follows:

  ethical guidance for doctors taking into account changing attitudes in society, and to ensure that it is followed. Such guidance applies equally to private practice as to practice in the NHS.

  Listeriosis
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if it is his intention to make listeriosis a notifiable disease.
  377
  Mr. Freeman
  The Department is currently reviewing the list of notifiable diseases and, as part of this review, will consider whether listeriosis should be made notifiable.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received concerning the need to make listeriosis a notifiable disease.

  Mr. Freeman
  None.

  Student Midwives
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many student midwives who started before April 1988 are on grades D, E and F; and how many who started after April 1988 are on grades D, E and F.

  Mr. Mellor
  We do not hold this information centrally.

  Denture Replacements
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions he has recently had with regional health authorities to ensure that denture replacements are made available to patients in hospital; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  Health authorities will be well aware that if in-patients lose or break their dentures, arrangements should be made for the hospital dental service to supply a replacement as soon as possible.

  Toxocariasis
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cases have been reported each year since 1979 of persons suffering from toxocariasis.

  Mr. Freeman
  The information available on human toxocara infection is limited. The communicable disease surveillance centre receives around one hundred reports of laboratory identifications each year; however, the true incidence of infection is unknown.

  Computers
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many instances have been detected in his Department of computer(a) hacking, (b) viruses, (c) logic bombs, (d) Trojan horses or (e) other types of computer misuse, whether perpetrated by authorised or unauthorised users of computers; and how many unsuccessful attempts have been recorded.

  Mr. Freeman
  There have been no instances detected and no unsuccessful attempts recorded.

  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health in view of evidence from the United States of America and France, that personal health records are being maliciously damaged by the implantation of computer viruses, what precautions are being taken against similar breaches of United Kingdom public health and medical records held on computer files.

  Mr. Freeman
  It is not the policy of the Department of publicise the measures taken to ensure the security of medical data since such information would be of assistance to potential attackers.

  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on all recorded cases of unauthorised access to his Department's computer files.
  378
  Mr. Freeman
  There have been no recorded cases of unauthorised access.

  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give details of his Department's policy on review of the security of its computer files.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Department regularly reviews its computer security arrangements, but it would not be appropriate to publish details of procedures and arrangements.

  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he can quantify the risk of damage by hackers to sensitive computerised files in his Department.

  Mr. Freeman
  Computer systems containing sensitive information are subject to physical and local security measures designed to remove or minimise the risk of damage, including that by hacking, to that information. The Department does not consider it sensible to publish details of risks and counter-measures involved.

  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether staff are briefed about computer hacking and computer viruses; whether there are contingency plans to deal with computer downtime caused by unauthorised penetration; and what plans exist to deal with penetration of particularly sensitive systems.

  Mr. Freeman
  Staff are briefed on a wide range of security risks and counter measures including those by hacking and viruses. Security contingency plans include provision for potential computer downtime caused by unauthorised access. These arrangements vary according to the level of sensitivity of the information held. The Department considers that the effectiveness of these arrangements would be reduced if details were made public.

  Data Protection
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures his Department has taken to protect data in transit by electronic means.

  Mr. Freeman
  Electronic transmission of data is subject to physical and logical security measures appropriate to the level of sensitivity of the data transmitted. The Department does not consider it sensible to publish details of the security measures taken.

  AIDS
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what scientific evidence was considered by the Committee on Safety of Medicines before it gave its approval for a licence to the drug AZT for the treatment of AIDS.

  Mr. Mellor
  The Committee on Safety of Medicines considered a range of scientific matters relating to the safety, quality and efficacy of this drug. The information supplied by a pharmaceutical company to support a licensing application is commercially confidential.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what evidence there is on the reversibility of the side effects of the drug AZT and on the effect on the AIDS virus if the drug is discontinued;
  379
  (2) what are the known side effects on AIDS patients of the drug AZT.

  Mr. Mellor
  Zidovudine (AZT) has been associated with a range of side effects as set out in the ABPI Data Sheet Compendium 1988–89 (pages 1634–6). A copy is in the Library. Many patients do develop side effects due to the potency of this drug and the seriousness of their illness. Doctors are advised to monitor patients very carefully and adjust the dosage or even stop the drug altogether should side effects occur. Reversibility of side effects depends upon their nature and severity and upon the clinical state of the patient. Little information is available about the effects of discontinuing treatment on the AIDS virus, however there have been reports of a rise in the blood levels of the viral antigen.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many deaths are known to have resulted from the use of the drug AZT.

  Mr. Mellor
  None that we are aware of. The Committee on Safety of Medicines has received three adverse reaction reports where patients being treated with Zidovudine (AZT) have died. Unfortunately all of these patients had a limited life expectancy due to the nature of their illnesses, and it is not possible to establish that any of these deaths resulted from the use of this drug.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what evidence there is of the efficacy of the drug AZT(a) in prolonging the lives and (b) in improving the quality of life, of British AIDS patients who have been treated with it; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  I am advised that evidence for the efficacy of the drug Zidovudine (AZT) when used in the treatment of patients in the United Kingdom was published in January 1989 in volume 18, supplement 1 of the Journal of Infection.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many AIDS patients have been treated with the drug AZT; and how many are currently receiving it.

  Mr. Mellor
  We do not hold this information centrally.

  Hospital Consultants
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many hospital consultants held(a) full-time contracts and (b) part-time contracts with the National Health Service in: (i) 1979 and (ii) 1988.

  Mr. Mellor
  The numbers in England in 1979 and 1987, the latest year for which figures are available, were as follows:

  1979

  1987

  Full-time contracts

  5,080

  6,774

  Part-time contracts

  7,281

  7,740

  The number with part-time contracts includes university staff who have an honorary contract with a health authority.

  District Health Authorities (Assets)
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give details of assets disposed of by each district health authority during 1987–88; and what was the total value of those assets.
  380
  Mr. Freeman
  I shall let the hon. Member have such information as can be obtained withour incurring disproportionate cost as soon as possible.

  Cervical Cytology
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list all district health authorities which operate a computerised call/recall cervical cytology programme for all women aged 20 to 65 years at three-yearly intervals.

  Mr. Freeman
  I refer the hon. Member to my hon. Friend's reply to the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) on 16 February at column 345.

  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will list all those district health authorities which have not yet called all women aged 20 to 65 years for a cervical cancer smear;

  (2) if he will list the uptake of women called for a cervical cancer smear for each district health authority; and if he will list those district health authorities which are unable to provide these statistics.

  Mr. Freeman
  HC(88)1 stated that all women aged between 20 and 64 years should be invited for a cervical smear test within five years of implementation of computerised call and recall systems, unless their GP has indicated that they should be excluded. We are not, therefore, expecting all district health authorities to have completed this task until March 1993—five years from when their computerised systems became operational. Information on the number of eligible women screened for cervical cancer is expected to become available later this year when we receive health authorities' returns from KÖrner form KC53—"Adult screening programmes—cervical cytology".

  A copy of HC(88)1 is available in the Library.

  Spectacle Allowance (VDUs)
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the estimated cost to public funds for the current financial year of the spectacle allowance payable to staff in his Department who work on visual display units; what is the current allowance; and when it was last updated.

  Mr. Mellor
  The estimated 1989–90 cost of spectacles for staff in the Department working on VDUs is £10,000. The current allowance, updated on 1 December 1988, is £50 plus any eyesight testing costs.

  Prescriptions
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he will take steps to ensure that each prescription for medicine is accompanied by an information pamphlet describing the relevant drug's indications, side effects and withdrawal symptoms.

  Mr. Mellor
  No, but other measures to improve communication to patients about medicines are in progress.

  At present there is no requirement on pharmaceutical companies to provide leaflets with medicines, but the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry (ABPI) encourages its members to do so. Under the Medicines (Leaflets) Regulations, such leaflets, if supplied, must specify contraindications, warnings, and precautions, and may specify indications for use.
  381
  The Council of Ministers of the European Community (EC) has reached a common position on a proposal to amend pharmaceutical directives which would, amongst other things, introduce a requirement to provide leaflets with medicines. It is expected that this directive will be adopted shortly.

  Further, the EC Commission is following up a resolution of the Health Council of May 1987 requiring a report and, if appropriate, proposals for further measures to improve patient information leaflets. We understand the aim is to report to the Council by the end of the year. We shall consider constructively the Commission's report, when available.

  Benzodiazepine
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he will take steps to ensure that a health warning is given on all bottles of benzodiazepines prescribed to patients, to the effect that those medicines can cause dependence.

  Mr. Mellor
  I have no present plans to do so. The space available on medicines labels is limited. Leaflets offer greater scope for developing communication to patients about medicines.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what funds were allocated by his Department in 1987 to assist people dependent on benzodiazepines; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  In 1987–88 the following grants were made under the central drugs initiative to services specifically for those dependent on benzodiazepines:Mind (Copeland)—tranquilliser withdrawal scheme £33,541
  North East Council on Addictions—tranquilliser advice and support scheme £40,662

  Grants totalling £4,038,962 were also made to 97 other projects in 1987·88 under this initiative, some of which provided a service for those dependent on benzodiazepines. In addition the Government made available £6 million to regional health authorities specifically for the development of services for those experiencing problems with illicit or prescribed drugs.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the approximate cost to the National Health Service of the prescriptions issued for benzodiazepines by community pharmacists in 1987.

  Mr. Mellor
  We estimate that the approximate cost to the NHS of prescriptions for benzodiazepines dispensed by community pharmacists in Great Britain in 1987 was £30·2 million.

  Drug Usage
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much his Department spent in 1987 on giving advice on drug usage to general practitioners and hospital doctors; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  In the financial year 1987·88 almost £2 million was spent by the Department on giving advice on drug usage to professional staff working in the NHS. This expenditure is not broken down by professional group. In addition, health authorities provide their own drug 382
  information services. It is not possible to separate the cost of such services from the total pharmaceutical services provided by health authorities.

  "Health for Year 2000"
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what instruction he has given to the Health Education Authority on its work on, "Health for all by the Year 2000"; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  The World Health Organisation's "Health For All By The Year 2000" strategy is one of the considerations that all health authorities, including the Health Education Authority, take into account in developing their programmes of work.

  Health Education Authority (Community Participation)
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what instruction he has given to the Health Education Authority on its work on community participation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  A number of specific action tasks were agreed at the ministerial accountability review of the Health Education Authority on 20 February. One of these was that the authority prepare, by the end of April, a report on the concept of community development and the way in which it might be taken forward in keeping with the authority's health education remit.

  Meningitis
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the amount of financial support given to the meningitis trust for the purposes of research into meningitis and meningococal meningitis in 1980 and 1989.

  Mr. Freeman
  The trust did not exist in 1980 an has not recently applied to this Department for research funding. However, I refer the hon. Member to the reply given on 21 December by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science at column 292, which listed research projects into meningitis supported by the Medical Research Council.

  Pharmaceutical Industry
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to introduce organisational reforms in order to separate more clearly the Department's sponsorship role with regard to the pharmaceutical industry from its regulatory role; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  The two functions are handled by separate parts of the Department. Since 1 April the regulatory role of medicines licensing has become the responsibility of the Medicines Control Agency, so that the two functions are now more widely separated.

  Limited List Prescribing
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement outlining the cost savings to his Department realised through the introduction of the limited list prescribing systems; and if he will indicate the precise manner in which that figure has been calculated.
  383
  Mr. Mellor
  In 1985–86 the selected list scheme saved £75 million on the drugs bill. The savings in each of the seven therapeutic groups were:

  £ million

  Cough and cold remedies

  22

  Analgesics for mild to moderate pain

  19

  Indigestion remedies

  8

  Vitamins

  7½

  Laxatives

  2

  Bitters and tonics

  1

  Benzodiazepine sedatives and tranquillisers

  15½

  These savings were calculated by comparing actual expenditure in 1985–86 with an estimate of the expenditure which would have been incurred in that year if the scheme had not been introduced.

  It is not possible to make meaningful estimates for savings in subsequent years but we have no reason to doubt that significant savings continue to be made.

SCOTLAND

  Geriatric Patients
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what guidance he has issued to health boards on the rate of provision of beds for geriatric patients and hospital places for psychogeriatric patients.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Guidance on services for the elderly and the elderly with dementia was set out in the SHARPEN (Scottish health authorities' review of priorities for the eighties and nineties) report, which was published, and commended to health boards, in November 1988. The report contained guidance about bed provision; it also stressed the need for a range of facilities, and for appropriate placement.

  Police Rent Allowance
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish in the Official Report in tabular form details for the most recent 12-month period for which figures are available of the total pay bill, compensatory grant received and income tax paid by each police authority in Scotland in respect of police officers' rent allowance.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information is not held centrally in the detailed form requested, but the table shows the total sums paid by each police authority in the 1987–88 financial year by way of rent allowance and compensatory grant.

  Police Authority

  £

  Central

  1,278,493

  Dumfries and Galloway

  686,740

  Fife

  1,415,990

  Grampian

  2,396,359

  Lothian and Borders

  4,253,725

  Northern

  910,187

  Strathclyde

  17,982,163

  Tayside

  2,605,438

  Total

  31,529,095

  This expenditure attracted 51 per cent. specific police grant.

  Communications (Interceptions)
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information was available to him when he decided not to call for a report from the chief constable of Strathclyde region on the illegal interceptions of communications in Helensburgh.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Sufficient information on which to make a decision.

  NHS (Capital Charges)
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland from what date capital charges in the National Health Service will be charged in full; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  As indicated in paragraph 4·1 of the Scottish working paper 5 "Capital Charging", published last month, it is proposed that capital charging will start to operate in Scotland from April 1991.

  Highland Health Board
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 14 April, what were those matters of common interest discussed at the meeting with Highland health board.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  It is not normal practice to disclose the nature of informal discussions between Ministers and health boards.

  Toxocariasis
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many cases have been reported in Scotland each year since 1979 of persons suffering from toxocariasis.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Toxocariasis is not a notifiable disease and this information is not held centrally. Between 1979 and 1987, six cases were admitted for in-patient care in Scotland.

  Dog Fouling
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will bring forward proposals for legislation with regard to dog fouling to enable local authorities and police to take action against irresponsible behaviour on the part of dog owners.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  It is already an offence under section 48 of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 for a person in charge of a dog to allow it to foul any of the places specified in that section. The Act is under review, and proposals for improvements in its provisions will shortly be the subject of consultation.

  Community Charge
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East of 17 April, if he will make it his policy to collect from community charge registration officers in Scotland information on the uses made of electoral registers in compiling the community charge registers which they are currently operating; and if he will make a statement.
  385
  Mr. Lang
  My right hon. and learned Friend has no intention of making arrangements to collect information on the use made by community charge registration officers of electoral registers, or other sources of information to which they may have access, in connection with their functions.

  Inward Investment
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list all inward investment projects in Scotland in 1988 and 1989 to date.

  Mr. Lang
  Details of all individuals projects are not published as certain information is supplied by companies on a commercially confidential basis.

  The figures based on company plans for inward investment in Scotland where there has been direct involvement by officials of Locate in Scotland or the Industry Department for Scotland are as follows:

  Numbers of projects

  Planned investment £ million

  Planned jobs

  1987–88

  84

  324·2

  11,219

  1988–89

  55

  437·6

  7,089

  Locate in Scotland is aware of a further four projects which came to Scotland in 1987–88 without officials involvement and of a further five in 1988–89.

  Locate in Scotland
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the current staff establishment of Locate in Scotland; what offices are currently overseas; and what additional offices are planned.

  Mr. Lang
  The current staff establishment of Locate in Scotland is 60, of which 25 are based in field offices outwith Scotland. Overseas offices are located as follows:Brussels 1; Tokyo 1; London 1; United States of America 4 located in Stamford, San Mateo, Houston and Chicago.

  At present there are no plans to open additional offices elsewhere.

  Hospital Consultants
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many hospital consultants held(a) full-time contracts and (b) part-time contracts with the National Health Service in Scotland in (i) 1979 and (ii) 1988.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  Hospital consultants in the NHS in Scotland

  Full-time

  Part-time1

  Honorary

  Total

  30 September 1979

  Medical

  1,327

  274

  267

  1,868

  Dental

  27

  6

  38

  71

  Total

  1,354

  280

  305

  1,939

  30 September 1988(provisional)

  Medical

  1,529

  305

  295

  2,129

  Dental

  31

  7

  41

  79

  Total

  1,560

  312

  336

  2,208

  386

  1Including maximum part-time.

  Health Board Assets
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give details of assets disposed of by each health board during 1987–88; and what was the total value of those assets.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Income from the sale of surplus NHS land and properties amounted to £7·948 million in 1987–88, when the following properties were sold:

  Land-property

  Health board

  GD surgery, Newmilns

  Ayrshire and Arran

  Broadfield hospital, Port Glasgow

  Argyll and Clyde

  Royal Victoria eye infirmary, Paisley

  Land at Caldwell House hospital,

  Uplawmoor

  Northern hospital, Dunfermline

  Fife

  Land at Royal Northern infirmary,

  Highland

  Inverness

  East block, Aberdeen royal infirmary,

  Grampian

  Woolmanhill

  24 North Silver street, Aberdeen

  Inverbervie health centre site, Inverbervie

  27–28 Park circus, Glasgow

  Greater Glasgow

  10 Park circus, Glasgow

  Schaw hospital, Bearsden

  13 Woodside place

  Ophthalmic institute, 126–128 West Regent

  street, Glasgow

  4 Royal crescent, Glasgow

  Killearn hospital, Killearn

  Glenfarg street clinic, Glasgow

  Farmland at Gartloch hospital, Glasgow

  Land at Craiglea place, Edinburgh

  Lothian

  Hozier house, Lanark

  Lanarkshire

  32 Bridge street, Kirkwall

  Orkney

  Dundee woman's hospital

  Tayside

  Land at Murthly hospital

  185 staff houses

  Various

  17 small plots of land

  Various

  Total value

  £7,947,705·62

  Income from the sale of other assets amounted to £145,000 (excluding the income from the sale of assets which are being replaced, which is netted against cost). Details of these assets are not held centrally but the income received by each health board was:—

  Health Board

  £

  Argyll and Clyde

  6,600

  Ayrshire and Arran

  2,800

  Borders

  47,200

  Dumfries

  7,750

  Fife

  Nil

  Forth Valley

  7,100

  Grampian

  5,850

  Greater Glasgow

  27,000

  Highland

  4,000

  Lanarkshire

  1,200

  Lothian

  27,500

  Orkney

  1,200

  Shetland

  2,200

  Tayside

  4,600

  Western Isles

  Nil

  Cervical Smear Tests
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will list all those health boards which have not yet called all women aged 20 to 65 years for a cervical cancer smear;
  387
  (2) if he will list the uptake of women called for a cervical cancer smear for each health board; and if he will list those health boards which are unable to provide these statistics.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Health boards have been asked to ensure that all women in the age range 20 to 60 in Scotland receive a cervical smear test by 1993. Information on the number of eligible women screened for cervical cancer will be collected from January 1990.

  Cornton Vale Prison
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the total average number per day during 1988 of females in Cornton Vale prison engaged in(a) work, (b) daytime education and (c) evening education; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  During 1988 the total average number per day of females engaged in those activities at Cornton Vale was as follows:

  Number

  Work

  123

  Daytime education

  39

  Evening education

  17

  Attendance by inmates at daytime education is on a part-time basis. Evening education is available only between the months of January to March and September to December.

  Alar
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the crops on which the chemical Alar is used and the purposes for its use; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Pesticide usage surveys indicate that there has been a very small use of Alar in Scotland in recent years, on chrysanthemums in 1981 and on seed potatoes in 1987 as a growth regulator. The continued use of this chemical is being considered by the Advisory Committee on Pesticides and its views are awaited.

  Sewage (Dumping)
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what is the life cycle in salt water of sewage dumped(a) in the firth of Clyde and (b) of the west coast of Scotland; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will make a statement on the health implications for fishermen fishing in the waters of the firth of Clyde of the dumping of sewage waste.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The only site in the firth of Clyde at which sewage sludge may be dumped under the terms of section 5 of the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985 is situated off Garroch head. Sewage sludge is an inert organic material which, through time, is dispersed by the natural action of the sea.

  The Garroch head site is monitored annually by Strathclyde regional council and biennially by the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland to assess the impact of sea disposal operations on the marine environment. There is no evidence to suggest that the site presents any hazard to the health of the public in general or to fishermen in particlar.

  Sand Eels
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many vessels landed sand eels from Shetland waters in 1988(a) before and (b) after 30 June; and how many of these vessels were under 50 ft registered length in each of these periods.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information is as follows:

  before 30 June

  after 30 June

  all vessels

  6

  4

  under 50 ft

  2

  2

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the organisations to be consulted by the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland over the proposed licensing arrangements for sand eel stocks by the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland on 4 April; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Copies of the consultation paper have been given to Government Departments, fishing industry organisations, other organisations which have expressed an interest and have been made freely available to any individual or organisation requesting a copy.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Social Fund
  Mr. Hume
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what information is available on the terms of consultation with each social security office regarding the social fund budget for 1989–90; and whether there were any discussions with given offices about their particular patterns of allocations.

  Mr. Needham
  Social fund allocations for 1989–90 were made according to an objective formula and there were no consultations with individual offices. As explained in reply to a question from the hon. Member for Redcar (Ms. Mowlam) on 23 March at columns 739–42 I placed a note in the Library on 23 March setting out the basis on which the allocations were made.

  Anglo-Irish Conference
  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland upon what policy aspects of extradition and extra territoral jurisdiction further work is to be carried out by the Anglo-Irish conference, as referred to in paragraph 5 of the communiqué of the 5 April meeting of the Anglo-Irish conference.

  Mr. Tom King
  As provided by article 8 of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, the conference is concerned with policy aspects of extradition and extraterritorial jurisdiction as between North and South. A wide range of issues concerning the law and procedure on these matters is kept under review, to try to ensure effective procedures for dealing with the problem of fugitive offenders. Such issues include the provision for arrest and detention, the arrangements for the transfer of prisoners where extradition is ordered, and the procedural and other requirements which must be satisfied before extradition can be ordered. It would not, however, be appropriate to comment in detail on the substance of these discussions.

  Loyalist Parades
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether, in the report of the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary for 1988 the figure of 1,865 loyalist parades includes youth organisation, church and other similar events; and what criteria the Chief Constable has used to define loyalist parades.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  [holding answer 19 April 1989]: This is a matter for the Chief Constable. I am advised that the figure of 1,865 does not incude parades organised by youth organisations, Churches and other similar organisations. However I understand that the categorisation of a parade as "Loyalist" is dependent upon the description of the event on the notice of intention to march given by the parade organisers.

  Fair Employment
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will indicate how much public funds has been spent directly and indirectly in the United States of America and the United Kingdom on lobbying and information activity against the MacBride principles; and if he will place in the Library copies of any transcripts or evidence submitted by Government officials, representatives and members of the Fair Employment Agency to state legislatures in the United States of America.

  Mr. Viggers
  [holding answer 21 April 1989]: The explanation of Government policy and achievements in the field of fair employment in Northern Ireland is one a range of closely related tasks shared among the Northern Ireland Office, Northern Ireland Departments and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, including diplomatic posts overseas. It would be disproportionately expensive to seek to isolate the staffing and related costs of this specific aspect of their activities. However, from June 1985 until 31 March 1989 the overall costs of employing lobbyists and of assistance to individuals to give evidence was £375,579.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will place copies in the Library of each decision of the High Court in Northern Ireland arising out of section 42 of the Fair Employment act 1976 relating to the current litigation concerning Tinnelly and Co. Ltd. v NIE.

  Mr. Viggers
  [holding answer 21 April 1989]: It is not normal practice to place High Court judgments in the Library, but they may be obtained on request from the Appeals and Lists Office, Royal Courts of Justice, Chichester street, Belfast 1.

PRIME MINISTER

  Missile Exports
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) if she will make it her policy publicly to repudiate allegations made in overseas courts about negotiations between Her Majesty's Government and other countries relating to the export of missiles to third parties against the declared policy of Her Majesty's Government;

  (2) whether she will now make it her policy to answer questions about the supply of Blowpipe surface-to-air
  390
  missiles where there are permissions given to forward them to countries other than those named on the end-user certificates; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  No. We do not reveal communications between Governments.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Prime Minister what recent representations she has received about communications received since 1984 from the United States President or any official of the United States Administration to facilitate the supply of(a) Blowpipe surface-to-air missiles and (b) other armaments to Nicaraguan Contras; what was her reponse; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  No, we do not reveal communications between Governments.

  Nicaragua
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will now make it her policy to reveal what was contained in the representations received in 1984, 1985, 1986, 1987, 1988 and in the current year in connection with the Nicaraguan Contras from the United States special envoy Mr. Lyle Cox or other United states representatives; if she will explain the purpose of these communications and her response; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  No. We do not reveal communications between Governments.

  Government Advertising
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister what conveniently available figures she has giving total Central Government spending on all forms of advertising in each year since 1979.

  The Prime Minister
  Information on publicity, including advertising, is not held centrally except where the expenditure incurred was through the Central Office of Information.

  Details of departmental expenditure on publicity, including advertising, for the financial years 1979–80 to 1988–89 were supplied by Ministers in response to questions from the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) and published in the Official Report in November-December 1986, July 1987, December 1987-January 1988 and March 1989.

  Information Officers
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister what response she proposes to make to the IPCS draft code of ethics, in respect of the proposals to strengthen the neutrality of Government information officers.

  The Prime Minister
  I have no seen the document to which the hon. Member refers, and have not been asked to respond to it. The duties and responsibilities of civil servants, including information staff, are set out in Sir Robert Armstrong's note of December 1987 and there are long-standing conventions on Government publicity. I do not believe that any separate code of ethics is required.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister what recent disciplinary action has been taken against Government information officers in relation to their activities as trade union members; and for what reasons.
  391
  The Prime Minister
  Disciplinary action with regard to individual civil servants is a matter for Departments. Information on such cases is not held centrally.

  Director of Public Affairs (Scotland Yard)
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Prime Minister why the chief press secretary at No. 10 Downing street provided a shortlist of civil servants to the Metropolitan Police Commissioner for the position of director of public affairs at Scotland Yard; and which official was previously responsible for supplying such information to the police.

  The Prime Minister
  The chief press secretary, as head of the Government Information Service, was asked to advise on a replacement for the director of public affairs at Scotland Yard by the Metropolitan Police Commissioner. A similar procedure operated when the head of the Government Information Service was director-general, Central Office of Information.

  Chief Press Secretary
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Prime Minister what steps she takes to ensure that her chief press secretary is not involved in matters of a party political nature; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  My chief press secretary is well aware of his duties and responsibilities as a civil servant.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will make a statement on the civil servants who have been subject to recent disciplining for having refused to undertake activities which they considered to be of a party political nature.

  The Prime Minister
  No. Any such action is a matter for the Department concerned.

  Mr. Charles Powell
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Prime Minister when Mr. Charles Powell will be leaving her private office; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  Mr. Powell will serve in my office until it is time for him to leave.

WALES

  Waste Disposal
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list those operations for which sea disposal licences for the deposit or incineration of waste at sea have been granted under part II of the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985.

  Mr. Grist
  I refer the hon. Lady to the reply given to her on 18 April by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

  NHS Staff
  Mr. Allan Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) how many tutors and other staff were employed in the training and education of nurses in Wales in 1979, 1985 and in each subsequent year;
  392
  (2) how many people were employed in the training and education of nurses in Wales (a) by occupation category, and (b) by specialist category in 1979, 1985 and in each subsequent year;

  (3) how many people were working in (a) National Health Service hospitals and (b) the National Health Service in Wales in 1979, 1985 and each subsequent year;

  (4) how many people were working in different occupational categories within (a) the National Health Service, and (b) the different occupational categories within hospitals in Wales in 1979, 1985 and each subsequent year;

  (5) how many people were being trained and educated (a) for a nursing career, and (b) in the different categories for a nursing career in Wales in 1979, 1985 and each subsequent year.

  Mr. Grist
  The information requested is available in tables 3·01 to 3·14 of issues of "Health and Personal Social Services Statistics for Wales", copies of which are in the Library of the House. In particular, information for various nursing and midwifery staff grades may be found in table 3·10, although the more detailed figures published prior to the 1987 edition should be treated with caution since they are based on NHS payroll occupational codings of limited quality.

  Rating Reform
  Mr. Ted Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what estimate he has of the number of additional staff required for the administration of the poll tax in each rating district.

  Mr. Grist
  Each district council in Wales will need to decide for itself on the number of staff to be employed in the administration of the community charge in its area in the light of its own individual circumstances.

  Language Teaching
  Mr. Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what new steps he will take to encourage the teaching of European languages, and in particular German, in Welsh schools.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  The Education Reform Act prescribes that a modern foreign language will be one of the foundation subjects to be studied by all pupils aged 11 to 16. This will begin to come into effect in autumn 1990 when all pupils in the third key stage (that is aged 11 to 14) will be required to be taught a modern foreign language for a reasonable time. The Secretaries of State for Education and Science and for Wales have proposed that all the official languages of the European Community, including German, should be recognised for this purpose. In the meantime a working group is to be set up by July 1989 to advise the Secretaries of State on attainment targets and programmes of study for modern foreign languages with a view to beginning to implement these in schools from autumn 1992.

  Home Safety
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Newport, West of 10 April,Official Report column 396–97, if he will identify the legislation that gives Welsh local authorities a statutory duty to enforce home safety legislation.
  393
  Mr. Grist
  The Home Safety Act 1961.

  Hospital Consultants
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many hospital consultants held(a) full-time contracts and (b) part-time contracts with the National Health Service in Wales in (i) 1979 and (ii) 1988.

  Mr. Grist
  Information for 1979 and for 1987 (the latest year available) is as follows:

  Number of consultants1

  1979

  1987

  holding full-time contracts

  391

  532

  holding part-time contracts2

  307

  328

  1 As at 30 September.

  2 Includes consultants holding part-time, maximum part-time and honorary contracts.

  Health Authority Assets
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give details of assets disposed of by each health authority during 1987–88; and what was the total value of those assets.

  Mr. Grist
  Details of all assets disposed of are not held centrally. Information about land and building disposals is available and is summarised in the following table. The total value of those assets was £1,671,000.

  District health authority

  Property details

  East Dyfed

  Allt Y Mynydd Hospital

  HQ Office Accommodation, Carmarthen

  Whitland Ambulance Station

  Gwent

  Newport Health Unit Works Department

  Garage at Darenfelin

  Cefn Mably Hospital—lease

  Mid Glamorgan

  Land at Quarella Road, Bridgend

  Former Workhouse, Bridgend General Hospital

  Tyn y Garn Child Guidance Clinic

  Land at Hensol Hospital

  Land at Maesgwyn Hospital

  Land at Penyfai Hospital

  Land at Cefn Cribbwr Health Clinic

  Residential accommodation at Albury, near Ware, Talygarn, Llantrisant, Talbot GreenHensol Hospital

  Pembrokeshire

  Llangwm Nurses Home

  Simpsons Cross Nurses Home

  Powys

  Residential accommodation at Welshpool

  South Glamorgan

  Chest Clinic premises, Cardiff

  Land at William Nicholl Home

  Residential accommodation at Cardiff

  Cervical Cytology
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list all health authorities which operate a computerised call/recall cervical cytology programme for all women aged 20 to 65 years at three-yearly intervals.

  Mr. Grist
  I understand that Mid Glamorgan and South Glamorgan health authorities currently operate a computerised cervical cytology programme for all women 394
  aged 20 to 64 with a three-yearly recall period. All other health authorities have adopted a five-yearly recall interval. Government advice is that priority should he given to offering a first smear to all women within the target age group rather than reducing the screening interval at this stage. Nevertheless, the recommended recall frequency is being kept under careful review.

  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list all those health authorities which have not yet called all women aged 20 to 65 years for a cervical cancer smear.

  Mr. Grist
  Since February 1987, when the Welsh Office sought to extend the existing cervical cytology screening programme in Wales to include younger women, all Welsh health authorities have implemented programmes to enable all eligible women to be offered a first smear from the age of 20, unless their GP has indicated that they should be excluded. As yet no authority has fully achieved this aim—although it is expected that some will do so this year.

  The Department will be monitoring the progress of all DHAs towards this objective.

  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the uptake of women called for a cervical cancer smear for each health authority; and if he will list those health authorities which are unable to provide these statistics.

  Mr. Grist
  The administrative arrangements in use for running the cervical screening call and recall service in Wales have not permitted take-up ratios to be calculated with confidence. A new computer package which will provide such information has now been provided for all family practitioner committees' computers. Information on take-up rates will be forthcoming once the new system has acquired an adequate data base.

  Vehicle Purchases
  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wailes how many vehicles and at what value were purchased by(a) his Department, (b) the Welsh Development Agency and (c) other public sector agencies for which he is responsible, in 1988; and how many of these vehicles were British-made within the definition of British as set out by the Department of Trade and Industry in its arrangement on content with the European Community.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  [holding answer 17 April 19891: The information is as follows:

  (a) Three; £20,703. These vehicles were United Kingdom produced on the definition employed by the Department of Trade and Industry for statistical purposes, under which a vehicle is classified as United Kingdom produced if the United Kingdom content exceeds 50 per cent. of the ex-works value.

  (b) None.

  (c) The purchase of vehicles by public sector agencies is a matter for those agencies and information is not held centrally. However, the following limited information is available; the definition of United Kingdom produced vehicles given under (a) applies:

  395

  Agency

  Number and origin

  Value £

  Development Board for Rural Wales

  One United Kingdom

  19,835

  Land authority for Wales

  One non United Kingdom

  16,000

  Area Health Authorities

  Not known

  1,546,302

  Welsh Health Common Services Authority

  Family Practitioner Services

  One United Kingdom

  7,000

  Sports Council for Wales

  119

  129,323

  1 These vehicles manufactured by a multi-national company could be United Kingdom or EC produced. This could be determined only by individual inspection of the vehicles.

  Pollution Inspectorate
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will make it his policy to ensure that Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution will have(a) a Wales regional office in Cardiff, (b) a Wales development office in North Wales and (c) five Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution members serving in Wales; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) where, and how many, inspectors of Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution are based in Wales; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) if he will give the details of the proposed reorganisation of Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution in England and Wales, indicating where the main office which will serve Wales will be located; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  [holding answer 21 April 1989]: Proposals are being developed for the reorganisation of Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution in England and Wales in order to integrate its responsibilities for air pollution control, radioactive substances, water pollution and other wastes on a regionalised basis. Three regions are proposed to cover the north, south-east and south-west: Wales will come within the south-west region. The existing air district offices will be retained as outstations for the time being. There will continue to be a permanent office in Cardiff.

  Six Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution inspectors are based in Wales. In addition, three of the inspectors in the Chester office spend part of their time inspecting premises in north Wales. Consultations with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment are in progress on detailed working arrangements for Wales, including the deployment of inspecting staff.

  Pollution
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will list the large factories in Wales which must receive regular visits from Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution because of their capacity to generate severe pollution problems; and if he will indicate the distances Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution must travel from existing offices to such factories;

  (2) if he will list the principal factories in Wales which generate either severe or medium pollution problems; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  [holding answer 21 April 1989]: All premises which dispose of radioactive waste are required to be authorised under the Radioactive Substances Act 1960. Authorised premises in Wales are listed in the list of
  396
  premises in England and Wales currently authorised under the Radioactive Substances Act 1960, a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House. A total of 181 premises are registered under the Alkali &c. Works Regulation Act 1906 and the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. Details are listed in the public register of works, which is available for inspection at Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution offices in Cardiff and Chester or at the Department of the Environment, 2 Marsham street, London.

  Factories are visited by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution inspectors as necessary. Information on distances which inspectors travel to each factory could not be provided without disproportionate cost.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Widows' Benefits
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will set out in detail the present position on widows' benefits, showing the ages and family circumstances which bring the various benefits into operation.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The following is the present position on widows' benefits and takes into account my right hon. Friend's decision announced on 28 February 1989 at columns 161–62.

  Widows' benefits for women widowed before 11 April 1988 Widowed mothers' allowance—followed widows' allowance where the widow has a child for whom child benefit is payable. Child dependency increases paid for each child. This is paid in addition to child benefit.
  Widowed mothers' allowance (personal)—followed widowed mother's allowance for widows where the youngest child is under 19 and has left school but remains at home and child benefit is not payable.
  Widows' pension—followed widows' allowance if widowed over 40 and childless or on cessation of widowed mothers' allowance. Amount determined by age at relevant time, minimum rate payable at 40 and full rate at 50.
  Widows' benefits for women widowed after 10 April 1988 Widows' payment—tax-free lump sum of £1,000 payable on bereavement if widowed under 60 or husband not retired.
  Widowed mothers' allowance—paid from widowhood if the widow has a qualifying child. Child dependency increases paid for each child. This is paid in addition to child benefit.
  Widows' pension—paid from widowhood if widowed over 45 and childless or, if over 45, when widowed mothers' allowance ceases. Amount determined by age at relevant time, minimum rate payable at 45 and full rate at 55.
  Note: The foregoing does not give details of the contribution conditions that must be satisfied before payment.

  Family Incomes and Tax Benefit
  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Norfolk, North, 20 February,Official Report, column 481, what is the net income after the Budget proposals have come into effect (i) after housing costs of a married man with children aged 13 to 16 years earning (a) £104 and (b) £105 per week, (ii) of a married man with children aged three, eight and 11 years paying average rent and rates as used in the tax benefit model tables earning

  397
  (a) £65 per week and (b) £80 per week, (iii) after benefits of a married man with children aged four and six years earning (a) £60 per week gross and (b) £140 per week gross, (iv) under current tax and benefit structure of a married man with children aged three, eight and 11 years with gross earnings of (a) £65 per week and (b) £105 per week and (v) under the current tax and benefit structure of a married man with children aged four and six years earning (a) £80 per week and (b) £90 per week;

  (2) pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson) of 27 February, Official Report, column 27, how many people earn less than the respective point at which the tax benefit withdrawal level falls to 34 per cent.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I have been asked to reply.

  I shall let my hon. Friend have such information as can he obtained as soon as possible.

  Customer Service and Efficiency
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the monitoring of customer service and efficiency in Department of Social Security offices in the north-west.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the monitoring of customer service and efficiency in Department of Social Security offices in Strathclyde.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  In all Department of Social Security local offices, major areas of local office activity, including throughput of claims and payment accuracy, are monitored on a monthly basis against pre-set targets. Their scope has recently been extended from 50 per cent. to 70 per cent. of all local office activity. In 1988–89 all local offices began monitoring the quality of their service in areas such as caller times, correspondence and interviews, as well as sampling customer opinion of the service they provide.

  Public Service Broadcasts
  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will assess the likely implications for the transmission by Channel 4 of public service broadcasts emanating from his Department of the White Paper, "Broadcasting in the '90s: Competition, Choice and Quality".

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I refer my hon. Friend to my reply to him on 16 March at columns 304–5. I am not aware that the arrangements will be any different for Channel 4.

  Spectacles
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many vouchers are outstanding for dispatch to patients awaiting part payment for spectacles; and how many patients have been waiting (i) less than one month, (ii) one to two months, (iii) two to three months and (iv) more than three months, for their vouchers.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  National Health Service spectacle vouchers must be issued by the optician immediately following a sight test and are valid for a period of six months. Patients claiming help with the cost of spectacles under the NHS low income scheme must have a valid 398
  certificate of entitlement from the agency benefit unit for use, with the voucher, when purchasing the spectacles. Claims under the low income scheme cover exemption from, or help towards, a wide range of NHS costs and it is not possible to identify those claims which have been prompted by a need for spectacles. On 11 April 1989 a total of 41,300 new claims under the low income scheme were awaiting processing at the agency benefits unit: this represents 11 days' work. The stockpile of cases involving non-dependants which had accumulated at the unit have now all been cleared. Further information, in the form requested, is not available.

  Computers
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many instances have been detected in his Department of computer(a) hacking, (b) viruses, (c) logic bombs, (d) Trojan horses or (e) other types of computer misuse, whether perpetrated by authorised or unauthorised users of computers; and how many unsuccessful attempts have been recorded;

  (2) if, in the light of his Department's computerisation, he will place in the Library a copy of the advice issued by his Department to the staff of regional and local social security officers on the threat of computer hacking;

  (3) if he will make a statement on all recorded cases of unauthorised access to his Department's computer files;

  (4) what measures his Department has taken to protect data in transit by electronic means;

  (5) if he will give details of his Department's policy on review of the security of its computer files;

  (6) if he can quantify the risk of damage by hackers to sensitive computerised files in his Department;

  (7) whether staff are briefed about computer hacking and computer viruses; whether there are contingency plans to deal with computer downtime caused by unauthorised penetration; and what plans exist to deal with penetration of particularly sensitive systems.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I refer my hon. Friend to my reply to the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) on 15 December 1988 at columns 693–4.

  In addition the following points may be of interest.

  The Department's policy is to keep the security of its computer systems under continuous review to ensure the integrity, availability and confidentiality of these data and that the requirements of the Data Protection Act are met.

  The Department takes advice from the appropriate Government authorities on security matters. In the case of sensitive data held on computers or transmitted by electronic means this includes the IT security and privacy group of the Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency. This advice is incorporated in the Department's formal computer security standards, which apply to all its computer systems. These standards include requirements for risk assessment, countermeasures, incident investigation and contingency planning. Staff who use computers are given appropriate security instruction. In the interests of security it would not be sensible to publish details of the security standards and procedures or of the training given in their use.

  It is not the Government's policy to publish details and circumstances of computer security incidents, their perpetrators and their success or failure. Such information would be of assistance to potential attackers.

  Benefits
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how may social security beneficiaries are paid(a) weekly in cash at post offices, (b) four-weekly by bank giro credit and (c) three-monthly by bank giro credit.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The main benefits for which the option of payment by automated credit transfer is available are retirement pension and child benefit. The latest figures available are:

  Number

  Retirement pension

  (a) Order book

  6,730,961

  (b) Four weekly ACT

  1,461,891

  (c) 13 weekly ACT

  69,396

  Child benefit

  (a) Order book—weekly

  3,466,604

  —four weekly

  2,195,481

  (b) Four weekly ACT

  1,051,290

  (c) 13 weekly ACT is not available

  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of the cost of paying social security beneficiaries paid four-weekly by bank giro credit in the middle of the four-week period rather than at the end of it.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  There would be additional benefit costs, estimated at £177 million, in the first year due to the advancing of payments and a continuing cost due to loss of interest to the national insurance fund and consolidated fund, which based on current case loads and average payments and assuming an interest rate of 10 per cent. per annum would be about £18 million per year.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what administrative savings arise from paying social security beneficiaries by bank giro credit rather than in cash at post offices.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Based on current case loads and costs the administrative savings are estimated to be of the order of £25 million a year.

  Earnings Rule
  Sir Ian Gilmour
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how the abolition of the pensioner earnings rule will affect women(a) below the age of 60 years and (b) aged 60 to 65 years who are drawing category B pensions, through the contributions of their husbands.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The position for these women from 1 October 1989 is as follows:

  (a) Where a married woman below the age of 60 years is concerned, if her husband has reached age 65 and claimed category A retirement pension, he will continue to be entitled to the dependent adult's addition to his retirement pension in respect of his wife. The earnings rule of £34·70 a week attached to this addition will continue to apply.

  (b) As now, a woman whose husband has deferred taking his retirement pension will not be able to claim her category B retirement pension. However, a married woman aged 60 to 65 years who can claim a category B retirement pension based on her husband's contribution record will not be subject to an earnings rule on her pension.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Wandsworth Prison
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the present prison officer staffing level at Wandsworth prison; what was the level set out in the Brisco report; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The number of officers in post at Wandsworth prison on 17 April and the staffing levels recommended in the report of the regional manpower team to which the hon. Member refers are as follows:

  Recommended

  In post 17 April

  Discipline staff

  officers

  302

  302

  principal and senior officers

  57

  44

  Specialist staff

  officers

  78

  72

  principal and senior officers

  28

  19

  There is likely to be some increase in the number of staff in post at Wandsworth as more officers are recruited to the service over the next few months.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he last discussed prison officer staffing levels with the Governor of Wandsworth prison; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Staffing levels are discussed in the normal course between governors and regional management. Staffing at Wandsworth was also discussed by the governor and senior prison service officials during the industrial dispute earlier this year.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether extra prison officers were allocated to Wandsworth prison on 1 April under the national agreement; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Staff required for 1989–90 under the terms of the fresh start framework agreement were recruited nationally before 1 April. The allocation to individual establishments is made on the basis of an assessment by management of their relative need. Wandsworth is likely to see some increase in the number of staff in post in the coming months.

  Mr. Mark John Stone (Passport)
  Mr. Heddle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will examine the circumstances arising from the allegations made by Mr. S. N. Stone of St. John's close, Rugeley, Staffordshire in his letter of 22 March to the Head of Administration, Passport Office, India Buildings, Water street, Liverpool; and when Mr. Mark John Stone of the same address will receive his passport.

  Mr. Renton
  The Liverpool passport office replied on 3 April to the points raised in Mr. Stone's letter. The passport was posted to him on 10 April. A refund will be made in respect of the additional costs he incurred in obtaining a British visitor's passport while waiting for his son's standard passport application to be processed.

  Foreign Citizens (Imprisonment)
  Mr. Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will state, against each country of
  401
  which they are a national, the number of foreign citizens presently imprisoned in the United Kingdom, setting out against each (i) the nature of the offence, (ii) the sentence imposed and (iii) the remaining term of imprisonment left to serve.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Information about individual foreign citizens could be provided only at disproportionate cost. The readily available information is given in the following two tables. The recording of nationality for

  Population of known foreign national prisoners in Prison Service establishments in England and Wales on 31 December 1988: by type of offence and nationality

  Offence

  Nationality

  Violence against the person

  Sexual offences

  Burglary

  Robbery

  Theft, handling fraud and forgery

  Drugs offences

  Other offences

  Offence not recorded

  Courts martial

  Total

  India

  83

  18

  4

  8

  17

  121

  34

  7

  —

  292

  Pakistan

  137

  41

  26

  26

  62

  213

  68

  12

  1

  586

  Other Asian

  16

  8

  —

  3

  6

  17

  7

  2

  —

  59

  Commonwealth countries

  Nigeria

  4

  8

  2

  3

  33

  307

  52

  9

  —

  418

  Ghana

  3

  2

  1

  3

  4

  53

  12

  —

  —

  78

  Sierra Leone

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  1

  —

  —

  3

  Other African

  18

  4

  3

  10

  9

  34

  14

  6

  —

  98

  Commonwealth countries

  Jamaica

  114

  43

  28

  57

  22

  119

  40

  15

  —

  438

  Other Caribbean

  33

  19

  9

  18

  9

  34

  12

  3

  —

  137

  Commonwealth

  countries

  Eire

  148

  41

  82

  68

  68

  95

  63

  20

  —

  585

  Other EEC countries

  South American

  Countries

  USA

  Other nationalities

  95

  34

  41

  37

  84

  212

  71

  17

  —

  591

  Total

  651

  218

  196

  233

  314

  1,207

  374

  91

  1

  3,285

  Population of known foreign national prisoners in Prison Service establishments in England and Wales on 31 December 1988: by length of sentence and nationality.

  Nationality

  Up to 1 month

  Over 1 month up to 3 month

  Over 3 month up to 6 month

  Over 6 month up to 12 month

  Over 12 month up to 18 month

  Over 18 month up to 4 years

  Over 4 years less than life

  Life

  Not recorded

  Total

  India —

  3

  4

  14

  9

  46

  168

  48

  —

  292

  Pakistan

  16

  16

  18

  39

  27

  124

  250

  95

  1

  586

  Other Asian Commonwealth Countries

  —

  —

  3

  4

  1

  19

  25

  7

  —

  59

  Nigeria

  —

  2

  1

  7

  16

  170

  218

  3

  1

  418

  Ghana

  —

  1

  2

  —

  2

  33

  40

  —

  —

  78

  Sierra Leone

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  1

  —

  —

  3

  Other African Commonwealth countries

  —

  2

  4

  5

  7

  35

  36

  9

  —

  98

  Jamaica

  1

  5

  13

  28

  27

  151

  181

  32

  —

  438

  Other Caribbean Commonwealth countries

  —

  —

  3

  5

  7

  44

  62

  16

  —

  137

  Eire; Other EEC countries; South American countries; USA

  3

  10

  28

  37

  58

  190

  192

  67

  —

  585

  Other nationalities

  1

  8

  14

  36

  35

  160

  290

  46

  1

  591

  Total

  21

  47

  90

  175

  189

  974

  1,463

  323

  3

  3,285

  Average time remaining

  11

  34

  21

  to serve1

  6 days

  17 days

  7 weeks

  10 weeks

  25 weeks

  months

  months

  months

  1 Average time remaining to serve estimates assume full remission but make no allowance for release on parole. Estimates are based on those records for which an earliest date of release was available.

  402
  citizens of Commonwealth countries, Pakistan and the Irish Republic is not always reliable. The remaining term of imprisonment left to serve varies between individuals according to sentence length, date of reception into a Prison Service establishment, whether parole licence is granted and for how long, and whether full remission of sentence was earned; the readily available information gives the average remaining term for the sentence length group assuming full remission but without making allowance for parole.

  Parking Enforcement
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has now received the report of the working party on parking enforcement.

  Mr. Hurd
  The working party on parking enforcement has now submitted its report, which I am considering.

  Computers
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many instances have been detected in his Department of computer(a) hacking, (b) viruses, (c) logic bombs, (d) trojan horses or (e) other types of computer misuse, whether prepetrated by authorised or unauthorised users of computers; and how many unsuccessful attempts have been recorded;

  (2) if he will make a statement on all recorded cases of unauthorised access to his Department's computer files;

  (3) pursuant to his answer of 15 March, Official Report, column 228, if he can quantify the assessed risk of damage to sensitive computerised files;

  (4) what measures his Department has taken to protect data in transit by electronic means;

  (5) if he can quantify the risk of damage by hackers to sensitive computerised files in his Department.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  It would not be in the interests of computer security to disclose such information.

  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give details of his Department's policy on reviews of the security of its computer files.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I refer my hon. Friend to my reply to her question on 15 March, at column 228.

  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether staff are briefed about computer hacking and computer viruses; and whether there are contingency plans to deal with computer downtime caused by unauthorised penetration.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  As appropriate, staff are trained in such matters. Contingency plans exist where necessary, but their effectiveness would be reduced if details were made public.

  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received about the use of the public telephone network of the United Kingdom as a means of distributing obscene and offensive material in the form of computer bulletin boards accessible to any person using a home computer with a telephone; and if he will make a statement on his proposals to bring such practice to an end.

  Mr. Renton
  We have received some such representations. Computer bulletin boards are technically non-licensable cable programme services under the Cable and Broadcasting Act 1984, and the general provisions of the Act concerning obscenity, defamation and incitement to racial hatred apply to them. We are considering, in the context of the follow up to our recent White Paper on broadcasting, whether any further regulation is required.

  Detective Sergeant Kenneth Morgan
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from 404
  the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis as to the years during which Detective Sergeant Kenneth Morgan worked with former Chief Superintendent Kenneth Etheridge.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I understand from the Commissioner that former Chief Superintendent Etheridge served with the Metropolitan police company fraud squad from 1971 until 1977 when he retired from the force. Detective Sergeant Morgan joined the squad in 1974 and remained there until 1978. I understand, however, that throughout the three years during which the two men served with the squad they were not involved on the same work.

  Her Majesty's Prison, Leeds
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will publish the prison department report into the conditions of young prisoners at Her Majesty's prison, Leeds.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to a question from the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) on 10 April, at column 325.

  Firearms
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what steps he has taken to ensure that police forces in England and Wales make use of application forms for the grant of a shotgun certificate which have been amended to comply with the provisions of the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988;

  (2) whether he will advise police forces in England and Wales not to make use of application forms for the grant of a shotgun licence which are not in accordance with the provisions of the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The new controls on shotguns, prescribed in the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988, will come into force this summer. An amended form of application for the grant of a shotgun certificate will be prescribed in revised firearms rules which will come into force at the same time. In the meantime, the existing form of application prescribed in the Firearms Rules 1969 must continue to be used.

  Football Match (Hillsborough)
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department at what level the publication of statements on 18 April by South Yorkshire police concerning the conduct of Liverpool fans at the Hillsborough semi-cup final was authorised; if he will publish a copy of that statement and the name of the officer who made it; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Statements made by officers of the South Yorkshire police are a matter for the chief constable. It would not be helpful for me to publish statements or counter-statements which have been made about the circumstances leading to the tragedy, or to name those who made them. It is for Lord Justice Taylor's inquiry to establish the facts.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what arrangements will be made for every
  405
  person involved in or affected by the Hillsborough tragedy who wishes to complain about police strategies, tactics, behaviour or practice at or appertaining to that event to be heard at Lord Justice Taylor's inquiry; if he will take steps to ensure that any such complainant will be able to make their complaint formally and officially; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  It is for the inquiry to determine the arrangements for hearing evidence which it considers will help establish the causes of the tragedy.

  Statutory provision exists under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 for complaints by members of the public against the police to be dealt with thoroughly.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will seek a report from the chief constable of the West Midlands force on whether any representations from the public appertaining to police activity and strategy at the Hillsborough tragedy will be admissible to the police inquiry; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hurd
  Anyone who has information which he believes could help the inquiry should make this available to the chief constable of the West Midlands police without delay.

  Football Matches (Safety)
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what statutory provision is made for the availability of oxygen and respiration equipment at football league and cup fixtures; what requirement there is to provide a contingency plan in the event of an emergency; how often safety arrangements are required to be reviewed; and who is responsible for enforcing such regulations.

  Mr. John Patten
  The Safety of Sports Grounds Act 1975 requires the operator of a sports ground designated under the Act to apply for a safety certificate from the local authority. Safety certificates, which are issued under the 1975 Act, contain terms and conditions which are necessary or expedient to secure reasonable safety at the ground in question when it is in use. They may include requirements for contingency planning, training and safety reviews.

  The terms and conditions of a safety certificate and their enforcement are the responsibility of the issuing local authority.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what reports he has received about assaults on police officers and emergency service personnel on duty at Hillsborough on Saturday 15 April.

  Mr. John Patten
  I am informed by the chief constable that information about any assaults on police officers has not yet been collated. The chief fire officer informs me that so far none of his staff has reported any assault. The chief ambulance officer reports that, so far, three staff have reported an assault but that the debriefing of his staff is not yet complete.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the chief constable of South Yorkshire as to what arrangements are being made to return items belonging to deceased Hillsborough victims to their relatives.
  406
  Mr. Hurd
  I understand from the chief constable of the West Midlands police, who is conducting the police inquiry into the Hillsborough tragedy, that the items, which it is thought may play an important part in the investigation, are being held temporarily. The police are conscious of the need to return these personal items as quickly as possible to the relatives of the deceased and are proceeding urgently with the investigation.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Relocation
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations have been received about locating civil servants out of London to the Isle of Wight.

  Mr. Brooke
  I have not received any such representations. However, Government Departments are now undertaking the serious and substantial relocation reviews referred to in the answer that I gave on 9 February 1989, at columns 751–2, to my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley (Mr. Cran); these reviews are directed towards finding sites which offer advantages in terms of the recruitment and retention of staff, value for money and operational efficiency. Decisions will be announced by departmental Ministers once the essential parts of the review process have been completed.

  Government Advertisements
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list those Government advertisements in the last three years to which the Independent Broadcasting Authority has objected or to which the authority has sought changes; and if he will make a statement about each such occasion.

  Mr. Lilley
  All Government advertisements comply with the requirements and procedures of the Independent Broadcasting Authority.

  Petrol Prices
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the recent increases in petrol prices following upon his decisions in the Budget.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 20 April 1989]: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer made it clear in his Budget speech that he expected the full decrease in the duty on unleaded petrol to be passed on to the consumer. The evidence suggests that the new differential between unleaded and leaded petrol has been fully reflected in pump prices.

  Computers
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has made any estimate of cost of providing free of charge a computer for every household in the United Kingdom linked to a national fibre-optic cable network.

  Mr. Forth
  [holding answer 20 April 1989]: I have been asked to reply.

  The costs involved would depend inter alia on the type of computer. There are some 18 million households connected to the national telecommunications networks.
  407
  PA Consulting Group in its report "Evolution of the United Kingdom Communications Infrastructure" estimated that a national fibre-optic grid, artificially advanced, would cost an additional £21 billion over 20 years. Computers can, however, be linked up whether or not the networks are fibre-optic.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Select Committee on Sound Broadcasting
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if the will take steps to reconstitute the Select Committee on Sound Broadcasting.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I have no plans to do so at present.

  Health and Safety Executive
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what advice the Health and Safety Executive has offered arising from its recent visit to the House.

  Mr Wakeham
  None.

  Ten-minute Bills
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Lord President of the Council in what month he expects to bring forward proposals on the system of queuing for ten-minute rule Bills.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I cannot say at present.

  Fire Drills
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed answering on behalf of the House of Commons Commission (1) on what dates fire drills have been held in the House since 1979;

  (2) what procedures are followed in the House's fire drills;

  (3) when a fire drill last took place in which (a) hon. and right hon. Members, (b) staff and (c) hon. and right hon. Members and staff were evacuated from the House.

  Mr. Beith
  Since 1979 fire exercises have been held as follows:

  16 December 1980

  House of Commons

  17 September 1981

  Underground Car Park

  22 July 1982

  Norman Shaw North

  4 August 1982

  Underground Car Park

  25 April 1983

  House of Commons

  10 April 1984

  3 Dean's Yard

  11 December 1984

  House of Commons

  20 May 1985

  St. Stephen's House

  27 November 1985

  Norman Shaw South

  1 July 1986

  2 The Abbey Garden

  3 June I987

  St.Stephen's House

  3 December 1987

  House of Commons Zone 4

  7 October 1988

  House of Commons Zone 7

  8 December 1988

  Norman Shaw North

  7 January 1989

  7 Old Palace Yard

  16 February 1989

  3 Dean's Yard

  The normal procedure is for the fire alarm to be activated and for all occupants of the premises, including both Members and staff, to evacuate the zone or building to a predetermined assembly point. These exercises are supervised by the fire officer and the London fire brigade has participated on a number of occasions. Plans to increase the frequency of fire exercises are already in hand.

  Industrial Injuries
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the hon. Member for Berwick upon Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission, if he will take steps to ensure that all industrial injuries to staff of the House are in future recorded and readily available.

  Mr. Beith
  Yes. At present information on those accidents which have been referred to DSS and classified as industrial injuries is held in individual staff personal files. In future, records of industrial injuries will be separately recorded by the Establishments Office and maintained in a central file.

  Hazardous Chemicals
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the hon. Member for Berwick upon Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission, what hazardous chemicals are used in the House of Commons; and what training is given to staff to deal with emergencies.

  Mr. Chope
  I have been asked to reply.

  A wide variety of potentially hazardous chemicals are currently in use by the parliamentary works office ranging from proprietary brands of correction fluid used by typists and descaling agents required for the central heating boilers. All are safe when used in accordance with the accompanying manufacturer's instructions and in accordance with the Hazchem code of markings.

  Job-related training is provided where necessary.

  An assessment is currently being made of any action which will be necessary to comply with the new Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations (COSHH) 1988, which, for the most part, come into force on 1 October 1989.

ENERGY

  Siemens Printers
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how many Siemens ND3 printers are used by his Department, either in-house or through a private contract; and what is the location of each.

  Mr. Parkinson
  My Department has none of these printers, nor does it have any contracts for their use.

  Oil Production
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether the loss of production caused by the damage to Cormorant Alpha will require a review of the advice he gives the Ministry of Defence on the merchant shipping tanker requirements for the United Kingdom in the event of war or national emergency.

  Mr. Parkinson
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Energy gave on 14 February 1989 to his earlier question, at column 113.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Computers
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1) how many instances have been
  409
  detected in his Department of computer (a) hacking, (b) viruses, (c) logic bombs, (d) Trojan horses or (e) other types of computer misuse, whether perpetrated by authorised or unauthorised users of computers; and how many unsuccessful attempts have been recorded;

  (2) if he will make a statement on all recorded cases of unauthorised access to his Department's computer files.

  Mr. Forth
  It is not the policy of this Department to make public details and circumstances of computer security incidents, their perpetrators and their success or failure, since such information would be of assistance to potential attackers.

  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1) whether he gives regular advice to the financial sector on how to guard against unauthorised penetration of their computer files by hackers;

  (2) whether his Department issues advice to business about computer security;

  (3) whether he gives regular advice to the financial sector on how to guard against unauthorised penetration of its computer files by hackers.

  Mr. Forth
  The DTI seeks to promote the development and application of standards addressing computer security, and criteria for the security evaluation of IT products, and to raise the awareness of the importance of computer security measures in business operations. Indivdual businesses should be addressing questions of computer security peculiar to them, as part of good business practice.

  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what representations he has received on the use of bulletin boards for the transmission of private numbers, thereby enabling computer hackers to transfer charges to other people's accounts; and if he will make a statement on the measures he proposes to take to eliminate this activity.

  Mr. Forth
  I am not aware of any such representations.

  The misuse of computers, and the use of bulletin boards by "hackers", are among the issues being considered by the Law Commission following the publication of its working paper on computer misuse. Its recommendations are expected before the end of the year.

  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will quantify the risk of damage by hackers to sensitive computerised files in his Department.

  Mr. Forth
  The Department takes advice from the appropriate Government authorities when addressing the security risks to its computer systems.

  In the case of sensitive but unclassified data, the Department can assess the risk of damage by hackers by using the CCTA's risk analysis and management methodology (CRAMM).

  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1) what measures his Department has taken to protect data in transit by electronic means;

  (2) if he will give details of his Department's policy on review of its computer files.

  Mr. Forth
  It is not the Department's policy to make public details of computer security procedures or 410
  measures. In addressing the security requirement for computer systems, advice is taken from the appropriate Government authorities.

  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether staff are briefed about computer hacking and computer viruses; whether there are contingency plans to deal with computer downtime caused by unauthorised penetration; and what plans exist to deal with penetration of particularly sensitive systems.

  Mr. Forth
  Staff in the Department are briefed on computer security issues. Procedures exist for recovering from incidents resulting in downtime of the Department's computer systems. It is not the Department's policy to reveal details of recovery plans for sensitive systems.

  Soaps and Commodities
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what steps he is taking to ensure that soaps containing mercury are not offered for sale to the public and that cosmetic preparations do not contain more than two per cent. hydroquinone; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  The Cosmetics Products (Safety) Regulations 1984 (Statutory Instrument 1984 No. 1260) prohibits the use of mercury in soaps and limits the presence of hydroquinone in cosmetic products to 2 per cent. Regulations banning the use of mercury an limiting the presence of hydroquinone were first made in 1978 and continue to be in force.

  The enforcement of these regulations is a matter for local authority trading standards departments.

  Hazardous Wastes
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what action he has taken to encourage the chemical and hazardous waste-producing industries to give more attention to changes in their production processes to enable reduction or recycling of waste.

  Mr. Forth
  My Department maintains very close links with the chemical industry through its trade association and by direct contact with individual companies. It is encouraging voluntary action by industry in the sphere of waste management which includes recycling and waste minimisation. I was pleased to note that the Chemical Industries Association introduced recently a programme of responsible care related to the environment which will be adopted by its member companies. This includes a code of practice and guidance on monitoring.

ENVIRONMENT

  Air Conditioning
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many Government buildings are fitted with the wet-air cooling air conditioning systems; what action is being carried out to have them replaced by a different type of air conditioning system; what review he is instituting on the installation of this type of air conditioning in new buildings; what consideration is being given to requiring a different type of air conditioning system to be fitted in buildings where these are already installed; and if he will make a statement.
  411
  Mr. Chope
  With regard to those buildings designed and/or maintained by PSA, it has been, and continues to be, the general policy that air conditioning should be installed only where there is no practical alternative. For new construction, the policy is to install dry cooling systems-where practicable—in those buildings where air conditioning is necessary.

  For existing buildings with evaporative heat rejection equipment (wet air cooling) a strict water hygiene treatment regime is applied, involving regular inspections and a complete review of the water treatment regime at least once a year, backed up by independent audits to monitor the effectiveness of the regimes and establish where improvements can be made.

  In those leased Government buildings where the landlord is responsible for maintenance, PSA estate surveyors ask landlords to give written assurances that they have or will introduce similar practices.

  PSA does not hold a central record of the number of Government buildings with wet air cooling systems. The highest concentration of such systems is in London, where there are currently 151.

  Wet air cooling systems will normally be maintained in accordance with the strict regime explained above to the end of their economically useful life. The opportunity will then be taken to consider alternative arrangements utilising dry cooling principles wherever practicable.

  Public Service Broadcasts
  Mr Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will assess the likely implications for the transmission by Channel 4 of public service broadcasts emanating from his Department of the White Paper "Broadcasting in the 90s; Competition, Choice and Quality".

  Mr. Ridley
  There is no reason to suppose that the proposals in the White Paper will alter the present arrangements whereby public service messages are broadcast by Channel 4.

  Siemens Printers
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many Siemens ND3 printers are used by his Department, either in-house or through a private contract; and what is the location of each.

  Mr. Ridley
  My Department does not use any Siemens ND3 printers either in-house or through a private contractor.

  Crown Suppliers
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list, for each of the Crown Suppliers' product supply, transport and buying agency businesses, in each of the three years before Civil Service departments were untied and in each year since (i) total sales, (ii) sales to Civil Service departments, (iii) sales to British Telecom, (iv) sales to British Rail and (v) average price rises in each year over that period.

  Mr. Chope
  The Crown Suppliers will not be operating as three separate businesses until 1 January 1990. The current information and accounting systems do not enable the business, particularly for product supply and the 412
  buying agency to be accurately identified. In addition, the sales figures shown include sales generated from activities which do not form part of the package for sale and which have been transferred to PSA during the last three months. The level of the Crown Suppliers' sales will, therefore, be markedly different in the future.

  The following analysis has been split on the best estimate available for those functions to be included in each of the three businesses. Government Departments were fully untied from the Crown Suppliers on 1 April 1987.

  £ million

  Product supply and services

  The buying agency

  Transport

  1984–85

  124·4

  37·7

  16·0

  1985–86

  130·8

  39·9

  18·7

  1986–87

  142·1

  45·9

  20·0

  1987–88

  145·5

  38·5

  21·7

  1 1988

  146·1

  36·6

  22·9

  1 Calendar year

  Customer analysis

  Total product supply and buying agency business

  £ million

  British Telecom

  British Rail

  Top 10 Government Department

  Others

  1984–85

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1985–86

  12·9

  0·8

  129·1

  27·9

  1986–87

  9·6

  1·0

  144·5

  32·9

  1987–88

  7·7

  1·4

  141·9

  33·0

  1 1988

  8·2

  2·4

  136·8

  35·3

  1 Calendar year.

  n/a—Not available.

  Average increases in TCS prices were as follows:

  £ million

  Per cent·

  1985–86

  8·7

  1986–87

  6·7

  1987–88

  5·6

  1 1988

  5·9

  1 Calendar year·

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how he intends to honour the commitment given to this House by his junior Minister that the pensions of the staff of the Crown Suppliers upon privatisation will be comparable to those they are entitled to under the principal Civil Service pension scheme.

  Mr. Chope
  When tender invitations are issued, prospective purchasers will be invited to offer pension terms to transferred staff broadly comparable to those in the principal Civil Service pension scheme. Detailed future pension arrangements will be a matter for the purchaser to discuss with the Government in the course of the sale.

  Drinking Water
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will place in the Library the reasoned opinion received from the European Commission concerning compliance with the European Community drinking water directive;
  413
  (2) at what date he anticipates that United Kingdom drinking water will comply with the requirements of the European Commission directive (80/778/EEC) on the quality of drinking water;

  (3) when he intends to respond to the European Commission's reasoned opinion on the failure of the United Kingdom to apply correctly the European Commission directive (80/778/EEC) on the quality of drinking water;

  (4) when he intends to provide the European Commission with a timetable of compliance with the European Commission directive (80/778/EEC) on the quality of drinking water;

  (5) whether the programme, timetable and cost of compliance with the European Commission directive (80/778/EEC) on drinking water will be included in the prospectus of each water authority prior to flotation;

  (6) what will be the cost of compliance with the European Commission directive (80/778/EEC) on the quality of drinking water;

  (7) when he intends to provide the European Commission with a costed programme of compliance with the European Council Directive (80/778/EEC) on the quality of drinking water.

  Mr. Ridley
  Both the European Commission and the Government regard the detailed, formal correspondence on infraction proceedings as confidential. The deposit in the Library of the recent reasoned opinion would be a breach of that confidentiality.

  A formal response will be made shortly to the European Commission's reasoned opinion, which refers to the absence of United Kingdom legislation directly applying the EC drinking water directive and the fact that some supplies do not yet comply with the nitrate standard in England and the lead standard in Scotland.

  The Water Bill and the regulations to be made under it will incorporate the provisions of the directive directly into domestic law. The Commission accepts that such legislation will enable them to close this part of the reasoned opinion.

  Public water supplies to the United Kingdom are at present of a very high standard and most supplies already comply with the EC directive. We are fully committed to compliance with the EC directive as soon as practicable. Those supplies which regularly fail to meet a standard are being improved and should comply in the next year or two. However, two years after the directive came into force, and five years after we had notified the Commission that we were assessing compliance on an average sample basis, it informed us that every single sample had to comply. This has necessitated the preparation of detailed compliance programmes by water undertakers to meet the new interpretation, mostly for standards related to the taste and appearance of the water. These programmes are still being assessed and it is not therefore possible at present to state how long it will take to comply fully with the EC directive. However, discussions are taking place with the Commission about the time scale of the programmes and the technical difficulties involved.

  The United Kingdom has already submitted to the Commission for its consideration detailed programmes by water undertakers to meet the nitrate standard in England and the lead standard in Scotland. We await the Commission's considered response to these programmes.
  414
  Each water undertaker has been formulating the long-term operating costs and capital expenditure programmes as part of setting the limit to price increases (`K') which is to be applied under the Water Bill to water undertakers. We are reviewing the cost projections which have been submitted to the Department and discussing them with water undertakers individually. We will not be in a position to give new forecasts until these appraisals have been completed. The compliance programmes, together with costings and timetables, will be included in the prospectuses to be published later this year.

  Football Match (Hillsborough)
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if, following the letter of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, the Minister for Sport, to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill of 11 April, he will describe the circumstances in which he would act upon the complaints of the chief executive of a football club about the inadequacy of ticket allocations at a semi-cup final or cup final; what account he took of police advice in reaching his conclusions; and whether he will review ministerial involvement in overseeing ticket allocation at major fixtures;

  (2) what representations his Department received prior to the Football Association's semi-final scheduled for Hillsborough for 15 April about arrangements at the game; what consideration he gave to these representations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The hon. Member wrote to me on 22 March about the arrangements at the FA Cup semi-final at Hillsborough on 15 April. No other representation was received. The arrangements for the match will be among the matters to be considered by Lord Justice Taylor's inquiry.

  Water Privatisation
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects the flotation prospectuses for each water authority to be issued.

  Mr. Ridley
  November.

  Football Spectators Bill
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what account will be taken of the Hillsborough disaster and the judicial inquiry of Mr. Justice Taylor before the Football Spectators Bill is introduced in the House.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The timetable for the Football Spectators Bill will allow the House, in considering the Bill, to take account of relevant recommendations from Lord Justice Taylor's inquiry into the Hillsborough disaster.

  Local Authority Staff (Pensions)
  Mr. Curry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has any proposals for transferring the cost of pensions increase to the local government superannuation funds in England and Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  Yes. There are a number of cogent arguments for transferring pensions increase costs to the
  415
  funds in addition to basic pension costs which they already bear. It would help to make the true cost of local government pensions more apparent; it would accord with good accountancy practice; it would utilise the current significant surpluses in the funds; and, in the longer term, advance funding would generate its own investment income and reduce total costs.

  For these reasons I have concluded that, subject to consultation with the relevant local government interests, regulations should he made to transfer these costs to the superannuation funds from 1 April 1990 onwards. I believe that such a transfer can be achieved without an overall increase in the total sum which local authorities currently spend on superannuation. I have in mind to remove the present requirement that the funds must be in a position to meet all foreseeable future liabilities, and to substitute a provision that they must be able at any point in time to meet three-quarters of their future liabilities. This would be entirely prudential, since the funds would at all times have sufficient capital to meet their obligations for many years ahead. In any case the entitlements of beneficiaries are underwritten by the employing authorities and do not depend on the funds as such.

  If we proceed on this basis, I would expect that most local authorities in England and Wales would be able to reduce their total expenditure on superannuation below its present level, on average by about £6 per head of adult population. If, however, local authorities wish to suggest other ways of achieving the same objective, I will be ready to consider them. Meanwhile, I look to the funds' actuaries to work on the basis that the objective from 1 April 1990 will be as I am proposing.

  River Mersey (Pollution)
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many of his Department's staff are responsible for monitoring pollution control in the Mersey.

  Mr. Moynihan
  [holding answer 20 April 1989]: Responsibility for controlling and monitoring water quality and pollution in the River Mersey rests with the North West water authority. The Department, through Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution, is responsible for the control of discharges by the North West water authority itself and had one full-time principal water inspector plus support staff engaged on this task.

  Community Charge
  Sir Anthony Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much a single adult in the county of Cambridgeshire would pay under(a) the community charge and (b) a local income tax based on national average earnings for 1988–89.

  Mr. Gummer
  Based on 1988–89 figures, a single adult on national average earnings with just the single person's tax allowance would pay a local income tax bill in Cambridgeshire district council of between £465 and £595. This compares with a community charge of between £186 and £231, disregarding the transitional safety net.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Teachers
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what measures he is taking to discourage existing teachers from leaving the profession.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The interim advisory committee estimated in its reports in 1988 and 1989 that fewer than 1 per cent. of teachers leave teaching for other paid employment and commented that this wastage rate was low. The attraction of teaching as a career can only be enhanced by the Government's education reforms.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the comments on teacher shortages made by the senior chief inspector in his report, "Standards in Education 1987–88".

  Mrs. Rumbold
  This report confirms the analysis of teacher shortages which forms the basis of our vigorous action programme to combat the problem.

  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what plans he has to monitor the effect of teacher shortages on the implementation of the national curriculum.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The Department already collects data annually on vacant teacher posts and we shall continue to do so. Information regulations to be made under section 22 of the Education Reform Act will enable us to obtain annual information on the curriculum offered in schools and on teacher deployment.

  Council of Science Ministers
  Mr. Faulds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he last attended a meeting of the Council of Science Ministers in the European Community; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster represents the United Kingdom at the Community's Council of Ministers (Research). He last attended a meeting of the Council on 14 March and gave a full report to the House in the reply given to the hon. Member for Ynys MÔn (Mr. Jones) on 7 April, at columns 314–15.

  Schools (Opting Out)
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if his Department has issued any guidance to chief education officers regarding comments and information they are able to issue following a vote by parents in favour of a secondary school opting out of local authority control.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The Department wrote on 13 February to the chief education officer of every local education authority in England setting out my right hon. Friend's views on the conduct of ballots on whether a school should seek grant-maintained status. That letter made it clear that it is in the interests of parents, governors and others that all discussion about a possible application by a school should be well-informed. Accordingly, it asked local education authorities to ensure that any information they
  417
  provide is factually correct, and represents a proper use of public money. The same principles apply after a ballot as before.

  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he has any plans to use his powers under the Education Reform Act to prevent a local education authority from issuing material designed to influence support for an opting-out proposal following a ballot by parents in favour of such a proposal.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  No. Where parents vote to seek grant-maintained status for their school the governing body must publish formal proposals to my right hon. Friend within six months. The local education authority and other interested parties may submit comments on or objections to those proposals within two months of publication, and my right hon. Friend will take these into account in considering and determining the application on its merits.

  Siemens Printers
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many Siemens ND3 printers are used by his Department, either in-house or through a private contract; and what is the location of each.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The Department does not use any Siemens ND3 printers.

  Computers
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on all recorded cases of unauthorised access to his Department's computer files.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Our policy is not to make public details and circumstances of computer security incidents, their perpetrators and their success or failure, since such information would be of assistance to potential attackers.

  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) what measures his Department has taken to protect data in transit by electronic means;

  (2) if he will give details of his Department's policy on review of the security of its computer files;

  (3) if he can quantify the risk of damage by hackers to sensitive computerised files in his Department.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The Department takes advice from the appropriate government authorities on security matters. In the case of unclassified but sensitive data this includes the CCTA IT security and privacy group (part of HM Treasury) which is the central Government advisory authority in this area, and uses its risk analysis and management methodology (CRAMM). It would not be sensible to publish details of actual counter-measures, reviews and risks.

  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether staff are briefed about computer hacking and computer viruses; whether there are contingency plans to deal with computer downtime caused by unauthorised penetration; and what plans exist to deal with penetration of particularly sensitive systems.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The Department has contingency plans and staff education programmes as part of its wider information systems strategy, but their effectiveness would be reduced if details were made public.

  AIDS
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what information he has on what research into drugs to relieve AIDS is taking place in Britain.

  Mr. Jackson
  The Medical Research Council is supporting a directed programme of research, worth £31 million cash over five years, to develop vaccines against HIV infection and drugs to relieve AIDS. Over half the research projects in this programme are related to drug development. Copies of a booklet outlining the programme are available in the Library. I understand that many of the pharmaceutical companies are also engaged in such work.

  National Medical Centre, Hammersmith
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what are, for 1994 to 1999, the estimated costs of the first five years of operation and installation of the new national medical centre at Hammersmith; and what would be the cost of keeping in operation for the same years(a) the Royal post-graduate medical school, Hammersmith, and (b) the clinical research centre, Harrow, respectively.

  Mr. Jackson
  The Medical Research Council is currently undertaking a detailed appraisal of proposals to improve clinical research in the United Kingdom, including proposals for a new national centre based at the Royal postgraduate medical school, Hammersmith. The costs of such a centre would depend on decisions to be taken in the light of this appraisal. Research costs at the RPMS and the clinical research centre in the period 1994 to 1999 will depend on a variety of decisions about research activities at these institutions prior to 1994 as well as on the outcome of the clinical research proposals currently being appraised.

  Schools
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will estimate how many schools currently have decoration classed as less than satisfactory.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The Department does not maintain records of the decorative condition of schools. This is a matter for LEAs and others responsible for the schools.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether all school buildings in England and Wales have yet been brought up to the requirements laid down by the 1981 schools premises regulations and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  It is the responsibility of local education authorities to satisfy the requirements of the Education (School Premises) Regulations 1981. They certify that new school building projects will comply with the regulations when they seek my right hon. Friend's approval. The survey of school buildings, published in 1987, showed that not all existing county and controlled schools met the standards of the regulations. Since that time local authorities have spent substantial sums on improving their school buildings.

  Schools in Wales are the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.
  419
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how much each local education authority will be receiving in the current financial year, and the next two financial years, from the school improvement programme.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend to my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Mr. Hargreaves) on 21 December 1988 at column 287. Allocations are made on an annual basis. Information for the next two financial years is not therefore available.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list all schools in the English and Welsh counties which currently need(a) between £0·5 million and £1 million and (b) over £1·0 million spending on repairs, maintenance or decoration, to bring them into line with the requirements stipulated under the 1981 school premises regulations.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The information requested is not collected centrally for schools in England. Matters relating to Wales are for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether there are any schools which still have a problem with asbestos.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The Department does not keep records of asbestos problems in individual schools. This is a matter for LEAs and others responsible for the schools.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many schools currently have a shortage of furniture.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The Department does not keep records of the quantity of furniture in individual schools. This is the responsibility of LEAs and those responsible for schools.

  Higher Education
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the latest estimate of places available in higher education in autumn 1989; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  [holding answer 21 April 1989]: Applications to enter higher education in 1989–90 are estimated to be about 5 per cent. higher than last year. Actual numbers will depend on the recruitment decisions of each individual institution. We already have record numbers and participation rates, and expect to reach 1 million students for the first time this autumn.

  Rating Reform
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps he is taking to ensure that following the introduction of the community charge, institutions of higher education reduce the rents charged to students in respect of that element of their rents presently charged on account of the rates.

  Mr. Jackson
  [holding answer 21 April 1989]: This is a matter for individual institutions, but many students make
  420
  no contribution to the rates payable on their accommodation, since they are provided for through the central funding of the institutions.

  Capital Allocations
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what his priorities are with regard to capital allocations to local education authorities.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  In formulating capital allocations priority is given to committed expenditure up to the levels previously indicated to authorities, new projects to meet population growth and new projects to remove surplus places in the schools sector and tertiary projects arising out of approved statutory proposals, and provisions for the capital implications of education support grants in further and higher education. The remaining resources are distributed to local authorities to use for the improvement or replacement of defective buildings. I also refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) on 11 April 1989, at column 426, for the criteria applied to allocating resources for voluntary aided and special agreement schools.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) if he will list the capital allocation to each local education authority as a percentage of the bid of that local education authority in each of the last nine years;

  (2) if he will list the bids for capital allocations in the last nine years from all local education authorities.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Information on local education authorities' cash plans is not available for the years 1981–84. The information for prescribed expenditure for the years 1984–85 to 1989–90 is set out in the table.

  Education capital allocation and plans at cash prices 1984–88 1984–85

  £000s

  LEA

  Plans cash

  Capital allocations cash

  Initial allocation as a percentage of plans

  Barking

  695

  1,442

  207

  Barnet

  2,939

  2,453

  83

  Bexley

  1,399

  845

  60

  Brent

  2,576

  1,678

  65

  Bromley

  3,777

  492

  13

  Croydon

  1,749

  1,227

  70

  Ealing

  2,721

  1,347

  50

  Enfield

  901

  576

  64

  Haringey

  2,640

  1,090

  41

  Harrow

  2,785

  523

  19

  Havering

  894

  216

  24

  Hillingdon

  4,362

  1,068

  24

  Hounslow

  4,987

  3,063

  61

  Kingston

  2,673

  1,330

  50

  Merton

  2,098

  993

  47

  Newham

  4,232

  2,039

  48

  Redbridge

  1,971

  1,006

  51

  Richmond

  2,106

  735

  35

  Sutton

  1,011

  451

  45

  Waltham

  2,613

  889

  34

  ILEA

  22,045

  9,703

  44

  Birmingham

  9,533

  6,484

  68

  Coventry

  5,188

  2,919

  56

  Dudley

  5,460

  3,516

  64

  Sandwell

  3,453

  1,705

  49

  Solihull

  708

  723

  102

  421

  LEA

  Plans cash

  Capital allocations cash

  Initial allocation as a percentage of plans

  Walsall

  4,116

  1,026

  25

  Wolverhampton

  3,890

  2,375

  61

  Knowsley

  1,174

  895

  76

  Liverpool

  6,973

  4,243

  61

  St. Helens

  3,031

  2,111

  70

  Sefton

  2,334

  824

  35

  Wirral

  4,114

  2,117

  51

  Bolton

  2,229

  1,536

  69

  Bury

  1,824

  1,030

  56

  Manchester

  11,180

  6,997

  63

  Oldham

  1,778

  968

  54

  Rochdale

  3,805

  1,452

  38

  Salford

  2,230

  822

  37

  Stockport

  1,540

  1,770

  115

  Tameside

  3,116

  1,690

  54

  Trafford

  1,631

  1,027

  63

  Wigan

  3,041

  2,004

  66

  Barnsley

  864

  401

  46

  Doncaster

  1,778

  1,226

  69

  Rotherham

  1,182

  471

  40

  Sheffield

  5,035

  3,007

  60

  Bradford

  18,220

  6,707

  37

  Calderdale

  3,408

  1,090

  32

  Kirklees

  6,746

  3,753

  56

  Leeds

  5,184

  2,899

  56

  Wakefield

  3,993

  1,596

  40

  Gateshead

  3,934

  572

  15

  Newcastle

  3,600

  2,265

  63

  North Tyneside

  3,673

  721

  20

  South Tyneside

  3,765

  1,280

  34

  Sunderland

  4,354

  2,862

  66

  Isles of Scilly

  0

  0

  0

  Avon

  11,121

  5,270

  47

  Bedfordshire

  4,534

  2,439

  54

  Berkshire

  10,238

  8,227

  80

  Buckinghamshire

  18,602

  6,854

  37

  Cambridgeshire

  6,655

  5,039

  76

  Cheshire

  10,594

  7,366

  70

  Cleveland

  7,463

  3,626

  49

  Cornwall

  6,943

  4,377

  63

  Cumbria

  8,026

  3,982

  50

  Derbyshire

  9,885

  6,546

  66

  Devon

  9,087

  7,832

  86

  Dorset

  8,744

  5,385

  62

  Durham

  4,271

  2,054

  48

  East Sussex

  10,389

  4,601

  44

  Essex

  17,675

  6,604

  37

  Gloucestershire

  6,416

  2,772

  43

  Hampshire

  20,652

  9,666

  47

  Herefordshire and Worcestershire

  3,378

  1,669

  49

  Hertfordshire

  5,912

  5,479

  93

  Humberside

  11,677

  6,883

  59

  Isle of Wight

  1,445

  948

  66

  Kent

  8,716

  4,347

  50

  Lancashire

  13,646

  11,055

  81

  Leicestershire

  8,229

  7,074

  86

  Lincolnshire

  9,022

  4,455

  49

  Norfolk

  7,771

  4,261

  55

  North Yorkshire

  11,725

  5,675

  48

  Northamptonshire

  7,059

  4,179

  59

  Northumberland

  2,580

  1,002

  39

  Nottinghamshire

  4,376

  2,666

  61

  Oxfordshire

  4,194

  3,245

  77

  Shropshire

  4,359

  2,072

  48

  Somerset

  3,367

  2,559

  76

  Staffordshire

  15,277

  10,691

  70

  Suffolk

  5,554

  4,348

  78

  422

  LEA

  Plans cash

  Capital allocations cash

  Initial allocation as a percentage of plans

  Surrey

  8,416

  4,340

  52

  Warwickshire

  2,781

  1,428

  51

  West Sussex

  6,544

  5,027

  77

  Wiltshire

  6,771

  3,810

  56

  1985–86

  LEA

  Plans cash

  Capital allocation cash

  Initial allocation as a per cent. of plans

  Barking

  1,579

  947

  60

  Barnet

  5,825

  2,612

  45

  Bexley

  1,396

  504

  36

  Brent

  4,619

  891

  19

  Bromley

  4,518

  628

  14

  Croydon

  3,626

  2,170

  60

  Ealing

  3,352

  2,451

  73

  Enfield

  1,375

  966

  70

  Haringey

  3,644

  895

  25

  Harrow

  3,007

  299

  10

  Havering

  1,013

  334

  33

  Hillingdon

  2,368

  521

  22

  Hounslow

  4,638

  1,566

  34

  Kingston

  4,070

  2,131

  52

  Merton

  4,226

  2,277

  54

  Newham

  7,672

  2,558

  33

  Redbridge

  1,738

  1,330

  77

  Richmond

  752

  379

  50

  Sutton

  966

  474

  49

  Waltham

  2,334

  985

  42

  ILEA

  27,686

  15,080

  54

  Birmingham

  6,569

  3,695

  56

  Coventry

  7,419

  3,094

  42

  Dudley

  7,016

  2,671

  38

  Sandwell

  4,429

  1,914

  43

  Solihull

  1,297

  642

  49

  Walsall

  3,222

  1,329

  41

  Wolverhampton

  3,793

  2,047

  54

  Knowsley

  1,986

  973

  49

  Liverpool

  8,461

  4,870

  58

  St. Helens

  3,190

  1,827

  57

  Sefton

  2,060

  1,671

  81

  Wirral

  2,585

  766

  30

  Bolton

  1,317

  570

  43

  Bury

  1,507

  803

  53

  Manchester

  17,545

  7,450

  42

  Oldham

  2,650

  1,014

  38

  Rochdale

  2,885

  1,802

  62

  Salford

  2,891

  1,551

  54

  Stockport

  2,691

  1,411

  52

  Tameside

  1,360

  532

  39

  Trafford

  3,208

  1,594

  50

  Wigan

  3,990

  1,464

  37

  Barnsley

  1,226

  1,090

  89

  Doncaster

  1,353

  424

  31

  Rotherham

  1,751

  481

  27

  Sheffield

  8,044

  3,497

  43

  Bradford

  13,383

  8,269

  62

  Calderdale

  2,305

  830

  36

  Kirklees

  6,955

  3,304

  48

  Leeds

  9,301

  3,325

  36

  Wakefield

  3,307

  1,438

  43

  Gateshead

  3,714

  1,122

  30

  Newcastle

  3,948

  1,716

  43

  North Tyneside

  4,300

  2,235

  52

  South Tyneside

  2,851

  1,339

  47

  423

  LEA

  Plans cash

  Capital allocation cash

  Initial allocation as a per cent, of plans

  Sunderland

  4,679

  3,047

  65

  Isles of Stilly

  0

  0

  —

  Avon

  10,965

  3,951

  36

  Bedfordshire

  5,427

  1,625

  30

  Berkshire

  11,584

  7,490

  65

  Buckinghamshire

  12,649

  5,978

  47

  Cambridge

  6,506

  4,387

  67

  Cheshire

  9,518

  5,005

  53

  Cleveland

  7,482

  4,493

  60

  Cornwall

  4,523

  3,319

  73

  Cumbria

  5,254

  3,803

  72

  Derbyshire

  10,794

  7,239

  67

  Devon

  11,046

  6,405

  58

  Dorset

  8,666

  5,265

  61

  Durham

  6,415

  2,995

  47

  East Sussex

  7,993

  4,870

  61

  Essex

  28,705

  11,679

  41

  Gloucester

  7,261

  4,652

  64

  Hampshire

  23,877

  11,844

  50

  Hereford and Worcester

  2,688

  1,480

  55

  Hertford

  8,417

  5,960

  71

  Humberside

  7,400

  4,138

  56

  Isle of Wight

  2,125

  1,230

  58

  Kent

  9,481

  5,209

  55

  Lancashire

  20,050

  15,156

  76

  Leicester

  12,299

  6,718

  55

  Lincoln

  8,834

  3,532

  40

  Norfolk

  6,698

  3,070

  46

  North Yorkshire

  6,625

  3,798

  57

  Northampton

  6,268

  4,492

  72

  Northumberland

  2,322

  1,254

  54

  Nottinghamshire

  4,810

  3,421

  71

  Oxfordshire

  9,134

  3,650

  40

  Shropshire

  5,680

  3,924

  69

  Somerset

  2,941

  1,243

  42

  Staffs

  13,621

  9,717

  71

  Suffolk

  6,505

  3,871

  60

  Surrey

  9,717

  4,365

  45

  Warwick

  3,105

  1,703

  55

  West Sussex

  5,641

  3,429

  61

  Wiltshire

  6,314

  3,478

  55

  1986–87

  LEA

  Plans Cash

  Capital allocation cash

  Initial allocation as a percentage of plans

  Barking

  3,717

  1,135

  31

  Barnet

  7,399

  1,621

  22

  Bexley

  2,096

  715

  34

  Brent

  4,797

  1,589

  33

  Bromley

  3,357

  1,747

  52

  Croydon

  3,519

  2,784

  79

  Ealing

  5,702

  2,154

  38

  Enfield

  1,698

  706

  42

  Haringey

  4,455

  797

  18

  Harrow

  5,315

  4,078

  77

  Havering

  1,074

  395

  37

  Hillingdon

  1,806

  306

  17

  Hounslow

  4,783

  668

  14

  Kingston

  6,445

  1,806

  28

  Merton

  3,959

  1,203

  30

  Newham

  6,825

  1,271

  19

  Redbridge

  2,167

  1,149

  53

  Richmond

  1,050

  249

  24

  Sutton

  1,318

  329

  25

  Waltham

  3,962

  2,184

  55

  ILEA

  29,331

  12,575

  43

  Birmingham

  9,015

  5,016

  56

  Coventry

  15,086

  5,396

  35

  424

  1986–87

  LEA

  Plans Cash

  Capital allocation cash

  Initial allocation as a percentage of plans

  Dudley

  6,703

  2,012

  30

  Sandwell

  4,091

  1,203

  29

  Solihull

  2,666

  1,295

  49

  Walsall

  3,711

  1,119

  30

  Wolverhampton

  6,664

  1,418

  21

  Knowsley

  2,750

  1,483

  54

  Liverpool

  7,878

  2,904

  37

  St. Helens

  2,325

  772

  33

  Sefton

  3,983

  2,667

  67

  Wirral

  2,824

  1,402

  50

  Bolton

  1,692

  576

  34

  Bury

  995

  882

  89

  Manchester

  21,998

  6,501

  30

  Oldham

  2,910

  1,428

  49

  Rochdale

  4,545

  2,163

  48

  Salford

  3,382

  1,625

  48

  Stockport

  3,702

  1,453

  39

  Tameside

  1,685

  306

  18

  Trafibrd

  2,702

  1,276

  47

  Wigan

  3,243

  2,339

  72

  Barnsley

  1,054

  577

  55

  Doncaster

  771

  338

  44

  Rotherham

  1,651

  578

  35

  Sheffield

  7,890

  2,330

  30

  Bradford

  10,116

  7,061

  70

  Calderdale

  1,708

  1,203

  70

  Kirklees

  7,548

  1,956

  26

  Leeds

  8,557

  2,634

  31

  Wakefield

  3,284

  1,990

  61

  Gateshead

  4,968

  1,451

  29

  Newcastle

  8,641

  2,586

  30

  North Tyneside

  3,210

  1,536

  48

  South Tyneside

  2,911

  732

  25

  Sunderland

  7,188

  1,928

  27

  Isles of Stilly

  0

  0

  —

  Avon

  10,821

  4,070

  38

  Bedfordshire

  6,282

  1,934

  31

  Berkshire

  10,696

  5,399

  50

  Buckinghamshire

  15,970

  5,582

  35

  Cambridgeshire

  4,910

  2,591

  53

  Cheshire

  11,327

  3,837

  34

  Cleveland

  12,605

  4,933

  39

  Cornwall

  7,583

  3,592

  47

  Cumbria

  5,640

  2,254

  40

  Derbyshire

  13,942

  7,202

  52

  Devonshire

  16,957

  8,418

  50

  Dorset

  8,255

  3,377

  41

  Durham

  6,264

  2,231

  36

  East Sussex

  10,176

  3,786

  37

  Essex

  31,384

  11,417

  36

  Gloucestershire

  10,306

  6,561

  64

  Hampshire

  29,354

  12,905

  44

  Hereford and Worcestershire

  3,911

  1,929

  49

  Hertfordshire

  10,968

  4,677

  43

  Humberside

  10,802

  7,524

  70

  Isle of Wight

  2,270

  1,139

  50

  Kent

  9,801

  6,405

  65

  Lancashire

  21,743

  12,538

  58

  Leicestershire

  12,311

  7,061

  57

  Lincolnshire

  6,044

  3,908

  65

  Norfolk

  7,004

  4,394

  63

  North Yorkshire

  5,576

  2,504

  45

  Northamptonshire

  7,536

  4,339

  58

  Northumberland

  2,687

  1,003

  37

  Nottinghamshire

  5,347

  3,043

  52

  Oxfordshire

  13,423

  2,055

  15

  425

  1986–87

  LEA

  Plans Cash

  Capital allocation cash

  Initial allocation as a percentage of plans

  Shropshire

  5,277

  2,602

  49

  Somerset

  6,832

  2,014

  29

  Staffordshire

  17,517

  9,313

  53

  Suffolk

  8,619

  5,866

  68

  Surrey

  11,030

  3,610

  33

  Warwickshire

  2,993

  1,236

  41

  West Sussex

  6,116

  2,157

  35

  Wiltshire

  4,556

  1,983

  44

  LEA

  Plans cash

  1987–88 capital allocation cash

  Initial allocation as a percentage of plans

  Barking

  2,126

  806

  38

  Barnet

  11,234

  1,744

  16

  Bexley

  2,692

  1,641

  61

  Brent

  8,249

  2,514

  30

  Bromley

  3,283

  1,618

  49

  Croydon

  5,305

  2,428

  46

  Ealing

  7,624

  2,147

  28

  Enfield

  2,980

  1,222

  41

  Haringey

  8,427

  1,121

  13

  Harrow

  5,525

  2,952

  53

  Havering

  1,093

  393

  36

  Hillingdon

  3,782

  1,059

  28

  Hounslow

  5,259

  1,255

  24

  Kingston

  9,674

  1,683

  17

  Merton

  2,390

  1,054

  44

  Newham

  5,000

  1,165

  23

  Redbridge

  2,935

  1,761

  60

  Richmond

  1,275

  115

  9

  Sutton

  1,966

  247

  13

  Waltham

  5,276

  2,585

  49

  ILEA

  44,342

  14,957

  34

  Birmingham

  11,141

  3,860

  35

  Coventry

  12,364

  5,709

  46

  Dudley

  5,067

  1,329

  26

  Sandwell

  2,955

  576

  19

  Solihull

  1,778

  500

  28

  Walsall

  2,483

  824

  33

  Wolverhampton

  7,088

  1,932

  27

  Knowsley

  5,510

  1,108

  20

  Liverpool

  10,072

  1,885

  19

  St. Helens

  4,953

  855

  17

  Sef'ton

  4,616

  1,790

  39

  Wirral

  4,826

  1,316

  27

  Bolton

  1,934

  645

  33

  Bury

  996

  320

  32

  Manchester

  32,669

  8,968

  27

  Oldham

  4,809

  2,799

  58

  Rochdale

  5,493

  2,220

  40

  Salford

  3,016

  1,882

  62

  Stock port

  4,004

  1,243

  31

  Tameside

  1,884

  389

  21

  Trafford

  2,947

  1,064

  36

  Wigan

  4,550

  2,717

  60

  Barnsley

  1,073

  530

  49

  Doncaster

  403

  365

  91

  Rotherham

  2,336

  287

  12

  Sheffield

  10,762

  3,197

  30

  Bradford

  24,853

  6,303

  25

  Calderdale

  3,381

  1,883

  56

  Kirklees

  8,782

  1,664

  19

  Leeds

  12,502

  2,802

  22

  Wakefield

  5,210

  2,074

  40

  426

  LEA

  Plans cash

  1987–88 capital allocation cash

  Initial allocation as a percentage of plans

  Gateshead

  4,073

  1,112

  27

  Newcastle

  9,479

  3,369

  36

  North Tyneside

  4,498

  1,935

  43

  South Tyneside

  5,121

  1,932

  38

  Sunderland

  13,391

  2,305

  17

  Isles of Scilly

  60

  30

  50

  Avon

  10,865

  4,386

  40

  Bedfordshire

  4,814

  1,248

  26

  Berkshire

  8,281

  3,597

  43

  Buckinghamshire

  10,384

  6,004

  58

  Cambridgeshire

  10,016

  3,399

  34

  Cheshire

  9,420

  5,043

  54

  Cleveland

  8,539

  4,351

  51

  Cornwall

  8,061

  5,645

  70

  Cumbria

  6,224

  2,852

  46

  Derbyshire

  20,028

  9,036

  45

  Devon

  11,291

  4,734

  42

  Dorset

  9,577

  4,349

  45

  Durham

  6,263

  1,371

  22

  East Sussex

  15,038

  4,884

  32

  Essex

  34,169

  11,600

  34

  Gloucester

  10,302

  7,167

  70

  Hampshire

  28,643

  10,918

  38

  Hereford and West

  5,633

  2,585

  46

  Hertfordshire

  14,293

  4,100

  29

  Humberside

  14,865

  10,753

  72

  Isle of Wight

  3,192

  1,375

  43

  Kent

  13,345

  7,514

  56

  Lancashire

  18,800

  5,994

  32

  Leicester

  13,336

  5,526

  41

  Lincoln

  7,745

  4,625

  60

  Norfolk

  7,864

  5,019

  64

  North Yorkshire

  5,150

  2,035

  40

  Northamptonshire

  5,132

  1,726

  34

  Northumberland

  2,060

  655

  32

  Nottinghamshire

  5,512

  2,379

  43

  Oxfordshire

  11,326

  1,942

  17

  Shropshire

  8,486

  5,257

  62

  Somerset

  6,220

  2,626

  42

  Staffordshire

  18,219

  7,591

  42

  Suffolk

  8,830

  6,683

  76

  Surrey

  9,339

  3,828

  41

  Warwickshire

  3,473

  1,101

  32

  West Sussex

  7,420

  1,739

  23

  Wiltshire

  7,021

  3,177

  45

  1988–89

  £000s

  LEA

  Plans cash

  Capital allocation cash

  Initial allocation as a percentage of plans

  Barking

  10,457

  1,639

  16

  Barnet

  11,192

  2,000

  18

  Bexley

  1,758

  1,234

  70

  Brent

  6,758

  2,532

  37

  Bromley

  6,098

  403

  7

  Croydon

  7,149

  1,595

  22

  Ealing

  9,053

  1,174

  13

  Enfield

  9,504

  1,318

  14

  Haringey

  11,042

  2,330

  21

  Harrow

  3,862

  1,643

  43

  Havering

  1,962

  692

  35

  Hillingdon

  6,307

  918

  15

  Hounslow

  4,860

  1,242

  26

  Kingston

  11,731

  1,695

  14

  Merton

  6,965

  1,023

  15

  Newham

  6,316

  3,061

  48

  Redbridge

  5,418

  3,719

  69

  427

  LEA

  Plans cash

  Capital allocation cash

  Initial allocation as a percentage of plans

  Richmond

  2,210

  277

  13

  Sutton

  6,063

  627

  10

  Waltham

  7,120

  5,498

  77

  ILEA

  54,545

  17,767

  33

  Birmingham

  11,472

  4,407

  38

  Coventry

  17,980

  6,155

  34

  Dudley

  7,773

  1,555

  20

  Sandwell

  3,710

  767

  21

  Solihull

  4,890

  700

  14

  Walsall

  2,210

  907

  41

  Wolverhampton

  7,823

  1,849

  24

  Knowsley

  4,815

  1,136

  24

  Liverpool

  7,692

  2,323

  30

  St. Helens

  5,685

  1,211

  21

  Sefton

  2,778

  1,450

  52

  Wirral

  6,391

  2,330

  36

  Bolton

  3,866

  1,212

  31

  Bury

  1,282

  467

  36

  Manchester

  34,860

  9,269

  27

  Oldham

  5,793

  2,822

  49

  Rochdale

  5,654

  1,440

  25

  Salford

  5,740

  3,430

  60

  Stockport

  3,891

  2,878

  74

  Tameside

  2,781

  716

  26

  Trafford

  2,637

  471

  18

  Wigan

  5,308

  3,508

  66

  Barnsley

  1,198

  342

  29

  Doncaster

  644

  421

  65

  Rotherham

  2,184

  699

  32

  Sheffield

  17,815

  7,189

  40

  Bradford

  33,604

  10,457

  31

  Calderdale

  5,486

  3,619

  66

  Kirklees

  9,078

  1,486

  16

  Leeds

  14,280

  4,626

  32

  Wakefield

  6,397

  3,573

  56

  Gateshead

  5,420

  1,933

  36

  Newcastle

  12,946

  3,917

  30

  North Tyneside

  4,587

  2,129

  46

  South Tyneside

  5,939

  2,527

  43

  Sunderland

  10,951

  4,583

  42

  Isles of Scilly

  405

  39

  10

  Avon

  10,993

  4,277

  39

  Bedfordshire

  5,660

  1,630

  29

  Berkshire

  12,603

  5,567

  44

  Buckinghamshire

  9,013

  6,152

  68

  Cambridgeshire

  13,719

  4,314

  31

  Cheshire

  10,812

  4,829

  45

  Cleveland

  7,104

  3,673

  52

  Cornwall

  9,744

  6,413

  66

  Cumbria

  6,530

  4,858

  74

  Derbyshire

  15,025

  10,777

  72

  Devon

  10,732

  6,262

  58

  Dorset

  8,459

  4,052

  48

  Durham

  5,451

  1,415

  26

  East Sussex

  25,962

  9,815

  38

  Essex

  37,264

  20,317

  55

  Gloucestershire

  9,864

  5,302

  32

  Hampshire

  38,619

  16,550

  43

  Herefordshire and Worcestershire

  9,032

  2,892

  32

  Hertfordshire

  18,887

  5,525

  29

  Humberside

  13,333

  7,077

  53

  Isle of Wight

  4,377

  1,663

  38

  Kent

  15,217

  7,134

  47

  Lancashire

  25,419

  12,809

  50

  Leicestershire

  15,643

  7,419

  47

  428

  LEA

  Plans cash

  Capital allocation cash

  Initial allocation as a percentage of plans

  Lincolnshire

  8,891

  3,897

  44

  Norfolk

  7,938

  4,021

  51

  North Yorkshire

  7,297

  3,937

  54

  Northamptonshire

  8,571

  3,190

  37

  Northumberland

  3,554

  955

  27

  Nottinghamshire

  4,709

  2,461

  52

  Oxfordshire

  18,701

  4,673

  25

  Shropshire

  8,474

  4,465

  53

  Somerset

  6,501

  2,764

  43

  Staffordshire

  15,494

  7,469

  48

  Suffolk

  9,448

  7,014

  74

  Surrey

  15,468

  4,859

  31

  Warwickshire

  4,069

  1,375

  34

  West Sussex

  10,851

  3,053

  28

  Wiltshire

  6,867

  3,215

  47

  LEA

  Plans cash

  1989–90 Capital allocation cash

  Initial allocation as percent. of plans

  Barking

  1,429

  245

  17

  Barnet

  5,954

  996

  17

  Bexley

  3,336

  864

  26

  Brent

  4,939

  463

  9

  Bromley

  6,338

  663

  10

  Croydon

  6,487

  1,008

  16

  Ealing

  10,487

  540

  5

  Enfield

  6,847

  1,153

  17

  Haringey

  6,237

  2,275

  36

  Harrow

  7,423

  650

  9

  Havering

  4,912

  1,341

  27

  Hillingdon

  5,132

  644

  13

  Hounslow

  8,173

  529

  6

  Kingston

  9,756

  316

  3

  Merton

  11,393

  5,243

  46

  Newham

  7,944

  3,590

  45

  Redbridge

  5,241

  2,028

  39

  Richmond

  2,826

  540

  19

  Sutton

  11,995

  649

  5

  Waltham

  13,259

  8,013

  60

  ILEA

  38,931

  11,957

  31

  Birmingham

  13,206

  5,218

  40

  Coventry

  15,815

  2,670

  17

  Dudley

  5,621

  2,531

  45

  Sandwell

  4,462

  2,080

  47

  Solihull

  4,084

  744

  18

  Walsall

  3,190

  921

  29

  Wolverhampton

  3,810

  528

  14

  Knowsley

  6,413

  2,116

  33

  Liverpool

  6,121

  607

  10

  St. Helens

  4,597

  1,851

  40

  Sefton

  4,728

  1,724

  36

  Wirral

  6,817

  2,469

  36

  Bolton

  4,208

  1,286

  31

  Bury

  1,055

  605

  57

  Manchester

  26,053

  5,271

  20

  Oldham

  6,654

  2,272

  34

  Rochdale

  7,094

  2,175

  31

  Salford

  5,717

  3,806

  67

  Stockport

  3,822

  1,519

  40

  Tameside

  2,863

  746

  26

  Trafford

  20,581

  2,671

  13

  Wigan

  7,057

  1,364

  19

  Barnsley

  1,665

  270

  16

  Doncaster

  1,059

  684

  65

  Rotheham

  2,647

  840

  32

  Sheffield

  9,204

  5,211

  57

  429

  LEA

  Plans cash

  1989–90 Capital allocation cash

  Initial allocation as percent. of plans

  Bradford

  27,879

  8,334

  30

  Calderdale

  4,135

  2,607

  63

  Kirklees

  5,406

  808

  15

  Leeds

  17,367

  3,464

  20

  Wakefield

  5,296

  3,212

  61

  Gateshead

  5,263

  1,052

  20

  Newcastle

  9,148

  1,566

  17

  North Tyneside

  5,853

  1,577

  27

  South Tyneside

  9,846

  3,372

  34

  Sunderland

  10,269

  3,859

  38

  Isles of Scilly

  149

  149

  100

  Avon

  12,427

  3,877

  31

  Bedfordshire

  6,120

  2,022

  33

  Berkshire

  13,676

  5,876

  43

  Buckinghamshire

  12,370

  7,780

  63

  Cambridgeshire

  21,003

  5,801

  28

  Cheshire

  12,507

  3,487

  28

  Cleveland

  7,450

  5,324

  71

  Cornwall

  11,803

  6,129

  52

  Cumbria

  10,156

  6,753

  66

  Derbyshire

  22,530

  11,669

  52

  Devon

  23,329

  14,177

  61

  Dorset

  11,083

  2,970

  27

  Durham

  14,756

  2,133

  14

  East Sussex

  25,515

  9,171

  36

  Essex

  54,816

  17,002

  31

  Gloucestershire

  14,180

  5,934

  42

  Hampshire

  28,586

  7,940

  28

  Herefordshire and Worcestershire

  9,134

  2,534

  28

  Hertfordshire

  16,561

  4,832

  29

  Humberside

  13,240

  7,288

  55

  Isle of Wight

  6,678

  1,628

  24

  Kent

  24,492

  8,610

  35

  Lancashire

  34,170

  13,664

  40

  Leicestershire

  12,785

  6,769

  53

  Lincolnshire

  8,599

  3,010

  35

  Norfolk

  10,892

  3,788

  35

  North Yorkshire

  6,899

  2,209

  32

  Northamptonshire

  9,049

  4,046

  45

  Northumberland

  5,234

  889

  17

  Nottinghamshire

  7,408

  3,215

  43

  Oxfordshire

  15,971

  3,758

  24

  Shropshire

  8,010

  4,943

  62

  Somerset

  15,865

  3,088

  19

  Staffordshire

  11,544

  4,927

  43

  Suffolk

  13,315

  6,086

  46

  Surrey

  12,460

  5,735

  46

  Warwickshire

  6,275

  1,729

  28

  West Sussex

  12,953

  1,966

  15

  Wiltshire

  10,455

  2,866

  27

CIVIL SERVICE

  "Government Economic Statistics"
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what are the implications for him as the Minister for the Civil Service of the publication of the scrutiny report entitled "Government Economic Statistics".

  Mr. Luce
  This is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. However, I welcome any initiative that increases the efficiency of the Civil Service, and I am pleased that the Central Statistical Office is to be established as an executive agency.

  Quality of Service
  Mr. Gow
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service how he intends to improve the quality of service given by civil servants.

  Mr. Luce
  Improving delivery of services to the public is one of the major aims of the next steps initiative. In December 1988 my Department published a paper intended to stimulate discussion of this important area.

  Equal Opportunities
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service whether he will make a statement on the progress of monitoring exercises carried out in the Civil Service in accordance with the codes of the Commission for Racial Equality and the Equal Opportunities Commission.

  Mr. Luce
  The Civil Service is making good progress in monitoring the implementation of its equal opportunity policies. Monitoring and follow-up action is carried out by departments and the Civil Service Commission in accordance with the Commission for Racial Equality and Equal Opportunities Commission codes of practice.

THE ARTS

  Museums and Galleries
  Mr. Kirkhope
  To ask the Minister for the Arts to what extent he is providing for the building and maintenance of museums and galleries.

  Mr. Luce
  I am continuing to give high priority to building and maintenance in our national museums and galleries. Spending on building and maintenance will increase to £55 million by 1991–92, which represents an increase of 53 per cent. since 1987–88.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Minister for the Arts when he last met the chairman of the Museums and Galleries Commission to discuss the future funding and administration of national museums.

  Mr. Luce
  I meet the chairman of the Museums and Galleries Commission quite frequently and on a wide range of subjects which have included matters raised in the commission's May 1988 report on the national museums.

  Yorkshire (Administration)
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Minister for the Arts when he last met the chairman of the Yorkshire Arts Association to discuss the structure of arts administration in Yorkshire.

  Mr. Luce
  I meet the chairman of the Yorkshire Arts Association from time to time. A variety of matters is discussed.

  New Audiences
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Minister for the Arts how he intends to encourage new audiences for the arts.

  Mr. Luce
  I am encouraging a wide range of initiatives to attract new audiences to the arts through the Arts Council and other bodies. These include work on ethnic arts, rural arts and education, arts for the disabled, broadcasting and touring.

  Wales (Funding)
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Minister for the Arts when he last met the chairman of the Welsh Arts Council to discuss the level of arts funding in Wales.

  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Minister for the Arts when he last met the chairman of the Welsh Arts Council to discuss the level of arts funding in Wales.

  Mr. Luce
  I meet the chairman of the Welsh Arts Council from time to time. A variety of matters are discussed.

  Museums and Libraries
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Minister for the Arts if he will make a statement on the staffing levels at museums and libraries in London.

  Mr Luce
  In London, there are some 4,000 staff in public libraries for which information is available, and some 7,000 in national museums and galleries and the British library. Information on other London libraries and museums is not held centrally.

  Film and Television (Support)
  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what support for the British Film Institute and the National Film and Television School has been achieved in the last 10 years both from Government and private sources.

  Mr. Luce
  In the last 10 years the British Film Institute has received £83·6 million in Government support and £67·9 million from the private sector. In the same period, the National Film and Television school has received £10·7 million and £9·3 million respectively, from the same two sources.

  Item

  To whom allocated

  Amount of lax satisfied £

  Two paintings by William Hogarth

  National Museum of Wales

  11,250,000

  Flower painting by Jacob Marrel

  Not yet allocated

  61,369

  Print by William Blake

  Fitzwilliara Museum, Cambridge

  19,658

  Sculpture by Naum Gabo

  Not yet allocated

  286,610

  "A Tartar Huntsman" by Rubens

  Not yet allocated

  50,000

  "The Artist's Studio" by Peter Tillemans

  Castle Museum, Norwich

  52,270

  "Allee a Chantilly" by Cezanne

  Not yet allocated

  13,387,556

  Land at Oxey Mead, Yarnton, Oxfordshire

  Berkshire, Buckinghamshire and Oxfordshire Naturalists Trust Ltd.

  15,640

  Two busts by Roubiliac

  National Museum of Scotland to remain in situ at Mellerstain House

  353,855

  Two portraits by Angelica Kauffman

  Scottish National Portrait Gallery

  34,100

  Ten letters written to Sir Arthur Bryant

  Imperial War Museum

  875

  Ten portraits

  Not yet allocated

  260,717

  "Fabula" by El Greco

  National Galleries of Scotland

  1947,136·88

  1 These three items were met by a call on the reserve.

  Foreign Artists (Grants)
  Mr. Holt
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what is his policy on the allocation of grants by regional arts associations to foreign artists; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Luce
  The great bulk of spending by regional arts associations is in support of British artists. RAAs and their

  Wales (Administration)
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Minister for the Arts when he last met the chairman of the Welsh Arts Council to discuss the structure of arts administration in Wales.

  Mr. Luce
  I meet the chairman of the Welsh Arts Council from time to time. A variety of matters are discussed.

  Performing Arts (Support)
  Mr. Hague
  To ask the Minister for the Arts to what extent Government support for the performing arts has increased in real terms since 1979–80.

  Mr. Luce
  The Government's grant to the Arts Council, which is responsible for funding the performing arts and other art forms, has increased by 13 per cent. in real terms between 1979–80 and 1989–90.

  Book-lending Service
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what representations he has received on the continued provision of the basic book-lending service of libraries free of charge.

  Mr. Luce
  As I said in my statement on 8 February, at columns 987–97, the principle of a free basic public library service was generally supported by those responding to the library Green Paper. The Government have protected the essential elements of that service in the Local Government and Housing Bill.

  Acceptances in Lieu of Tax
  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the Minister for the Arts whether he will list the acceptances in lieu of tax in the last 12 months; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Luce
  The following items and land were accepted in lieu of tax in 1988–89:

  clients are, however, free to support foreign artists if they consider that this will add to the cultural richness of their regions.

  Marketing
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Minister for the Arts how he is encouraging marketing of the arts.
  433
  Mr. Luce
  As I announced to the House on 21 March, at column 509, I am building on marketing initiatives introduced over the last two years by now offering to support extended consultancies to arts organisations trying a new marketing approach, and the work of arts marketing consortia.

  These initiatives, which will be run on my behalf by the Arts Council, are aimed at improving access to the arts and building up new and wider audiences.

  Public Libraries
  Mr. Haynes
  To ask the Minister for the Arts how many public libraries have(a) closed and (b) opened during the past 10 years.

  Mr. Luce
  These details are not kept centrally, but the total number of service points has increased from 13,339 to 18,567.

  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Minister for the Arts how many new public libraries have opened in the west midlands in the last 10 years.

  Mr. Luce
  This information is not kept centrally.

  Dockland
  Mr. Sedgemore
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what plans he has to widen access to the arts in Docklands.

  Mr. Luce
  This is a matter for the Greater London Arts Association which, I understand, is engaged in continuing discussions with the London Docklands Development Corporation about a plan for arts and recreation in Docklands.

  Business Sponsorship Scheme
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Minister for the Arts how much funding has been attracted through the business sponsorship incentive scheme since its inception; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Luce
  Since its inception in 1984 the business sponsorship incentive scheme has brought £17·23 million in business sponsorship and £7·59 million in Government awards to the arts; a total of £24·82 million new money.

  Over 1,000 first-time sponsors have now been brought into the arts by the scheme and I am delighted with its progress.

  Merseyside Arts Association
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Minister for the Arts when he last met the chairman of the Merseyside Arts Association to discuss the structure of arts administration on Merseyside.

  Mr. Luce
  I meet the chairman of the Merseyside Arts Association from time to time. A variety of matters are discussed.

  Arts Management
  Mr. David Martin
  To ask the Minister for the Arts to what extent local business communities can help support and enhance the quality of arts management.

  Mr. Luce
  I believe that great opportunities exist for local businesses to encourage arts management. This was the reason behind the business in the arts scheme launched by the Association for Business Sponsorship of the Arts last year, with my support.

  The three strands of the scheme provide for advice tailored to the needs of arts organisations (through the enterprise agency network), management training and placing business volunteers within arts bodies.

  Urban Areas
  Mr. French
  To ask the Minister for the Arts if he will make a statement on his policy on the role of the arts in the regeneration of urban areas.

  Mr. Luce
  I believe that the arts have an important role to play in urban renewal. The Arts Council's "Urban Renaissance" campaign has drawn attention to some of the possibilities, and I have personally visited a variety of excellent arts projects in inner cities.

  Geological Museum
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Minister for the Arts if he will make a statement on the representations to Her Majesty's Government from the Geologists Association concerning the future of the geological museum.

  Mr. Luce
  I have not received any representation from the Geologists Association concerning the future of the geological museum.

  I understand that an officer of the association has written to the director of the British museum (natural history), of which the geological museum forms a part, and that he will be replying shortly.

EMPLOYMENT

  Rating Reform
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether young people over the age of 18 years who are on employment training or a similar scheme will have their income adjusted to take account of their obligation to pay the community charge from April 1989 in Scotland and from April 1990 in England and Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  There is nothing I can add to the reply I gave to the hon. Member on 18 April 1989, at column 149.

  Petrol Prices
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what contribution the rises in petrol prices have made to the retail prices index since January; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lee
  Between January and March 1989 the retail prices index for all items increased by 1.2 per cent. The rise in petrol prices over this period contributed approximately one tenth of one percentage point to this increase.

  Palace of Westminster (Health and Safety)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when was the last Health and Safety Executive visit to the Palace of Westminster; and what was the outcome of the visit.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The last Health and Safety Executive visit to the Palace of Westminster was on 27 July 1988 to discuss and confirm arrangements for health and safety inspection at the Palace and other premises forming the parliamentary estate.

  Siemens Printer
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many Siemens ND 3 printers are used by his Department, either in-house or through a private contract; and what is the location of each.

  Mr. Cope
  No Siemens ND 3 printers are used by the Employment Department.

  Computers
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many instances have been detected in his Department of computer(a) hacking, (b) viruses, (c) logic bombs, (d) Trojan horses or (e) other types of computer misuse, whether perpetrated by authorised or unauthorised users of computers; and how many unsuccessful attempts have been recorded.

  Mr. Cope
  It is not the policy of the Employment Department to make public details of computer security incidents since such information would be of assistance to potential attackers.

  Regarding other types of computer misuse, there have been eight instances of fraud since 1981 by authorised users of systems involving falsification of input information, as instanced in the National Audit Office report on "Computer Security in Government Departments" (October 1987).
  436
  Specialist advice was sought and has been acted upon on how best to prevent this in future.

  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if his Department advises small businesses on ways of guarding against unauthorised internal or external penetration of computer files by hackers.

  Mr. Cope
  The Government's small firms service, now run by the Training Agency, advises small firms on a wide range of business problems. Where detailed knowledge is required, inquirers are referred to specialists.

  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the security of the computer systems that calculate the value of the retail prices index.

  Mr. Cope
  Safeguards are incorporated into the retail prices index computer system both to prevent unauthorised access and to secure the system against computer hardware failure.

  Dock Workers
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what information he has on the average weekly earnings for the last four years of dock workers in(a) the Netherlands, (b) West Germany, (c) France, (d) Denmark, (e) Sweden, (f) Italy and (g) Spain.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Comparable data in the form requested are not readily available.

  Publicity (Expenditure)
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give the estimated expenditure by his Department and the Training Agency, respectively, in 1989–90 on publicity on the same basis as used in his answer of 19 April to the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras about the estimated expenditure for 1988–89.

  Mr. Cope
  I would refer the hon. Member to the reply by my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) to his previous question, on 10 April 1989.

  The planned expenditure by my Department on general publicity in 1989–90, to include that for the Training Agency, remains as stated in table 7.29 on page 25 of the public expenditure White Paper, Cm. 607, published in January 1989. No further detailed information is yet available.

  Tourism
  Mr. Allen McKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employmemt when he expects the review of the tourism policy to be completed.

  Mr. Lee
  The review report is currently being considered. The results of the review will be announced in due course.

  Mr. Allen McKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish the findings of the review body on tourism immediately on completion and place a copy in the Library.

  Mr. Lee
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave him on 19 January this year at column 284.
  437
  Mr. Allen McKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will now resume payment of section 4 assistance.

  Mr. Lee
  No. The section 4 scheme is being considered as part of the review of Government tourism policy. An announcement about the future of the scheme will be made in due course.

  Wages Councils
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list in the Official Report those organisations and individuals responding to the wages councils consultative document whose responses were deemed to be for abolition, against abolition, or inconclusive according to the table in his reply to the hon. Member for Mid Kent (Mr. Rowe) on 21 March, Official Report, column 556.

  Mr. Nicholls
  I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State on 23 March, at columns 798–802, in reply to a question from the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher). This listed the organisations which responded. It is not this Department's practice to reveal the names of individuals who respond or the content of submissions made by either individuals or organisations.

  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what materials are provided by his Department to inform people covered by wages councils of their legal entitlements; and what plans he has to improve these materials and their availabilty.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Information on statutory minimum rates set by wages councils is published in the form of notices which are simple to understand and give details of where further information and advice can be obtained. Notices are sent to every employer known to be affected and the law requires employers to display copies where they can be read by all workers affected and to send a copy to each home worker. Where appropriate the notices are printed in up to eight languages as well as English. There are no plans at present to change the style, content or availability of the notices.

  ACAS
  Mr. Gerald Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he expects to receive the annual report of the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service.

  Mr. Fowler
  I have received the ACAS report for 1988, which will be laid before both Houses of Parliament tomorrow. The report is also to be published tomorrow and copies will then be available from the Vote Office.

  Safety-related Software
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, what progress is being made by the Health and Safety Executive in the establishment of a formal framework on safety-related software; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  [holding answer 11 April 1989]: The Health and Safety Executive is currently undertaking a study with the aim of developing a design and assessment
  438
  framwork for safety-related computer software. It is due to be completed in June 1989, when it is intended the proposals will be published, to allow wider commentary before being finalised.

TRANSPORT

  Automatic Ticket Barriers
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much money has been spent by London Regional Transport on installing the new automatic barriers at London Underground stations.

  Mr. Portillo
  To date London Underground Limited has spent some £18 million on installing automatic ticket barriers.

  Aviation Liberalisation
  Mr. Dicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will identify the increases in service and cuts in fares that have occurred as a result of the European aviation liberalisation package agreed in December 1987.

  Mr. Channon
  The European Commission has not yet produced a report on the overall effect of the package, but I am glad to say that we have designated airlines on new routes from London to Arrecife, Mahon, Ibiza, Treviso and Palermo, and second airlines on routes from London to Madrid, Athens, Rome and Milan. Air Europe has reduced fares from London to Paris, Munich, Copenhagen, Oslo and Stockholm by between 12 and 16 per cent.; and many airlines have cut fares for leisure travel.

  Local Authority Roads (Report)
  Mr. Patnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress has been made in implementing the recommendations contained in the Audit Commission report, "Improving the Condition of Local Authority Roads."

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The main action is for local authorities. We have encouraged implementation through discussion with the local authority associations. We are discussing with them the recommendations for changes in legislation.

  Airport Safety
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on recent developments in international co-operation on airport safety matters.

  Mr. Channon
  There is continuing international co-operation on developments in airport safety and the CAA ensures that licensed airports conform with ICAO standards.

  Urban Traffic Control System, London
  Mr. Charles Wardle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport by how much the urban traffic control system in London reduces delays at signals.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  By an estimated 25 per cent. over the whole network.

  Road Assessment Studies (London)
  Ms. Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the cost to date of stage 1 and stage 2 of the London assessment studies.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The total cost of stage 1 of the studies was about £3 million. It is estimated that stage 2 will cost £4 million to complete. In comparison, personal injury accidents on roads in the east London assessment study area alone cost some £50 million each year.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many houses in London have been blighted as a result of the publication, by him of stage 2a of the London assessment studies; and whether he will accept blight notices on these.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Blight provisions do not apply to the options published by the consultants carrying out the London assessment studies.

  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has for public consultation on stage 2 of the London assessment studies.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  We shall decide the arrangements for public comment on the options nearer the time the consultants' reports are available.

  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received about the timetable for decisions on the south London road assessment studies.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Some of the correspondents on the assessment studies have inquired at various times about the likely timing of decisions. They have been assured that we will try to end the uncertainty caused by rumour and speculation about the outcome as soon as possible.

  Road and Rail Investment
  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will now review the criteria by which his Department assesses costs and benefits of road and rail investment proposals; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Channon
  Broadly comparable criteria are used for appraising investment in roads and railways. They take account of the different ways in which each mode is financed and operated, the main difference being that benefits to rail users can be recovered through fares. Our views were set out last year in the Government's response to the Transport Committee's report on the financing of rail services, and in our recent statement on transport in London.

  London (Traffic Flow)
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he is taking to improve traffic flow on the main routes into London.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Traffic flows on the network will benefit from our support to a range of traffic management measures throughout London, including advanced and responsive urban traffic control systems and more effective control of parking and from our promotion of safe, efficient and attractive public transport services.
  440
  We are helping to improve the flow of traffic on the strategic London road network through the national trunk road programme in London and small improvement schemes.

  We are providing financial support to appropriate borough road schemes and have issued a traffic management guidance circular to the boroughs.

  Manchester Airport
  Mr. Mans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will report the progress that has been made concerning negotiations on air service agreements applying to Manchester airport.

  Mr. Channon
  The aviation measures adopted in the EC last year created opportunities for routes to be established between United Kingdom regional airports and the continent. New opportunities have recently been won for services between Manchester and Hong Kong and Malaysia and Pakistan. We are at present negotiating for further Manchester routes with the United States and Singapore.

  Road Traffic Accidents
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are the trends in deaths caused by road traffic accidents.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Downwards. Deaths in road accidents reached a post-war peak of 7,985 in 1966. They have fallen steadily since then, to 6,614 in 1977 and to 5,125 in 1987. The estimated number of road deaths in 1988 was 5,041.

  Airline Security
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he next intends to meet the chairman of the BAA to discuss airline security.

  Mr. Channon
  I have no plans to do so at the moment, but I expect very shortly to receive from the chairman the progress report mentioned in the reply given to the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks) on 31 January, at column 146. I will then consider whether a further meeting with the chairman would be desirable.

  British Rail
  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he plans next to meet the chair of British Rail; and what subjects he plans to discuss.

  Mr. Portillo
  My right hon. Friend plans next to meet the chairman of British Rail on 17 May to discuss a variety of railway matters.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he next proposes to meet the chairman of British Rail; and what matters will be discussed.

  Mr. Portillo
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths) earlier today.

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he last met the chairman of British Rail; and what was discussed.
  441
  Mr. Portillo
  My right hon. Friend last met the chairman of British Rail on 19 April when they discussed a variety of railway matters.

  Lorry Wheels
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if his Department intends to make new recommendations on the manufacture or maintenance of the systems for securing lorry wheels to axles in the light of the fatal accident at Rogerstone, Newport, Gwent on 7 April 1988;

  (2) if any investigation was undertaken into the safety of lorry wheels following the fatal accident at Rogerstone, Newport, Gwent on 7 April 1988.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The Department takes a continuing interest in the safety of lorry wheels through the setting of regulations, certification of vehicle components, annual testing and spot-checks. It is currently involved in consideration being given by the BSI to the recent reports by the Motor Industry Research Association, in order to see if changes are required in the current British Standard and regulations.

  The importance of good maintenance standards is regularly discussed with the freight industry. Vehicles are banned or operators' licences withdrawn where maintenance is unsatisfactory. Last year 77,937 roadside spot-checks were carried out on heavy goods vehicles—36 per cent. up on the previous year.

  Mr. Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will set out the information his Department has collected on accidents in the past three years that have been caused by wheels becoming detached from lorries and other large vehicles;

  (2) if there has been any increase detected by his Department in the number of accidents involving wheels becoming detached from lorries.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The following numbers of incidents involving wheel detachments have been reported to the Vehicle Inspectorate in the last three years:

  Number

  1986

  37

  1987

  41

  1988

  30

  Bypasses
  Mr. McCrindle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his policy with regard to providing additional funds for the construction of bypasses around important towns on trunk roads; if he will consider assistance to Essex county council for such a bypass around Ongar; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  There are some 140 bypasses in the trunk road programme. These contribute to the Government's objectives for the programme, which include the improvement of the environment by removing through traffic from unsuitable roads in towns and villages.

  Ongar is served by local roads. Transport supplementary grant is available to help fund local highway authorities' programmes of capital expenditure on these roads. In determining how much of an authority's
  442
  expenditure to accept for TSG, the Secretary of State considers the extent to which the roads concerned are of more than local importance, the extent to which the people working or living in the authority's area would be relieved of the effects of heavy through traffic, and the merits of competing bids for limited resources.

  If Essex county council includes proposals for an Ongar bypass in its annual transport policies and programme submission, my right hon. Friend will be pleased to consider them.

  M25
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list(a) the lengths of the M25 for which his Department gave assurances, or made public statements, at public inquiries or elsewhere, that they would not be lit, (b) the lengths in miles and the standard of the motorway affected and (c) for which of these sections lighting is now being planned.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  No undertakings were given at public inquiries that sections of the M25 would not be lit at some future date, but undertakings were given that the following three sections would not be lit at the outset:The section between junctions 3 and 5, Swanley to Sevenoaks, 8·6 miles dual 3 lane;
  the section between junctions 8 and 10, Reigate—Leatherhead—Wisley, 13·3 miles dual 3 lane; and
  the section between junctions 18 and 19 at Chorleywood 3·1 miles dual 3 lane.

  The section between junctions 18 and 19 at Chorleywood may have lighting installed this year. The need for lighting on remaining unlit sections is being considered as part of the M25 review currently in progress.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list those lengths of the M25 and adjacent motorway sections on which there are sensors to measure average traffic speed and detect incidents and unstable flow; how far apart the sensors are located; whether they are placed in all lanes; for which sections they can give an indication of average speed, and average hourly flow per lane; and if he will give the current average peak-hour and off-peak speed, for all lanes averaged, for those sections so monitored.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The equipment currently in operation measures traffic flows. It does not measure average traffic speeds (which are surveyed separately) or detect incidents or unstable flow. An incident detection system is soon to be commissioned on the approach to and within the Holmesdale and Bell Common tunnels. This will use sensors at 500 m intervals, with a threshold alarm, to warn the police of slow moving traffic queues. The need for wider use of automatic incident detection equipment is being considered in the review of the motorway.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many miles of the M25 can, in practice, be observed by a closed-circuit television camera for incident verification, and guidance to emergency services when an incident is being handled on the motorway; what M25 interchanges are currently covered by closed-circuit television; and how many miles of the M25 main carriageways can be observed by these cameras.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Closed-circuit television (CCTV) is being provided on M25 in accordance with a
  443
  departmental standard which defines the "Criteria for the provision of CCTV on motorways". At present CCTV coverage is available to the police at the Homesdale and Bell Common tunnels and at junctions 15, 20 to 23, 25 to 27. Contracts have been let which will progressively extend this CCTV coverage to almost all M25 junctions by the summer of 1990.

  The carriageway mileage which can be observed by the cameras cannot be quoted since their range varies at each individual location depending upon physical positioning, geographical topography and the weather at any given time.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the average response time between an incident occurring on the M25 and(a) its identification and (b) a rescue or breakdown truck reaching the incident, where the vehicles immobilised are blocking one or more lanes of a carriageway.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  This information is not available. Incidents are mainly reported to, or identified by the police via the emergency telephone system, vehicle patrols and the use of closed circuit television at some locations. Response times vary according to the time of day, location and nature of the incident.

  Estimates of M25 annual average flows: 1986 and 1987 All motor vehicles: thousands

  1986

  1987

  Link

  Month of Count

  7 day/24 hour

  5 day/24 hour

  5 day/16 hour

  Month of Count

  7 day/24 hour

  5 day/24 hour

  5 day/16 hour

  1A–1B

  6

  62

  64

  61

  4

  75

  80

  75

  1B–2

  6

  69

  71

  67

  5

  81

  83

  78

  2–3

  6

  60

  66

  62

  4

  70

  76

  71

  3–4

  6

  48

  53

  50

  4

  55

  60

  57

  4–5

  6

  56

  61

  58

  4

  60

  65

  61

  5–6

  6

  72

  78

  74

  10

  76

  81

  77

  6–7

  6

  79

  85

  81

  10

  83

  86

  81

  7–8

  6

  85

  92

  87

  4

  94

  100

  95

  8–9

  6

  77

  83

  78

  5

  84

  92

  87

  9–10

  6

  77

  83

  78

  5

  88

  94

  88

  10–11

  6

  96

  105

  99

  9

  107

  113

  107

  11–12

  6

  111

  1211

  114

  10

  119

  126

  119

  12–13

  6

  110

  119

  112

  5

  121

  131

  123

  13–14

  6

  112

  121

  115

  5

  131

  139

  131

  14–15

  6

  99

  107

  101

  7

  123

  129

  121

  15–16

  6

  90

  97

  92

  4

  119

  129

  122

  16–17

  5

  79

  85

  80

  5

  105

  112

  106

  17–18

  6

  79

  86

  82

  4

  108

  115

  109

  18–19

  6

  80

  87

  82

  4

  114

  121

  114

  19–20

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  4

  95

  103

  98

  20–21

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  4

  97

  106

  100

  21–22

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  4

  79

  87

  82

  22–23

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  4

  89

  95

  90

  23–24

  6

  56

  62

  58

  5

  93

  102

  96

  24–25

  6

  60

  66

  62

  5

  87

  95

  90

  25–26

  5

  66

  71

  67

  5

  84

  90

  85

  26–27

  n.a.

  64

  69

  65

  n.a.

  80

  n.a.

  n.a.

  27–28

  6

  69

  76

  71

  4

  88

  94

  89

  28–29

  6

  62

  69

  65

  5

  74

  79

  74

  29–30

  n.a.

  66

  69

  57

  5

  68

  75

  70

  30–31

  6

  48

  53

  49

  5

  61

  66

  62

  31–01

  9

  68

  72

  68

  5

  75

  n.a.

  n.a.

  Note: Estimates of average daily flow are not corrected for seasonal effects, so the figures given above are influenced by the month of count. Estimates for 1988 are not yet available.

  n.a. Data not available.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will list the latest available average daily, average weekday, average morning peak-hour and
  444
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether, on the existing dual-four lane sections of the M25 between the A30 and the M4, the outermost lane acts as part of the means of carrying through traffic, or as a merge and diverge facility for traffic using the adjacent junctions to this section of the motorway.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The nearside lanes are signed for use by traffic joining or leaving the motorway at the junctions.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many directional miles of the M25 have specially constructed noise or visual mounds alongside the hard shoulder to mitigate the impact of the motorway.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  There are about 32 miles of specially constructed noise bunds and barriers along the M25.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the average five-day and seven-day traffic flows for both 16-hour and 24-hour days for each section of the M25, and for the Dartford tunnel and approach roads, for(a) 1986 and (b) the latest available year, indicating the month of the count in each case.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The requested information is as follows:

  average evening peak-hour traffic flow entering the M25 at each of the entrance slip roads from other roads or motorways;
  445
  (2) if he will list the latest available average daily, average weekday, average morning peak-hour and average evening peak-hour traffic flow leaving the M25 at each of its exit slip roads to other roads or motorways.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Our consultants conducting the M25 review are obtaining figures of traffic entering or leaving the M25 at each junction to show the average daily Monday-Thursday flow, and the average morning and evening peak flows. These will be available in due course.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many patrolling breakdown and rescue trucks are in service on the M25 during normal weekday commuting and working hours(a) on the motorway as a whole and (b) per each 20 directional miles; and who funds and directs the operation and placing of these vehicles.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Dedicated recovery vehicles do not patrol the M25. Recovery vehicles are stationed at major roadworks to deal with accidents and breakdowns within those works. They are also stationed at the Dartford tunnel. Elsewhere, recovery vehicles are summoned by the police, who select them in rotation from a list of local garages. Alternatively, drivers may elect to use their own recovery organisation. Vehicle owners pay for recovery except within major roadworks where the Department provides the service.

  We are examining the present arrangements, in consultation with the police and the Department's agent authorities, with the aim of reducing the times for which carriageways are obstructed by accidents and other incidents.

  M40
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement concerning the exact tender arrangements for the M40 extension from Wendlebury to Waterstock.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  We have today invited competitive tenders from civil engineering contractors for the construction of the final section of the M40 extension between Waterstock and Wendlebury. Firms have been asked to submit tenders within six weeks based on their own choice of construction period. We will be offering the successful contractor a bonus for finishing ahead of schedule with financial penalties if completion is delayed.

  Mersey Tunnels
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill, he will now explain how any waiving of interest payments with respect to the Mersey tunnels would be authorised and financed.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  If the Merseyside passenger transport authority provides the Secretary of State with proposals for putting the tunnels on a sound financial footing which show that Government assistance through the waiving of interest payments is justified, we shall consider with it how that can best be done.

  Roads (South-East)
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will take steps to obtain a copy of the recent report 446
  by the Society of County Surveyors about the case for roads improvement in the south-east; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  We have read with interest the recent report by the County Surveyors' Society entitled "Review of Highway Investment Needs up to the year 2001 on Motorways, Primary and Strategic Routes in England (excluding London)".

  We shall consider the views of the society on national roads in the review of the trunk road programme which we are currently undertaking.

  We have recently invited all local highway authorities to submit bids by 31 July for transport supplementary grant for 1990–91 for local roads of more than local importance. In considering their bids, the local highway authorities may also find the report of some assistance.

  The new system of credit approvals rather than capital allocations should direct more resources towards local roads capital spending.

  We agree with the basic message from the county surveyors that increased spending on roads will benefit the economy, reduce casualties and improve the environment.

  Aviation Security
  Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he is ready to report the outcome of his review of aviation security; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Channon
  The purpose of aviation security is to protect passengers and aircrew from attacks by terrorists and other criminals. At the same time every effort has to be made to facilitate the smooth operation of airports and air services. I have to judge this in the light of the changing threat to civil aviation and of security incidents such as hijacks and sabotage. The Lockerbie disaster marked a trend for terrorist bomb attacks on airliners to become increasingly severe. Even tighter security measures are necessary even if this is at the expense of some cost and inconvenience to passengers.

  My aviation security review is a continuing one. I have already discussed progress on it with the Transport Select Committee. The Committee's report on its current inquiry into airport security will he of further help to me as my review goes forward.

  Immediately after Lockerbie increased security measures were ordered for United States airlines, particularly for hold baggage. I attended an emergency meeting of the National Aviation Security Committee on 5 January in the light of which I decided to bring in further measures for United States airlines in relation to cabin baggage, hold baggage and cargo. I ordered new rules for the issue and use of passes at all United Kingdom airports and on 6 April I announced the introduction of a package of measures for all our major airports that should provide better security for restricted areas and for aircraft, passengers and baggage in those areas.

  I have now set firm objectives for a further tightening of security. They are:

  (1) closer examination of the items taken on board aircraft, such as radios and computers, which might be used to conceal explosive devices;

  (2) screening all hold baggage on flights at higher risk;

  (3) further tightening of the security requirements for cargo, mail and courier consignments;

  447

  (4) tighter requirements for the physical separation of inbound and outbound passengers. (This may require structural alterations, or equivalent safeguards, at some airports.);

  (5) changes to the design and construction of aircraft interiors to make it harder to hide weapons or explosives in them, and to make them easier to search. Achieving these objectives will take time. They require careful co-ordination, more staff, more equipment, further training and close co-operation with our aviation industry and with other likeminded countries.

  It is not enough to lay down security requirements; we must check that airports and airlines carry them out. I now intend to more than double the strength of the aviation security division. My team of aviation security advisers made 190 visits to airports last year. They will now be able to carry out more inspections and spot checks, as well as special surveys to determine whether new measures are needed. To emphasise their monitoring role they will be reconstituted as the Aviation Security Inspectorate. Each of the 20 or so larger airports will be visited frequently, and will be inspected formally and comprehensively at least once a year. Other airports will be formally inspected at regular intervals. Inspectors will also make overseas visits to ascertain that the security afforded to British airlines is satisfactory. They will be involved, as the advisers are now, in advising on the appropriate measures to counter the threat, in the development of new security measures and policies, and in the day-to-day response to security questions as they arise.

  Under the Aviation Security Act 1982 I have certain powers to direct airport managers and aircraft operators for the purpose of protecting aircraft, airports and air navigation facilities from acts of violence. My aviation security advisers have the power to enter and inspect aircraft, and to detain them if necessary for that purpose, or enter and inspect any building or part of an airport.

  But there are certain areas where my powers are more limited than I should like. I shall therefore seek new powers from Parliament to secure more effective implementation of security measures.

  Over the last two years my Department has put together a clearly defined programme to carry out research and development into aviation security equipment. It has made arrangements with the Home Office's scientific research and development branch and the Ministry of Defence's Royal Armaments Research and Development Establishment to develop new detection techniques, and to conduct trials of commercial equipment for airport use. The budget for this work is about half a million pounds a year.

  I now want this work stepped up, and I am doubling the budget for the current financial year. The research establishments will bring in extra staff and the work will be co-ordinated by a full-time project officer—a scientist—in the aviation security division of my Department. The projects will include the continuing examination of commercially available equipment for explosives detection, to assess the suitability of the new generation of advanced X-rays and explosive vapour detectors and other systems in this field. We shall also sponsor work on new techniques for the bulk detection of explosives in baggage and cargo.

  We are keenly interested in the thermal neutron analysis (TNA) machines now being developed in the USA and in the United Kingdom for detecting explosives in baggage. The American project is sponsored by the FAA,
  448
  and we have now received its formal proposal to install one of the six production machines at Gatwick or Heathrow later this year. We are examining the practical considerations with BAA and expect very soon to be able to reply favourably to the FAA proposal.

  In this country work is being carried out under a contract between the Atomic Energy Authority's Harwell laboratory and a private company. We have kept in touch with progress on this project and are discussing with its sponsors the possibility of funding further work.

  But it is too soon to know whether TNA can by itself solve all the problems of screening baggage and we must continue to look for additional techniques.

  Aviation security is a matter of international concern. The standards and recommended practices which govern aviation security are set by the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO). It is important that security worldwide should be co-ordinated so that it is everywhere in line with the threat to civil aviation.

  In February I attended a special ministerial meeting held by the Council of ICAO to discuss the implications of the Lockerbie disaster. I reported the successful outcome of this meeting to the House on 21 February. An ambitious programme of work began at ICAO designed to improve security standards worldwide. A meeting of the ICAO aviation security panel has been convened for May to take matters forward. Meanwhile, I look forward to a further discussion with United States Secretary of Transportation Skinner when he visits London later this week.

  My aim is to introduce sound and practical measures that give a high level of security but interfere as little as possible with the operation of our airports and airlines and so with the travelling public. Such measures need careful preparation in close consultation with the industry and others. I am determined to press ahead with this work so as to achieve worthwhile and lasting improvements to aviation security in this country.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport by what date he expects the full availability of thermal neutron analysis machines for airport security at British airports.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  I refer the hon. Member to the answers given by my right hon. Friend today to the hon. Member for Welwyn, Hatfield (Mr. Evans) and to the hon. Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith).

  Mr. Prescott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many security breaches have occurred at British airports since 21 December 1988; how many reviews of security he has called for since then; and what action he is now taking to improve security.

  Mr. Channon
  Fourteen security incidents have been notified to the Department. Nine of these involved breaches of varying degrees of seriousness in the requirements of the aviation security programme. Two other cases are still under investigation. On the latter parts of the question I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend, the Member for Welwyn, Hatfield (Mr. Evans) and to my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith).

  Fishing Vessel Laurel (Incident)
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information he has concerning an incident
  449
  at 8.45 am on Monday 17 April involving the fishing vessel Laurel and a submarine in the Irish sea; what action he has taken; what investigations will be undertaken; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  [holding answer 20 April 1989]: My Department received a report on 17 April that the Isle of Man registered fishing vessel Laurel had been towed backwards. The vessel was subsequently forced to cut her nets for safety, resulting in the loss of her fishing gear. She then returned to Peel. The incident would appear to have involved a United States Navy submarine which was operating in the area at the time and which, on surfacing, was found to have sustained superficial damage. It is understood that the United States authorities are conducting an investigation into the incident.

  The Laurel was outside territorial waters at the time and in such circumstances it is not normal practice for my Department to hold an investigation. The Isle of Man marine administration is inquiring into the incident.

  High-Speed Rail Line
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) further to his answer to the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling on 17 March,Official Report, columns 371–72, whether, if the present year is the first year of operation of the high-speed line for the purposes of the net present value calculation referred to, the full construction costs, including the interest on construction finance, will be compounded forward to the first year of operation; and with what compounding factor;

  (2) further to his answer to the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling on 17 March, Official Report, columns 371–72, whether for the purposes of the net present value calculation referred to, the present year will he taken as the first year of construction or the first year of operation of the high-speed line.

  Mr. Portillo
  [holding replies 20 April 1989]: There is no strict rule about which year is taken as the year to which the costs and benefits of a proposed project are discounted. However, it is common practice to discount to the year in which the project is appraised (the decision year). The choice of year to be taken as the "present" year for purposes of the NPV calculation does not affect the assessment of the project's viability. If the first year of operation is taken instead of the decision year, the NPV of the construction costs will be higher, since they will have been compounded forward, but the NPV of the revenues will also be higher, since they will not have been discounted back for so many years. If the NPV is positive when discounted to one particular year, then, using the same discount rate, it will also be positive when discounted (or compounded) to any other year. The compound rate used would he the same as the discount rate to be applied to the project (and described in previous answers to my right hon. Friend). Interest charges would not be included, since the discount (or compound) rate is used to measure the cost of capital resources instead of the interest rate; to include both would be double counting.

  London (Transport Studies)
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many studies into aspects of transport in London his Department is currently sponsoring; and at what cost to public funds.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The Department is currently sponsoring nine studies into aspects of transport in London. They are:

  Study

  Cost £

  Stage 2 of the four London assessment studies

  4,000,000

  Central London rail study (jointly with BR and LRT)

  1400,000

  East London rail study (jointly with DoE and LRT)

  170,000

  A4/M4 corridor study

  200,000

  Trunk road signing review

  470,000

  Development of traffic management and accident prevention measures

  1,700,000

  Company assisted travel

  125,000

  Heathrow and south west London orbital movement study (HASQUAD)

  500,000

  Tourist coaches in London

  168,000

  1 Approximately.

  Some of the studies require the use of the London transportation survey model. The total costs of the development, maintenance and use of this model between April 1986 and February 1989 was £2,300,000.

  A59 Corridor
  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the consultants' report on the A59 corridor involving Ormskirk, Southport and Preston.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The findings of the consultants' review are being considered in the context of the current review of the trunk road programme.

  We hope to make an announcement in early summer.

  Network SouthEast
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he next intends to meet the chairman of British Rail to discuss investment in Network SouthEast.

  Mr. Portillo
  My right hon. Friend will next meet the chairman on 17 May to discuss a wide range of railway issues.

  Waterloo-Southampton Rail Service (Derailment)
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what report he has received from his inspector into the cause of the derailment of the 10.36 am train from Waterloo to Southampton on Thursday 6 April; what steps have been taken to prevent a recurrence of this accident; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  I understand that British Rail's internal inquiry into this derailment has taken place. Once I have received a copy of the inquiry report, I shall decide, upon the advice of the railway inspectorate, whether any action is required.

  Car Mileage (Recordings)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will estimate, using United States' experience, the cost of recording car mileages through the driver and vehicle licensing centre.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The annual cost of recording car mileages at the driver and vehicle licensing centre is estimated to be in excess of £3 million, in addition to the costs of setting up such a system. No comparison with the United States' experience can be made given the diversity of licensing and registration procedures applicable in individual states. The problems are accuracy and effectiveness as well as cost.

  I also refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave earlier to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King).

  Mr. Roger King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport why he has refused to introduce a system of mileage logging when vehicle excise licences are renewed.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The Government's reasons for not doing so are set out in my letter of 16 March to the Director General of Fair Trading, Sir Gordon Borrie. A copy has been placed in the Library.

  Roads and Motoring (Expenditure)
  Mr. Sedgemore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the level of public expenditure on roads and motoring during the last year for which information is available.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Gross public expenditure on roads and activities related to motor vehicles and motoring in Great Britain in 1988–89 is presently forecast to be £4,450 million. This figure does not include police expenditure on traffic regulation.

  Taxis and Private Hire Vehicles
  Mr. Waller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he plans to publish his proposals relating to taxis and private hire vehicles.

  Mr. Portillo
  No date has been fixed.

  Manchester Airport
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a further statement about rail links to Manchester airport.

  Mr. Portillo
  Last month my officials met officials of the relevant parties to discuss outstanding issues associated with the proposed rail link. Encouraging and substantial progress has been made. I now await a formal investment submission from the British Railways Board.

  Road Accidents
  Mr. David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many deaths and serious injuries occurred on United Kingdom roads in 1987, and each of the previous five years.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The figures required, on how many deaths and serious injuries occurred on United Kingdom roads in 1987, and each of the previous five years, are shown in the table.
  452

  Road casualties in the United Kingdom: 1982–87

  Killed

  Seriously injured

  All killed or seriously injured

  1982

  6,150

  82,242

  88,392

  1983

  5,618

  72,923

  78,541

  1984

  5,788

  75,524

  81,312

  1985

  5,342

  72,128

  77,470

  1986

  5,618

  70,577

  76,195

  1987

  5,339

  66,178

  71,517

  Provisional figures for 1988 for Great Britain indicate that there were 5,050 deaths in road accidents, a fall of 2 per cent. compared with 1987.

  Tunnels (Safety Standards)
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he last met representatives of the emergency services to discuss safety standards in tunnels.

  Mr. Portillo
  There are regular meetings between the railway inspectorate, and the emergency services to discuss safety in railway tunnels.

  Gatwick Airport (Runway)
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will open talks with BAA Ltd. to institute a study of the case for a second runway at Gatwick airport.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The Civil Aviation Authority is due to provide my right hon. Friend in July with advice on airport capacity to 2005, including runway capacity for the London area. He will wish to consider the advice before responding to the recent Select Committee on Transport's recommendation that all efforts should be made to provide a second main runway at Gatwick.

  Air Travellers (Delay)
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to reduce delays to air travellers at British airports this summer; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The Civil Aviation Authority set out the strategy of the national air traffic services for relieving congestion in 1989 and the years to 1995 in its advice "Strategies for Making Good Use of Airspace 1989–95". This was published last December and copies placed in the Library.

  The United Kingdom is also working with other European countries in the International Civil Aviation Organisation and in Eurocontrol to improve co-operation and co-ordination between air traffic services. An improved air traffic flow management system was recently brought into operation in readiness for summer traffic levels.

  Road Traffic Act
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has any plans to review the operation of the Road Traffic Act.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  We regularly keep under review all factors that influence safety on Britain's roads,
  453
  including those matters required by law. Proposals for a major reform of road traffic legislation were published on 7 February in a White Paper, "The Road User and the Law" (Cm. 576).

  Peterborough (Explosion)
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects the report on the Peterborough explosion to be published; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects the report on the Peterborough explosion to be published; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  A publication date for the report into the Peterborough explosion cannot be set until the investigations by the Health and Safety Executive have been completed.

  Central London Rail Study
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much fares on LRT services and British Rail's Network SouthEast services would have to rise, in real terms, to pay for the major upgrading programme and the full cross package of proposals in the central London rail study.

  Mr. Portillo
  It is too early to say. Further work is currently being done on the financing of the central London rail study proposals.

  P and O
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he last met the chair of P and O; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. Portillo
  My right hon. Friend last met the chairman of P and O on 18 January 1989. He discussed a wide range of transport issues.

  London Airports (Night Flights)
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will review the regulations governing night flights of jet aircraft from London's airports, particularly of those in the NNC category.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The present night restrictions at Heathrow and Gatwick were introduced in 1988 and apply for five years. My right hon. Friend, however, has undertaken to review the night noise climate at Gatwick after the current summer season. This could lead to an adjustment of quotas if it is apparent that disturbance under the new restrictions regime has become worse, rather than lessening as we expect.

  East Anglia (Trunk Road Network)
  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress is being made on improvements to the trunk road network in East Anglia.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  There are 24 schemes costing more than £200 million at various stages of preparation in the current programme for improvement of the trunk road network in East Anglia. They are all scheduled for completion by 1995; many of them earlier. Good progress is being maintained.
  454
  Further possible improvements to trunk roads benefiting East Anglia are being considered in the current comprehensive review of the trunk road programme. We expect to make an announcement in the early summer.

  Road Safety
  Mr. Lofthouse
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what further measures he plans to bring forward to improve road safety.

  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what further measures he plans to bring forward to improve road safety.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  We announced on 19 April at column 163 a series of new measures intended to reduce the unacceptably high casualty rate among pedestrians. I also announced on 18 April at column 106 decisions on a number of aspects of our earlier proposals for improving motorcycle safety. Our priority now will be to implement all these measures as soon as practicable.

  We shall shortly bring before the House for approval regulations to implement the Motor Vehicles (Wearing of Rear Seat Belts by Children) Act 1988.

  The main task is to help generate news and current affairs coverage of the 100 deaths each week and just over 6,000 injuries.

  Traffic Congestion
  Mr. Holt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what action he intends to take to alleviate the present situation of drivers being stuck in road jams of (i) 26 miles and (ii) over 30 miles.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  We need more road capacity and roads which last longer, drivers who cause fewer crashes and better information systems to warn of incidents and congestion. Action is being taken in each case.

  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his estimate of the cost to the economy of delays and congestion on the roads of Britain during 1988.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley (Mr. Cran).

  Computers
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on all recorded cases of unauthorised access to his Department's computer files.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  No.

  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give details of his Department's policy on review of the security of its computer files.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The Department keeps all aspects of computer security under regular review. Arrangements are reviewed annually by the Departments information technology steering committee.

  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he can quantify the risk of damage by hackers to sensitive computerised files in his Department.
  455
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  It is not the policy of the Department to make public the scope for damage. Such information would be of assistance to potential attackers.

  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether staff are briefed about computer hacking and computer viruses; whether there are contingency plans to deal with computer downtime caused by unauthorised penetration; and what plans exist to deal with penetration of particularly sensitive systems.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Security managers are responsible for staff education programmes and the development of contingency plans. Effectiveness would be reduced if details were made public.

  Data Protection
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures his Department has taken to protect data in transit by electronic means.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The Department takes advice from the appropriate Government authorities on security matters, including the Central Computing and Telecommunications Agency. To publish details of actual risks and countermeasures would itself constitute a breach of security.

  Motorways
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether the Department's standard for motorways of more than dual-three lane width requires the motorway to be continuously lit.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The Department's standard allows motorways of more than dual-three lane width to be lit where appropriate.

  Goods and Public Service Vehicles
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he has now received the review of goods and public service vehicles operator licensing; when he intends to publish the review; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  I refer the hon. Lady to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) on 21 March at column 530.

  Channel Tunnel
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received concerning the implications of the Channel tunnel for the Yorkshire area; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  I have received a number especially when I attended a conference in York on the Channel tunnel.

  I believe that it can benefit all parts of the United Kingdom, including Yorkshire.

  Mr. Gow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his latest estimate of the date on which the Channel tunnel will open.

  Mr. Portillo
  Eurotunnel has recently announced a new target completion date of 15 June 1993.
  456
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he last discussed with British Rail routes for freight traffic from the Channel tunnel to the regions; and if he will make a statement.

  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he last discussed with British Rail routes for freight traffic from the Channel tunnel to the regions; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  The routeing of Channel tunnel rail freight traffic is entirely a matter for British Rail. Its proposals for services to the regions will be set out in the plan it has to produce by the end of this year under section 40 of the Channel Tunnel Act.

  Mr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps are being taken to improve communications to the south-west of England so that the area can benefit from the Channel tunnel.

  Mr. Portillo
  Rail access between the south-west and the Channel tunnel is the responsibility of British Rail. It is required by section 40 of the Channel Tunnel Act to publish a plan by the end of the year setting out its proposals for international passenger and freight services serving various parts of the country. It has not yet completed the regional consultations in preparation for this plan. Our national road planning takes into account the requirements of road traffic to and from the tunnel. A review of the trunk road programme is in progress, and we expect to make an announcement in the spring.

  Mrs. Peacock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he next plans to meet Yorkshire regional managers of British Rail to discuss the implications for Yorkshire of the Channel tunnel.

  Mr. Portillo
  I meet British Rail's regional managers from time to time. They will, I am sure, contribute to BR's plan for Channel tunnel freight and passenger services, which British Rail is obliged to publish by the end of the year in compliance with section 40 of the Channel Tunnel Act 1987.

  Sir David Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will indicate the general line of route of his proposed new road from Southampton to the entrance of the Channel tunnel; and whether it will be a single or dual carriageway.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  There are no firm proposals. As part of our current review of the trunk road programme we are considering whether there should be a study of the need for additional capacity from the Channel tunnel and the M20 westwards to relieve existing roads. We hope to make an announcement about the outcome of the review by early summer.

  Mr. Gerald Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make it his policy not to approve proposals from British Rail for every passenger and all items of freight from and to the Channel tunnel to all destinations in the United Kingdom to pass through central London.

  Mr. Portillo
  BR's passenger and freight services through the Channel tunnel must operate on a commercial basis. Subject to that and to parliamentary approval for
  457
  new lines where needed, the routes used by British Rail for its passenger and freight traffic are the responsibility of the British Railways Board. They do not require Government approval.

  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what further representations he has received on the need for a direct link to the Channel tunnel for the north and Scotland.
  458
  Mr. Portillo
  I have received some representations on the need for good communications between the Channel tunnel and the North and Scotland. There will be direct links from the tunnel into the United Kingdom road and rail networks. Out national roads planning takes account of the requirements of road traffic to and from the tunnel. Representations on rail are best made to the working groups which British Rail has set up in each region as part of its planning for international passenger and freight services.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The Lord Chancellor On the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Salisbury.

Working Mothers: Nursery Provision
Baroness Cox Baroness Cox asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they are taking to ensure adequate pre-school and nursery provision for the care of children to enable mothers to return to work should they wish to do so.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government recognise the importance of enabling parents to balance family responsibilities with paid employment. We encourage the provision of child care facilities by providing tax reliefs for employers and by grant-aiding the voluntary sector which provides childcare and which undertakes partnership projects with employers.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply which is most encouraging. It is so important to recruit more women into the workforce and to retain them there, especially in such professions as teaching and nursing where there are acute shortages. However, can my noble friend say what measures the Government are taking to ensure adequate quality of care for the young children concerned?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, local authorities have a duty through registration under the Nurseries and Child-Minders Regulation Act 1948 to ensure that reasonable standards are maintained. People who are providing child care on a commercial basis have told the ministerial group on women's issues that they want to ensure that high standards are maintained by means of an expansion of provision. The group recognises the need for a voluntary accreditation scheme which would provide information about availability and which would also guarantee the quality of care.
Lord McNair: My Lords, will the noble Earl agree that the primary importance of such provision is not merely the liberating of a certain number of mums for the labour force, but also the preparation of children, especially those from less educationally-minded homes, for their impending entrance to proper schools? Further, will the Government bear in mind the importance of there being some quasi-educational element in the pre-school provision?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, it is, I believe, a mixture of both considerations. Certainly it is important to ensure that children are properly looked after; it is also important that when such children reach a reasonable age they should be given some education.
1054
That is done by nursery schools, classes or primary schools, as well as ordinary nurseries.
Baroness Platt of Writtle: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that many mothers prefer to put their children in the care of childminders who operate near their homes? Therefore it is important that there should be a good childminder service. Further, can my noble friend say what the Government are doing, in co-operation with local authorities, to ensure that proper regulations—to which my noble friend just referred—are in force and that there is also good training for childminders so that a service of good quality is available both to children and to their parents throughout the country?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, there is a variety of different ways in which children can be looked after. I agree with my noble friend that if one has a childminder who operates in close proximity to the child's home, that can be of great benefit. Not all the people concerned are necessarily qualified, but some are. Local authorities take into account the facilities which a person can offer before that person is officially called a childminder.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, does the Minister recall that when the Government came to power in 1979 one of the first statements made by the Prime Minister was that nursery education would be available to everyone who wished to have it within a period of about six to seven years? As the Government have now been in power for 10 years, when does the noble Earl think that that aim is likely to be achieved?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, in 1979 there were fewer than 430,000 children attending a nursery school, class or primary school. That figure has now increased to 533,000, which is an increase of 25 per cent. I should tell the noble Lord that in 1979–80, the time to which he referred, £177 million was spent on nursery education. In 1989 –90 that figure has risen to £536 million. Therefore a great deal has been done in this respect.
Baroness David: My Lords, is the Minister aware that when the Prime Minister was Secretary of State for Education in 1972 she was aiming, by virtue of A Framework for Expansion, to provide 700,000 places in nursery schools, classes or primary schools within 10 years—that is, by 1982? However, we are still 200,000 places behind that figure. Can the Minister say what will happen about that shortage? Is the Minister further aware that the 24 authorities which produce the most places for children in nursery classes or nursery schools are all Labour authorities?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, that was a neat little political point upon which I shall not comment. Of course there are targets which have to be raised and which we try to reach. Time will tell whether such targets can be reached. However, I must tell the noble Baroness that, taking all forms. of education care together, the participation rate for three to four year-olds is over 85 per cent.; indeed, the figure may

1055
even be higher. That figure places us near the top of the European league table, and not, as is so often claimed, nearer the bottom.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, can my noble friend confirm that the Nurseries and Child-Minders Regulation Act 1948 was not mentioned in the Children Bill? Further, can he say what will happen under the provisions of the Children Bill as regards both registration and inspection of nurseries, especially those which will be run by industry and commerce? Such nurseries will need help and advice as well as registration and inspection.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, local authorities already have a duty in respect of children in need. The Children Bill extends that provision. It imposes a duty where appropriate upon local authorities to provide day care services for children in need who are aged under five and who are not at school. It also gives them a power to provide services for children who are not in need. The local authorities will also have power to provide out-of-school and holiday play schemes.
The Government are introducing amendments to update and modernise the regulatory framework which is laid down under the provisions of the Nurseries and Child-Minders Regulation Act 1948. The new legislation will ensure that reasonable standards are maintained in both private and voluntary facilities.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, does the Minister agree—I am sure that he does not—that in view of the high cost of good workplace nurseries (there is no way that they can be provided on the cheap) and the desirability of getting more women back into employment, it is reasonable that the cost should be shared among the Government, the employee and the company, and that the Government's contribution could well be by way of tax relief for women who take advantage of such schemes but who have to pay for them?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the Government do quite a bit in the sphere of tax relief for employers, but not necessarily for employees. Employees are taxed on benefits in kind. That means that those who pay tax pay only about £25 in tax for every £100 of child care that is provided. It would not be right to give a general tax relief for child care expenses. It would cost a great deal of money. At the moment it would cost about £350 million to give relief to parents who go out to work. The figure would be much larger if people were attracted back to work for the reasons that the noble Baroness has in mind.
Lord Seebohm: My Lords, the Minister has just said that under the Children Bill local authorities have a duty to provide pre-school teaching or to make other arrangements for children in need. How does one define need for a four year-old child; and how does one discover it?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, children in need are defined as those whose development will be
1056
adversely affected without intervention by the local authority.
Lord Peston: My Lords, will the Minister reconsider his answer on tax relief? Is he aware that until recently there was no suggestion that the provision of crèche facilities should be treated as imputed income for the working woman? The revenue has only recently decided that it is income and therefore taxable. It is therefore obvious that what the revenue has decided is a disincentive to women.
Is the Minister also aware that if support were given to women to enable them to return to work, there might be no cost to the Exchequer because those same women would be paying income tax in the ordinary way? Will the Minister reconsider his answer, because in terms of cost to the Exchequer he is almost certainly mistaken?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I feared that we might get on to the tax position, and I realised that the topic would be complicated. I hesitate further to complicate the issue. Child care facilities are a valuable benefit worth up to about £2,500 a year. It is not right to exempt such a benefit from the rule that income tax is payable on remuneration in kind as well as in cash. Employees are taxed on benefits in kind only when their salaries, including the value of the benefit, exceed £8,500 a year. Basic rate taxpayers pay only £25 for every £100 of child care provided free by their employer. Parents who do not receive that benefit in kind have to pay the whole cost of child care out of taxable income.
I understand the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Peston. If one were to remove any tax charge on a person it would be much better for that person. It has its own form of incentives, but one cannot operate like that throughout the whole of life. One has to have some form of guidelines.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, is the Minister aware that that charge is especially penal for single parent families, in particular those on supplementary benefit, where that notional benefit in kind can take them into the tax bracket for the first time? It is a penal provision.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I do not believe that it is a penal provision unless one reaches the figure of £8,500 a year. If one has such an income, whether one is a single parent or a member of a two-parent family, it is not unreasonable that one should pay tax the same as everyone else.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, what are the Government doing to encourage employers to follow the example set by banks and provide parental leave to enable children to be looked after for prolonged periods? What are the Government doing about their own employees in that respect?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, it is up to all organisations to do what they think is appropriate for their employees. I have no doubt that where firms and companies believe that it is desirable to provide such

1057
facilities they will do so, and the Government have provided tax incentives for that. With regard to the Government, arrangements are made and they vary between departments and areas.

Middle East Conflict
2.48 p.m.
Lord Molloy Lord Molloy asked Her Majesty's Government:
What further steps they are taking in conjunction with the European Communities and the United Nations to hold an international conference to reduce tension between Israel and the Palestinians.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Glenarthur): My Lords, we and our European partners continue our efforts to bring about an international conference, which we believe remains the most suitable framework for negotiations between the parties.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the daily habitual maiming and slaying of Palestinian youths causes as much grave concern to the Israeli people as it obviously does to the Palestinians? Is it not terrible to have to say that the world's international organisations can do nothing to stop the appalling slaughter that is going on in Israel and the occupied territories?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, yes. I agree entirely with the noble Lord that the violence is terrible and that we want to see it brought to an end. That is why we believe that it is important to encourage all those concerned to bring about an international conference by any method that they can, and why the role of the European Community and the United States is important.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, is there not a strong body of opinion in favour of convening an international conference, as the noble Lord said, including the European Community, the Soviet Union and the United States, as indicated in a recent favourable reaction from President Bush? In those circumstances, can the Minister say what is the obstacle in the way of moving towards an international conference?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord might best address that question to the Israelis. The fact is that the search for peace deserves the active support of all Israelis. I hope they will accept that an international conference presents an opportunity and is not a trap. The Israelis cannot deny to the Palestinians rights that they themselves earned at such great cost.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, is the noble Lord saying that the situation is perceived as having come to a stalemate position because of that? Cannot Her Majesty's Government, with our friends and allies, take some initiative through the United Nations to bring about an international conference
1058
that would bring this deplorable and sad situation to an end?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I do not agree as regards the noble Lord's statement that a stalemate has been reached. We are certainly ready for discussions within the Five, if the others agree. The noble Lord was quite right to point to the importance of the United States lead in this and the recent statement made by President Bush following the visit of Mr. Mubarak to Washington.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the Minister not aware that since the idea of an international conference was agreed upon by everyone except Israel, 520 Palestinian youths have been slain? Surely that cannot go on. Should not our Government, who have played a very distinctive role, apply more pressure to the United States, which has the key to the solution in its hands? The endeavours of Sir Geoffrey Howe should be acknowledged by the United States of America in an effort to stop the killing of innocent people, which, as I have said, is deplored just as much in Israel as among the Palestinians.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, we deplore violence wherever it takes place, as I have said. The fact that through the remarks made by President Bush recently the United States is encourging discussions is all to the good. As I have said, we are ready for discussions in the Five, which seems a sensible place to take the matter forward, if the others will agree to discussions.

Hong Kong Citizens and British Passports
2.52 p.m.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford Lord Wyatt of Weeford asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, as reportedly alleged by the Chinese Foreign Minister, the reason why they do not propose to give Hong Kong citizens British passports is reluctance to extend British citizenship.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, as I told the noble Lord on 23rd March, the reason we do not propose to grant right of abode to 3·28 million Hong Kong British dependent territory citizens is that we do not believe that there would be sufficient support in this country for wholesale changes to the law which would entail the prospect, albeit a theoretical one, of large-scale immigration from Hong Kong.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: My Lords, the Government previously maintained that they did not wish to issue more passports to Hong Kong citizens for fear of offending the Chinese Government. Will they now welcome the clear declaration by the Chinese Foreign Minister, after the debate in your Lordships' House, that the Chinese Government would not be offended at all and that it was entirely a matter for the British Government? Will the Government now look again

1059
at their policy, as the Portuguese authorities have done in Macao, of issuing passports to Hong Kong citizens?
Are the Government also aware that all informed opinion in the journals of this country believes that the Government are behaving dishonourably over the matter? There is growing bitterness in Hong Kong, with people turning against Britain, which is to the advantage of others and not ourselves. Will the Government please now stop pretending that there is any real difficulty about the matter and examine it again?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the remarks which were alleged to have been made by the Chinese Foreign Minister to the Hong Kong press on 22nd March are, I think, those to which the noble Lord refers. They made clear, as he has done, that the question of granting right of abode in this country to Hong Kong British passport holders is a matter for Her Majesty's Government. Nevertheless, I hope that the noble Lord will not fail to take into account that the matter of nationality is very sensitive for the Chinese Government.
As to the concern the noble Lord expressed on behalf of many about the policy causing considerable resentment in Hong Kong, I can tell the House that I am fully aware of that concern. The mood is quite apparent to all who are involved, even though the provisions that exist in our British Nationality Act are not new and are not aimed specifically at Hong Kong people. I hope the noble Lord realises that if we were to go so far as he suggests, well over six times the number of people granted full British citizenship in the ten-year period from 1977 to 1987 would be involved.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I fully support the original Answer my noble friend gave. Is he aware that far from the action of Her Majesty's Government being dishonourable, it is entirely in keeping with the spirit of the agreement which we made a few years ago with the Chinese Government?
Lord Glenarthur: Yes, my Lords. I am grateful to my noble friend. As I said in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt of Weeford, just now, the matter of nationality is one of great sensitivity with the Chinese Government. Indeed, their position is set out in a Chinese memorandum on passport and nationality matters associated with the joint declaration, which states that under Chinese nationality law,
"All Hong Kong Chinese compatriots, whether or not they are BDTCs, are Chinese nationals".
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is it not ironic that 100 million Germans and Italians will shortly be able to come to this country without let or hindrance, yet we refuse to grant that right to 3·2 million Hong Kong citizens who have always been loyal and have never fought against this country?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, no one is disputing the loyalty of the Hong Kong Chinese. What I would dispute, though, is the histories of all those countries
1060
concerned and the reasons the various rules such as those which affect the Portuguese in Macao have come to exist.
Lord Eden of Winton: My Lords, in view of the horrors which the Chinese Government are presently inflicting upon the people of Tibet, is there not some justification for nervousness, to put it mildly, on the part of the people of Hong Kong? Will the Minister therefore exercise a degree of flexibility in the matter and assure the House that he and his colleagues will examine it again?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I believe that although the matter of Tibet might cause concern, it is a red herring. The histories of Hong Kong and Tibet are totally different. As regards looking at the matter again, I have explained that I believe there would not be sufficient support for the kind of move which is proposed. Nevertheless, we shall no doubt study the report of the Foreign Affairs Committee of another place when it emerges in due course.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, in view of what the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, has said and the very real anxieties felt by the people of Hong Kong, as evidenced by the high degree of emigration, can the noble Lord say what measures Her Majesty's Government intend to take in order to allay those worries? Will the Minister state whether there is any case for the introduction of a bill of rights in Hong Kong which might make the people there feel better prepared for 1997? That has already been mentioned by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I do not think that I can comment on the suggestion about a bill of rights in Hong Kong. At the moment, as the noble Baroness will be aware, the basic law drafting committee has submitted its second revise, which is being examined through a consultative process.
As regards the basis of the suggestion that the British Nationality Act be amended, as I have said, that would be a difficult matter. I very much doubt whether the kind of proposal put forward would command sufficient political support or be acceptable to the public at large.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: My Lords, does not the noble Lord understand what the Chinese Foreign Minister said? He said that in exactly the same situation as with regard to Macao the Chinese Government are not at all concerned about the number of passports we issue to Hong Kong citizens. Will the Minister not also understand that there is no question of 3 million people coming here from Hong Kong? All they want is a key to the prison, if necessary. They do not wish to live here at all. They want to be able to tell the Chinese Government that if that government do not behave according to the agreement after 1997, those citizens have a way of getting out. Therefore the Chinese Government will take care to behave properly.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I understand both those points. The noble Lord has made them with great clarity many times. However, I must tell him

1061
that his suggestion that not all those 3·28 million people would take up the opportunity to come to this country would be rather a curious basis upon which to embark on new legislation.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, a British Parliamentary delegation is, I believe, in Hong Kong at the present time or is leaving Hong Kong today. If that delegation made a recommendation that Her Majesty's Government should look again at the British Nationality Act, what would be the view of the Minister?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, we shall have to see first what the recommendation is.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, would the noble Lord have any objection if the Hong Kong citizens who wish to have British passports came to this country with passports as Portuguese?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, as I understand it, they would not be Portuguese under the circumstances which the noble Viscount mentioned.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that his definition or description of the Chinese and their treatment of Tibet as a red herring was a somewhat unfortunate phrase to use? Does he not consider that, instead of our giving the impression not only to Hong Kong but also to the whole world that we have let down the people of Hong Kongin this respect, he should consider with his right honourable friend the clear possibility of limiting the right of residence to one generation and the limit of any immigration at all to a certain figure per year that we can well command and authorise? Finally, is the noble Lord not aware that this could be a proper condition for a British National (Overseas) passport to contain?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, as regards the first supplementary question of the noble Lord, he will be well aware that the history of Tibet and the history of Hong Kong cannot be directly concerned in this matter, although, of course, we have made clear our views upon what has happened in Tibet in recent months. On the suggestions which the noble Lord made concerning the British Nationality Act, these are all subjects which no doubt will come to the fore again when the Foreign Affairs Committee of another place reports. I cannot anticipate that because I have not seen what the committee will say. However, I can tell the noble Lord that even the suggestions he has just made are ones which might, in all the circumstances, be quite difficult to achieve because of the very reasons I gave earlier that they may not command sufficient support in the country both in Parliament and elsewhere. I believe that that encompasses the third point the noble Lord made.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, is it not the case, as the noble Viscount, Lord St. Davids, said, that if the people living in Macao have been granted Portuguese passports, they would be allowed, as members of a country which is a member of the EC,
1062
to come to this country? Is it not therefore rather unfortunate that those who are Portuguese citizens are put at an advantage over those who are British citizens, even if they are British overseas citizens? Is it not the case that the French have also given passports to those of their employees who are living in Hong Kong? Does it not appear that this country is behaving less generously than any other country in this respect?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, that may be the point of view of the noble Lord, but I do not think he can make the comparisons he has and imagine that they are valid comparisons because the nationality laws relating to the two countries have long been different. The nationality law of Portugal differs from our own, in that Portuguese nationals in Portuguese overseas territories have always had the right of abode in Portugal. That situation existed long before the signing of the Sino-Portuguese Joint Declaration on Macao.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that Hong Kong citizens had exactly the same rights as Portuguese overseas nationals until 1962 as regards having a British passport? After that date we took it away. Is it not dishonourable to allow Falklanders and Gibraltarians to keep their British passports while depriving Hong Kong citizens of theirs when they are in exactly the same position? None of those lands wanted to be independent; we have forced independence upon Hong Kong,
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, we are not forcing independence upon Hong Kong; that is the whole point. The fact is that Hong Kong is reverting to China under the terms of the lease which expires on 30th June 1997. I do not think it is possible to make the comparisons which the noble Lord draws. He is well aware of the history of this matter. There have been several changes to our nationality laws since 1960, the most recent being in 1981.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that there is no question of either the Falklands or Gibraltar leaving the Commonwealth?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I am sure that is absolutely right.

Lebanon: Ceasefire Initiatives
3.5 p.m.
Lord Eden of Winton Lord Eden of Winton asked Her Majesty's Government:
What further action they are taking in concert with other European Community governments and through the United Nations organisation to end the destruction of Beirut and to bring about a negotiated solution to the Lebanese crisis.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, we are in close touch both with our European partners and the other permanent members of the Security Council. We fully support the efforts of the Arab League to arrange a ceasefire and a negotiated solution.

1063
Statements to this effect were issued by the Twelve on 17th April and by the President of the Security Council on 21st April.
Lord Eden of Winton: My Lords, how much longer must we witness the destruction of this once beautiful and civilised city and the wholesale slaughter of its people? Does it not seem that the Syrians, who came to Lebanon to protect its independence, are now bent upon its elimination? While supporting and encouraging the Arab League initiative, will the British Government ensure or press for an immediate ceasefire and the withdrawal from all Lebanese territory of both Syrian and Israeli forces?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I can assure my noble friend that the Government are fully seized of the horrors of the destruction which continues seemingly unabated. We are in constant touch with the Secretary General of the United Nations. Indeed, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister discussed Lebanon with him on 18th April. We share the view that we should use our contacts to achieve a ceasefire, and we support the initiative of the Arab League because we believe that is the best bet in current circumstances.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the Minister aware that we are daily witnessing the appalling destruction not merely of Beirut but indeed of all of the Lebanon? What is the point in being in close touch with world organisations which apparently are not prepared to, or cannot, do anything whatsoever? I believe it is a most hopeless and useless situation to be in touch with organisations that can do nothing.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the fact is that the organisations are there and they have a role to play, as does the European Community, which has issued a number of statements. But we have to make those statements, whether the noble Lord likes it or not. We have also expressed our full backing to the Arab League for its efforts to achieve a political settlement. The 12 member states stand ready to do what is thought helpful, in any other way we can.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that this problem was discussed by the Prime Minister when she met the Soviet Prime Minister in Luxembourg last week and, if so, whether any specific proposals were made which might give hope that a new initiative might be taken?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the matter was certainly discussed with the Secretary General on 18th April. However, I am afraid I cannot say whether it was discussed with the Soviets, which is the point the noble Lord made. However, I can assure him that where we can develop a role and see it taken forward, we shall certainly play our part.
The Earl of Perth: My Lords, apart from the efforts that the Government are making to ensure a ceasefire, will they consider going a little further and pressing the President of Syria to make a statement
1064
which would confirm United Nations Resolution No. 520, which calls for:
"strict respect for Lebanon's sovereignty, territorial integrity, unity and political independence under the sole and exclusive authority of the Lebanese Government"?
I think it is very important to try to get the Government to work along those lines too.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, that is an interesting proposition and we would support any realistic attempts to achieve a durable and negotiated settlement leading to the restoration of peace and the full sovereignty, independence, territorial integrity and national unity of Lebanon.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, while I wish to give general support to the Government's position, is there any fear that British arms supplied to Iraq are finding their way into this conflict?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, not that I know of.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell us how many ceasefires there have been in Lebanon so far? Is looking for another one not a bit futile? Is it not the position that Lebanon is subject to invasion from Syria and that she can be rescued only by somebody who is in a position to beat Syria, and that is Israel? Does the noble Lord agree that if we give full support to Israel to deal with the situation from her position on the Heights, that could work?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the short answer to the noble Lord's question about the number of ceasefires is that we have probably all lost count. That does not mean that we should not continue to call for them, because no sensible means of taking the matter forward can be achieved without a ceasefire.
Lord Eden of Winton: My Lords, perhaps I may press my noble friend further on the issue. Is there not now a real threat to the independence of Lebanon? If there is no sign of an early initiative resulting in action to secure the withdrawal of Syrian and Israeli forces, will the British Government press for the matter to be raised as a matter of urgency at the United Nations Security Council?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, that is certainly something we would consider. However, it is an internal dispute. There are therefore difficulties with the United Nations charter which says that initially regional groupings should be used to deal with this kind of problem. That is why we believe that the Arab League is tailor-made for the situation in the first instance rather than the United Nations. Nevertheless, I shall certainly note my noble friend's remarks.

Business of the House: Debate, 3rd May
3.12 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Belstead): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debate on the Motion in the name of the Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos set down for 3rd May shall be limited to 5 hours and that Standing Order 35 and paragraphs 10 to 13 of the Rules for the Conduct of Short Debates shall apply to the debate with the substitution of "5 hours" for "2½ hours" and "25 minutes" for "20 minutes"—(Lord Belstead)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

City of London (Spitalfields Market) Bill
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I should like briefly to explain the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. Noble Lords may recall that at the Second Reading of the City of London (Spitalfields Market) Bill on 3rd April the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, suggested that the Spitalfields Market Tenants Association might have infringed Parliamentary privilege by indicating in a circular letter to its members that if any of them petitioned the House of Lords against the Bill they might risk expulsion from the association.
Since Second Reading I have had an opportunity to see the terms of the association's circular letter to its members and I have been informed of the background to the association's interest in the Bill. While there were undoubtedly mitigating circumstances which led the association to write as it did, I am satisfied that the letter as phrased went further than it should have done in seeking to persuade members not to petition.
To remedy the situation, we have required the association to write again to its members withdrawing the threat of expulsion and drawing their attention to the fact that if your Lordships agree to my Motion today they will have a further period in which to petition, should they so desire. That is the purpose of this Motion. The association has fully co-operated in this process. I beg to move.
Moved, That, notwithstanding Private Business Standing Order 101 (Limit of time for presenting Petition against Bill), members of the Spitalfields Market Tenants Association should be permitted to deposit petitions praying to be heard upon the merits against the Bill between Tuesday 25th April and Thursday 4th May—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Official Secrets Bill
3.14 p.m.
Read a third time.
Clause 1 [Security and intelligence]:
Lord Elwyn-Jones Lord Elwyn-Jones moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 5, at end insert—
("(5) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to prove that—

(a) before the time of the alleged offence the information in question had been made available or had become available to the public or a section of the public; and

1066

(b) there was no reasonable likelihood that its further disclosure would damage the work or any part of the security and intelligence services.").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is a last attempt—this time, I hope, successful—to provide in the Bill a limited form of defence of prior publication for the offences in Clause 1 of the Bill. In our submission, on this side of the House, information which has already been made available or has become available to the public—that is to say, the public of this country or any section of it—even if, before that publication, it was an official secret, cannot continue to be an official secret. It cannot continue to be an official secret after relevant information with regard to it has been made available to the public.
Previous amendments to achieve that result have ranged rather wider than the present amendment. The amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, in Committee made it a defence to prove that before the time of the alleged offence the information in question had become available to the public, whether in the United Kingdom or elsewhere. That is far wider than the amendment I now move, which is limited to the public of this country.
The amendment which I moved on Report provided a defence that the information had become widely disseminated to the public, whether in the United Kingdom or elsewhere. That came to he known in Committee as the "Patagonia point"; someone mentioned the possibility that even publication in Patagonia would do. However, we lost the point when I mentioned that there is a powerful Welsh settlement in Patagonia which would undoubtedly have made any interesting information available to their counterparts in this country or elsewhere.
We do not depend on that limited comfort in this amendment. It provides that if the information in question has been made available or has become available to the public, or a section thereof, that prior publication, subject to the condition which follows, should dispose of the security aspect of the matter.
The language used in the amendment I cannot claim to be original. It is to be found in the Protection of Official Information Bill, a House of Lords measure published in 1979 which did not, I think, proceed very far. However, Clause 7 of the Bill contained a precise provision for prior publication without the qualification that my amendment makes. Clause 7(1) of the Bill reads:
"It shall be a defence for a person charged with an offence under sections 2, 3, 4 or 5 above in relation to information specified in sections 1(1)(c), (e) or (f) above to prove that before the time of the alleged offence the information had been made available, or had become available on request, to the public or a section of the public".
I have taken those words, published, presumably with the authority of the Government, in 1979 and introduced them into my amendment. They have, if not the odour of sanctity, at least the benefit of prior user by Her Majesty's Government.
The House may well think that those concerned would already have learnt a lesson from the Spycatcher case about the grotesque folly of trying to prevent repetition of what had already been

1067
published and made known world-wide and make that an offence under the Official Secrets Act of this country. I regret to have to say that that made rather a laughing stock of us in several courts in different parts of the world, and among our own public.
Noble Lords will bear in mind the quotation from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, in the Spycatcher case that I ventured to mention at an earlier stage of the discussion of this matter, I stated:
"In the Spycatcher case the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, said:
'The Crown is only entitled to restrain the publication of intelligence information if such publication would be against the public interest, as it normally will be if theretofore undisclosed, but if the matter sought to be published is no longer secret there is unlikely to be any damage to the public interest by reprinting what all the world'—
that was the position in regard to Spycatcher" —
'has already had the opportunity to read. There is no possible damage to the public interest if Tom, Dick or Harry, or the Sunday Times, reprints in whole or part what is already printed and available within the covers of Spycatcher'.
"When an attempt was being made still to restrain the information in the book, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Griffiths, said:
'If such was the law, then the law would indeed by an ass' ".
—[Official Report, 18/4/89; col. 726.]
That is not the law, and in this respect at any rate the law is not an ass.
The language used in this amendment contains the important additional proviso that there was no reasonable likelihood that the futher disclosure of the relevant information would damage the work or any part of the security and intelligence services. It would be upon the defence to prove both aspects that are set out in the amendment; namely, prior publication, plus no reasonable likelihood that further disclosure would damage the work or any part of the security and intelligence services.
I greatly hope that the last stage of the consideration of this important Bill, which was expected to liberalise the position and certainly make sense of the notorious Section 2 of the Official Secrets Act, is at last an opportunity for the House to bring an element of sense, reality and liberality to what has been not much more than an authoritarian document; namely, the Bill as it now stands. I beg to move.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I should like once more to support the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, in his attempt to help the Government avoid committing folly. When I moved in Committee the amendment to which the noble and learned Lord referred, I genuinely believed that I was being helpful. I genuinely believed that the Government would want to avoid a repetition of the Spycatcher saga, would want to avoid becoming the laughing-stock of the world and, still more, would want to avoid paying large sums of money to become the laughing-stock of the world.
That was to misunderstand the position. I very much regret that, owing to other commitments, I had to miss the Report stage of the Bill last week and was not therefore able to listen to the debate that took place. However, I have read it with care and
1068
I believe that I misunderstood why the Government resisted the amendment that I moved, why they resisted the amendment that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, moved and why, I suspect, they will resist the amendment mark 2 of the noble and learned Lord which is before the House today.
I read in particular the eloquent speech of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, in which he expressed the reasons the Government could not meet the ingenious efforts of those of us on this side of the House to overcome their difficulties. He said that it was a matter of principle, and went on to say:
"The principle is that members of the security and intelligence services, and notified people, work, and can only work, on the basis of trust. Any unauthorised disclosure by a member of the security and intelligence service must be unacceptable… It is a matter which goes to the heart of the security of the nation as a whole".—[Official Report, 18/4/89; col. 732.]
Others of the Minister's noble friends produced a whole series of extremely ingenious theories as to why an item of news could be planted in the Patagonian Times, if I may still refer to it as such. It could then be republished in the Sun newspaper, so that it could inform members of the IRA in Belfast of some secret that they found otherwise unobtainable. As the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, pointed out in that debate, that seemed a rather far-fetched theory. Nonetheless, they hold to it.
However, I believe that, lying behind the eloquence of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, is the idea that it is reasonable, necessary and desirable to demand lifelong confidentiality of members of the security services and those notified persons. If one demands lifelong confidentiality, any breach of that confidentiality is a breach of trust. If one has committed oneself to that position, I suppose that it is reasonable to say that that is intolerable.
I believe that there are two consequences of that position that we should bear in mind. If we bear them in mind and regard them as reasonable, they will provide a powerful reason for supporting the amendment moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones. We on this side of the House believe that lifelong confidentiality in all respects is unreasonable and unnecessary. I believe that I am right in saying that that view is shared by the noble Lords, Lord Dacre and Lord Thomas, and by a number of supporters of the Government in another place. We believe that, partly for reasons eloquently expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas about the historical value and importance to historians of being able to use some of the material that is made available by members of the security services, but also for another reason which seems to me to be cogent.
If one takes the view of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, one must conclude that any unauthorised disclosure by members of the security and intelligence services must be unacceptable. If that is so, it seems to me that one is saying that, if a member of the security or intelligence services announced that, in their headquarters, they used a particular type of coffee or smoked a particular type of cigarette, he would be guilty of a criminal offence. I had believed that the whole point of the Bill was that we would get rid of a blanket offence of that sort even for members of the security service.

1069
It seems to me rather ironical that at the end of five days of consideration in this House and at least Five days in another place we should come back to a restricted but nonetheless objectionable part of Section 2 of the 1911 Act. It will be rather sad if, after all this discussion and debate, we find that "in our end is our beginning".
3.30 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, reminded us, this is the third round of the prior publication defence. I am bound to say I rather regret that on Third Reading we should once again have to discuss an issue that we have already discussed at very considerable length both in Committee and on Report. I am not at all clear why noble Lords opposite feel it necessary to bring this matter up again when your Lordships' House has given very full and detailed consideration to the issues and has reached decisions on them. Still, there it is and I suppose we must now deal with it.
It was interesting to hear the different approaches of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, and the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter. The noble and learned Lord confined himself to saying, "Well, if the secret is out you only make a fool of yourself if you pursue further exposure of it". It is a logical argument and not without force, but one which I think we must hesitate to accept. It means that if someone is guilty of a breach of security and gets away with it once on a small scale, then he is entitled to go the whole hog and go on publishing that secret again and again. In fact that is the approach of this amendment. It is not a question of the information becoming available to the public alone; it also is made available to "a section of the public". I do not know what "a section of the public" means. It might well mean some particular organisation—perhaps an organisation hostile to the interests of this country. I suppose that the IRA is "a section of the public", as is the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament.
We are not legislating simply to try to prevent something that is widely known from being further discussed. If this amendment is adopted we shall be legislating to the effect that even when quite a small section of opinion, which may not wish to publicise the matter, has got hold of such information, it ceases to be an offence to publish it and the people concerned are free to do so.
The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, takes a totally different line. Quite consistently with what has been said on previous occasions, he opposes the doctrine, which on the contrary I hold, that if one goes into the security service one enters a service in which one has an honourable obligation to disclose nothing that is learnt there for the rest of one's life, unless permission is given to disclose it from the top. I believe that one should not go into this service, of which the essence is confidentiality, unless one is prepared to accept that honourable obligation.
It is no use talking about history. I appreciate the remark: history does not repeat itself; it is merely that historians repeat one another. But in this context it is not a question of history being significant;
1070
what is significant is the preservation of information which ex hypothesi is important for the security of the state. With all respect to the distinguished historians to whom reference has been made, that is a consideration which is a great deal more important than their convenience in subsequently writing the history of these times.
The amendment itself is very odd. First, it implies that disclosure to "a section of the public" is equivalent to disclosure to all. Therefore, as the noble and learned Lord said, one makes a fool of oneself if one tries to stop the matter going further. But in the case of only a small section knowing, there may be every reason and every argument for preventing further publication of important matters.
In the second part of the amendment contained in paragraph (b):
"there was no reasonable likelihood that its further disclosure would damage the work or any part of the security and intelligence services",
there is nothing about whether disclosure might damage the national interest or the security of the realm; it is confined only to damage to the services. That again is a rather remarkable omission.
I must say I find it a little difficult to understand why throughout the discussion on this Bill noble Lords opposite have sought to weaken it. As the noble and learned Lord said, the Bill is a liberalising measure. The Government need not have brought it forward at all. They could have left in force Section 2 of the old Act and saved themselves a great deal of trouble. In deference to the views of those who thought that a more liberal approach was right, they have brought forward this Bill; yet noble Lords opposite seem the whole time to be trying to weaken it. This amendment would weaken it seriously.
Lord Monson: My Lords, unlike the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, I support this amendment, even though I fully agree with him that the words "a section of the public" are extremely imprecise. "A section of the public" could mean 20 per cent. or even 40 per cent. of the public. That is fine, but it could equally well mean one-tenth of 1 per cent. of the public, which is a different matter altogether.
Having said that, the important and significant words surely are not in paragraph (a) but in paragraph (b). All that matters in the end is that no damage shall be done to the security services. Provided that that condition is fulfilled, the precise proportion of the public which is already aware of the information in question is surely of no consequence.
Lord Renton: My Lords, perhaps I may take up that point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Monson. I suggest that paragraph (b) adds nothing at all to the content of paragraph (a). Once information has been made available to the public or a section of the public, the harm has been done. It adds nothing to go on to say:
"there was no reasonable likelihood that its further disclosure would damage the work or any part of the security and intelligence services".
The harm has already been done; the horse has already bolted. I ask your Lordships to bear in

1071
mind that the addition of that apparently innocuous phrase in paragraph (b) helps not at all.
I agree entirely with the remarks of my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, but I should like to make one or two further points. First, it is very easy to prove what is "a section of the public". I should have thought that in our democratic society the Front Bench opposite would claim to be a section of the public. Not one individual perhaps, but any group of people could well be a section of the public. We must bear that in mind.
But supposing the information was first published abroad, as in the Wright case, and then became available to a section of the public in this country. I should have thought that that was just as damaging as publication in this country. That is also a factor that we should bear in mind.
I turn to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, who seems to me to rest his case upon the prima facie reasonable premise that the phrase in his amendment was borrowed from a government Bill of nearly 10 years ago. Surely it is a fallacy to assume that a government Bill necessarily represents the will of Parliament. Ten years ago Parliament might not have agreed to let the measure stand, or to have such provision in the Bill. There might have been many Members of your Lordships' House or another place with the wisdom of my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter who would argue strongly, "No, this is not right?" We have to trust the security services not to let such a thing happen.
The Government 10 years ago had no foreknowledge presumably of the Spycatcher case. Now that we have had the Spycatcher case we ought to be learning by the experience gained—and it has been a very harmful experience indeed.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, it was prior publication.
Lord Renton: My Lords, yes, it was prior publication. I do not suppose that Mr. Wright will ever have the temerity to return to this country. He will live on his ill-gotten gains elsewhere. But he did immense damage, as would any member of the security or intelligence services if he broke his solemn undertaking not to disclose matters which had come to him in the course of his duty.
I do not understand the attitude of noble Lords opposite when they say, "Let the solemn undertaking by members of the security service be broken, and once the damage is done we shall close our eyes to it. The man shall not be punished in spite of the fact that he has broken his solemn undertaking." One wonders what we are legislating about if that assumption is to be made. For these reasons I say that this is a special defence—introduced at this late stage, not for the first time—that we should resist. Perhaps I may add one further point. At the Report stage my noble friends on the Front Bench gave no undertaking whatever to consider this matter further. They were not obliged to do so and they did not. I have to point out the contrast between Amendment No. 1 and Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 in my name that
1072
I have tabled simply because a very firm undertaking was given at Report stage.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, threw a remark at the Opposition Benches, with his usual courtesy and clarity, that the Opposition seemed to wish to weaken this Bill. We made it very clear at the outset, at Second Reading, that we supported the Bill in some of its sections, and that we admired the Government for bringing forward a measure to deal with the abolition of the all-pervading and not very wise Section 2 that had befuddled previous Parliaments. They at least have had the courage to grapple with it. We were perfectly frank.
Our desire is not to weaken the Bill, nor to weaken the security services. We on this side of the House are just as keen on national security and the preservation of it as any Member on the Govenment Benches. What we desire to do—and the Government are not doing it and have not done it so far—is to strengthen and safeguard the rights of the subject. It is the Government who appear to have lost that safeguard in their attempts to protect by all manner of means the intelligence service. We pay our tribute to that service. But we happen to have a little knowledge of history, and of the numbers of occasions that have embarrassed every British citizen, let alone British Governments, when at times that service has had people in it who have done this country and the good name of the intelligence service grave disservice. Some of them managed to get to the Soviet Union; some of them continued their treason until they died in this country. However, they are known and they are part of history.
Yet the Government will not listen. I agree that it is the Third Reading stage; I shall justify taking this amendment at Third Reading in a moment. What have we tried to do from these Benches? What if a crime has been committed, and all the machinery laid down has been followed, and, furthermore, there has been a disclosure after it has been proved that a crime has been committed? We are told that we cannot have such provision in this Bill. There is no question of public interest, whichever way one wishes to define it. It is said: there will be no disclosure; the oath of loyalty, the oath of allegiance, cover matters of crime and fraud.
On prior publication, we are trying to make provision for freedom of information to be in some way protected. Reference has been made of publication to the public, or a section of the public. The noble Lord, Lord Renton, amusingly asked whether we on the Front Bench did not regard ourselves as a section of the public. I hope that we are a very worthy, learned and noble section of your Lordships' House. Nevertheless, we would not describe ourselves as a section of the public; nor would any judge directing a jury. We are saying that we are members of the public. We are not a section of the public.
What is the position here? We are saying, first, that there has to be a prior publication to our public—not that of Patagonia or any other state in

1073
the universe. In case someone were to argue—and I thought that this point would have occurred to Members opposite—that one has to prove, even though it be in the defence, on the balance of probabilities as against beyond all reasonable doubt, that it has become known to the public, the immediate question arises: does one have to show that it has become known to every member of the public, or to 90 per cent. of the public? Obviously unless one wished to reduce the defence to an absurdity, one has come to the conclusion of a wise Government 10 years ago, in 1979. I regret that possibly some of the wisdom has been lost over the 10 years. In all its legislative pristine freshness the Government prepared a Bill and were quite content to use the words "section of the public" for the very reason that I have given. Obviously it would have to be a substantial section of the public.
In addition to the safeguard of prior publication the onus on the defence is to prove that there is no reasonable likelihood that its further disclosure would damage the work or any part of the security and intelligence services. I do not say this in any way offensively. The House deserves a rather more intelligent argument than asking, "Are not the words 'security of the country' the proper words here, and not the question of the safety or security of the intelligence services?" Surely the security of this country is the work of the security services. If the security of the country is damaged, that would obviously damage what the security services are supposed to do.
I deal lastly with the argument that it might have been slightly indelicate—I do not believe it was suggested that it was in any way improper—to bring this matter up at Third Reading. Once we reach Report stage in relation to a major amendment, I do not believe that we could consider the arguments advanced by the Government against that amendment and then try to deal with those arguments at the last stage of the Bill which is Third Reading. One asks: what are the risks if matters are left at Report stage? It would mean that on no amendment, even if dealing with the Government's answer at Report stage, could one deal with a matter at Third Reading. A different principle is involved in the amendment.
The amendment may be defeated. The Government may resist it. I do not believe that anyone on any Opposition Benches need feel any shame in fighting the last battle in the protection of freedom of information and of the subject, even against the security services for whom we have as much respect as any Member on the Benches opposite.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, says, as he has said before, that what he wants is freedom of information. As he knows full well, whenever we have discussed this we have always considered that freedom of information is different from official secrets. It is true that a similar amendment was discussed on Report. A kind of record was achieved then. Having not much to do, I instigated a little research. As far as I know it is the first time, at least in the last seven years, that your Lordships have specifically discussed the situation
1074
in Patagonia. That was one of the less expected consequences of our debates on the Official Secrets Bill.
I am sorry that I can say little more in favour of the amendment. I congratulate the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, on his persistence in bringing the matter forward again, albeit in a slightly different form. The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, did me the courtesy of quoting what I had said. It is always a moment of trepidation when a noble Lord says that he is quoting something one has said. As the words poured out of the noble Lord's mouth, quoting as he was from Hansard, I was glad that I could agree with every word he said. The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, quoted me as saying that there was a life-long duty of confidentiality. He then said that in his view that was unnecessary. That is the precise point. There is a difference of principle.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, says that the trouble is that the Government do not listen. The Government have listened. The only difference is that having listened we do not actually agree. That is not the same thing. My noble friend the Lord Privy Seal explained fully the Government's opposition to this amendment at Committee stage. Our opposition then was addressed to the principle. Noble Lords opposite went away to look at the drafting. They came back at Report stage with another amendment. I made it clear that the Government's objections were to the principle and not to the drafting. But that did not deter the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, because he went away again to look at the drafting. Now the noble and learned Lord has come back with another amendment. However, we are still against the principle. As a matter of drafting we are now almost back to where we started. The amendment allows a defence for the disclosure of security information if it had previously been made available to the public or to a section of the public.
As a matter of drafting it matters not whether that public, or that section of the public, is in this country or abroad. My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter found a certain difficulty in understanding what was meant by "a section of the public". I did too. It is possible that the Welsh community in Patagonia would still be an issue; so, it seems, would a group of people standing at a bus stop. That is the real breadth and the real difficulty of the amendment.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, said that a prior publication defence appeared in the Government's 1979 Bill. He said very ingeniously that he had lifted the words from the Government's own Bill; he thought that that would ingratiate the words to the Government. To start with, there was no prior publication defence in the 1979 Bill for the disclosure of information relating to security and intelligence. In any event we made it clear in our White Paper, issued before publication of the present Bill, that we had considered the case for a prior publication defence and found the arguments to be flawed. We believe that there is no place or necessity for such a defence in the Bill.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, went on to say that his amendment was limited only to the public in the United Kingdom. l am advised

1075
that the reference in the amendment to the public or a section of the public is equally capable of referring to the public outside the United Kingdom. Perhaps I can reiterate the principle which we feel quite strongly about.
The defence proposed in the amendment would apply, among others, to members and former members of the security and intelligence services and to notified people. Your Lordships have already agreed, following a Division, that unauthorised disclosures by such people should not be a subject suitable for a test of harm, since all disclosures of this nature can be harmful. This is because they breach the trust on which the work of those services must depend. The integrity of that trust is essential for the security of this country and for the lives and safety of us all. The fact that some bit of information about the work of the security and intelligence services has been previously disclosed somewhere in some way cannot and, I would suggest, must not allow that trust to be set aside. The principle is not altered by the fact that some story is doing the rounds. Indeed, it may well be reinforced. My noble friend the Lord Privy Seal and I have on two separate occasions already told your Lordships that this defence would apply not only to the security and intelligence services and notified people under Clause 1(1) but also to the ordinary Crown servant or government contractor under subsection (3)—the official who was not a member of the services or a notified person. The harm test in Clause 1(4) would already allow them to argue that their disclosure was of information which was already common knowledge and so could not damage the work of the services. There is no need to provide a separate defence for that. Indeed to put this onus on the defence would make the position for the defence worse.
I point out to your Lordships that the defence proposed in the amendment would not apply to anyone who was not a Crown servant or government contractor, for example, the newspaper publisher. Offences applying to those kinds of people come under Clause 5 of the Bill. The amendment and this defence would not and could not apply to them.
So, from the point of view of members of the security and intelligence services and notified people, this defence is wrong in principle. From the point of view of Crown servants and government contractors, the defence is not necessary as the prosecution has to prove that their disclosure has been damaging. From the point of view of a newspaper publisher, under the Bill as it stands the prosecution must prove also that his disclosure has been damaging; yet the amendment would not apply to him.
I suggest that even on the noble and learned Lord's own terms the logic of the amendment is flawed. The harm tests in the Bill already allow the case for previous publication to be argued. Most important is the fact that in relation to the intelligence and security services, and to notified people, the amendment would be against the interests of the security of the nation.
1076
We have had three goes at this subject and I hope that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, will understand my reason and agree with it. I have no doubt that he understands it, but I have doubt as to whether he will agree with it. However, it is always good to have hope, and I hope that the noble and learned Lord will agree and feel inclined to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, there is still no prior publication defence in the Bill in regard to the most important and serious matters covered by it. It was not I who introduced Patagonia but a noble Lord from the other side of the House. I felt it to be my patriotic duty to come to the aid of the Patagonians. Temporarily they were put under potential suspicion or ignorange—I know not which.
In respect of this serious matter, outside comment in the press and elsewhere has strongly supported the point of view which we put forward in the amendment. I regret that at this last hour a touch of liberality has not been added to the Bill. It does not exist in the Bill and has never done so. Our attempts to introduce it have been resisted. I believe that at this last stage it is proper to test the opinion of the House. I beg to move.
4.2 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 73; Not-Contents, 121.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Jeger, B.

Airedale, L.

Kennet, L.

Amherst, E.

Kilbracken, L.

Annan, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Aylestone, L.

Leatherland, L.

Birk, B.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Blease, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Macaulay of Bragar, L.

Briginshaw, L.

McCarthy, L.

Broadbridge, L.

McNair, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Mishcon, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L

Monson, L.

.

Mountevans, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Northfield, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Peston, L.

David, B.

Phillips, B.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Dean of Beswick, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Ennals, L.

Rochester, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Sainsbury, L.

Ezra, L.

Saint Brides, L.

Falkland, V.

Seear, B.

Fitt, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Foot, L.

Serota, B.

Galpern, L.

Soper, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Stallard, L.

Gregson, L.

Stedman, B.

Grey, E.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Grimond, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Hampton, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Tordoff, L. [Teller.]

Hughes, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Jay, L.

Underhill, L.

1077

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Walston, L.

Wilson of Langside, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ailesbury, M.

Lyell, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Allerton, L.

Mancroft, L.

Ampthill, L.

Margadale, L.

Annaly, L.

Marley, L.

Arran, E.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Auckland, L.

Merrivale, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Mersey, V.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Bellwin, L.

Morris, L.

Beloff, L.

Mottistone, L.

Belstead, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Bessborough, E.

Newall, L.

Blatch, B.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Blyth, L.

O'Brien of Lothbury, L.

Borthwick, L.

Onslow, E.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Orkney, E.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Bramall, L.

Pender, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Piatt of Writtle, B.

Caithness, E.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Porritt, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Pym, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Reay, L.

De Freyne, L.

Renton, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Renwick, L.

Derwent, L.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Dundee, E.

Rodney, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Romney, E.

Effingham, E.

St. Davids, V.

Elibank, L.

St. John of Fawsley, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Seebohm, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Selkirk, E.

Erne, E.

Sempill, Ly.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Shannon, E.

Faithfull, B.

Shaughnessy, L.

Ferrers, E.

Shrewsbury, E.

Ferrier, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Slim, V.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Somers, L.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Strange, B.

Glenarthur, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Greenhill of Harrow, L.

Strathspey, L.

Haddington, E.

Sudeley, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Swansea, L.

Havers, L.

Terrington, L.

Hayter, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Henley, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Hesketh, L.

Trafford, L.

Holderness, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Hooper, B.

Trumpington, B.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Waldegrave, E.

Joseph, L.

Wilberforce, L.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Wise, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Wolfson, L.

Long, V.

Wynford, L.

Lurgan, L.

Young of Graffham, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.10 p.m.
Clause 2 [Defence]:
Lord Renton Lord Renton moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 45, leave out ("abroad").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 2, I should mention that Amendment No. 3, which is to the same effect, goes with it.
On Report, I moved two amendments which had the same effect as these but my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter wisely pointed out that our common purpose could best be achieved by simply leaving out the word "abroad", and that is what my amendments do on this occasion.
On Report my noble friend Lord Ferrers undertook to consider the matter before Third Reading and kindly said that he would write to me about it, which he has now done but, I am sorry to say, without convincing me.
This is really a matter of how we present the situation to which Clause 2 gives rise. It creates a defence when defence secrets are revealed. Clause 2(1) states:
"a Crown servant or government contractor is guilty of an offence if without lawful authority he makes a damaging disclosure",
of something related to defence. It is important to note the definition of defence given in Clause 2(4). I shall not read that out but it extends to four paragraphs and is as wide as could be. Subsection (2) states that:
"a disclosure is damaging if … it damages the capability of … the armed forces … to carry out their tasks or leads" —
it does not say "might lead"—
"to loss of life".
It is important to note that that paragraph on which my noble friend relied on Report and relies on in his letter to me is much narrower in its terms and effect than the definition of defence in subsection (4).
One then comes to subsection (2)(b), to which my amendments relate. That is rather strangely worded and states:
"otherwise than as mentioned in paragraph (a) above, it endangers the interests of the United Kingdom abroad, seriously obstructs the promotion or protection by the United Kingdom of those interests or endangers the safety of British citizens abroad".
I particularly refer to the last words. Here, the safety of British citizens abroad is specifically covered. However, the safety of British citizens at home in this country is not covered by Clause 2(2)(a), upon which my noble friend Lord Ferrers relies.
Therefore, I say that it is unfortunate that we have this limitation "abroad" used twice in paragraph (b). I say that we would do better without that and that it is misleading in the light of what my noble friend said about paragraph (a). It also seems to deny that the first duty of the government of this country is to defend this country and its citizens here. I have made this case before and I do not wish to labour it now.
Perhaps I may refer to my noble friend's letter, because I believe that it is only right that I should do so as he had the courtesy to write to me. I must confess that his letter convinced me that my two amendments would be better made than not made; in other words the letter has had the opposite effect upon my mind to that which he intended and the opposite effect to that which it has made on his own mind. He says:
"The harm test in Clause 2(2) is in three separate parts. The test is that the disclosure damages the capability of our armed forces, or any of the other matters set out in Clause 2(2)(a); or that it endangers our interests abroad as set out in Clause 2(2)(b); or that it would be likely to have any of those effects—this is in Clause 2(2)(c)".

1079
He then goes on to say:
"I can assure you that the terms of the drafting do prohibit defence disclosures which would damage the capability of our armed forces in this country".
That is true enough, and it continues:
"and their equipment and installations in this country".
However, there is nothing which says that a disclosure which would endanger lives of citizens of this country is covered. That is the problem. He then goes on to say:
"This is because the test in Clause 2(2)(a) is not limited geographically".
That is true enough but it is limited in words—
"and is completely separate from the international relations harm test in Clause 2(2)(b)".
I cannot help saying that the problem which we have here and to which I invite your Lordships' attention is one which arises because of the desire to be over-refined in the drafting of our Bills, even Bills creating offences like this. This clause could have been drafted in more general and simpler terms which comprehensively protected defence secrets. I believe that that could have been done in a few sentences.
That has not been done and at this late stage I am not suggesting that we should now set about doing it. However, at this last opportunity it would be better to leave out the word "abroad" where it occurs. I beg to move.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I should like to say that at first instance it would appear that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, has a very real point here, if only from the point of view of clarity. I must admit that I followed him very closely and it seemed to me that, with his usual skill, it was a well-lit argument with a proper conclusion.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, when my noble friend on the Front Bench replies, I should be very grateful if, having followed his argument, he can explain to me what harm would be done by omitting the word "abroad" in lines 45 and 48.
Secondly, I should be grateful if he could explain whether in any other part of the Bill protection is given to British civilians or British interests at home. I quite see that the armed forces are covered under paragraph (a) but on a careful reading of this, there does not appear to be any protection either for British citizens or British interests in this country. Surely it is the wish of the Government that these should be covered and protected. Therefore, perhaps my noble friend can explain how, with the Bill as it stands, this is done.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am sorry that I did not manage to persuade my noble friend Lord Renton by the letter which I wrote to him, which I thought was enormously persuasive. I do not blame my noble friend for pursuing the matter, but when the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, in a brief intervention, says that he wholeheartedly agrees with my noble friend Lord Renton, it makes life even more difficult.
1080
I was disconcerted when my noble friend Lord Renton said that the effect of my letter was the opposite to that which I had intended. When I was at school I tried to learn all about Boyle's Law, Ohm's Law and Faraday's Law. Therefore, I decided to coin a law which I modestly called Ferrers' Law. It says quite simply that everything has the reverse effect of that intended. I had not intended to become a victim of my own law, nor have pointed out to me by my noble friend that I was such a victim. However, despite my noble friend's persuasiveness and comprehensive understanding of drafting I will seek to explain why his amendment is unnecessary and is best left out of the Bill.
In particular, I can assure your Lordships that the test of harm in relation to the capability of our armed forces applies at home as well as abroad. It applies to their capacity to defend us at home as well as abroad. The test applies to their equipment and to their lives at home as well as abroad. My noble friend asked me at Report stage to look at the drafting on these very points. I have done so. I can assure him and other noble Lords that the Bill as drafted has the effect I have described. My noble friend says that Clause 2(2)(a) is much wider drafted than subsection (2)(b). He is correct. Subsection (2)(a) refers, among other things to:
"damages the capability of the armed forces".
The word "abroad" is not included. Any damage done to the armed forces therefore refers to damage done either abroad or at home. There is no geographical limitation on that test.
Subsection 2(b), though, relates only to our interests abroad. It is a quite separate, and alternative, test. It is intended to deal with the separate consequences which an unauthorised disclosure of defence information may have in the field of international relations. Those consequences are indeed to our interests abroad and not to our interests in this country. I sought to explain in our previous debate that the effect of my noble friend's amendments would be to provide an extremely wide test. It would be sufficient to show danger to any interest of this country. That would be to provide an unnecessarily broad basis for a prosecution. That test would not, of course, be of specific relevance only to defence. It should in principle apply to any information the disclosure of which had that result. The effect would be to take the Bill a step back in the direction of the dreaded Section 2. That is not the Government's intention. I suspect that there would be widespread concern if the Government were suddenly to change tack at this late stage and accept an amendment with such far-reaching consequences.
My noble friends Lord Renton and Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked a specific question. The Bill is deliberately limited to the harm which is likely to arise in the area of defence. That is covered in Clause 2(2). It is not our intention to apply such a broad harm test as my noble friends propose. That would create a great deal of unpredictability and uncertainty in the law. We should also be criticised for putting into effect a blanket provision such as exists under Section 2.

1081
I can assure my noble friend that an amendment on the lines proposed, with these undesirable consequences, is not necessary to provide fully sufficient protection to the defence interests of the nation, whether at home or abroad. I hope that my noble friend will feel persuaded by that and will not seek to press his amendment.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down—and here I am borrowing partly the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter—will he take it for granted for one moment that the information which it is sought to protect relates to a future incident where no member of the armed forces is going to be blown up, none of their equipment is going to be blown up, but a section of the public (if I may use that phrase) is going to be blown up? All I ask for—and I want to make it absolutely clear that it is all that the noble Lords, Lord Boyd-Carpenter and Lord Renton, are asking for—is this. Where in this Bill is that secret covered? Where in this Bill is that information covered? If it were a fact that a civil servant reveals such information when the police are about to close in or the armed forces are about to take an initiative, where is that covered? One appreciates that the armed forces and their equipment are covered, and one appreciates the interests abroad are covered, but what about our citizens in this land in regard to such an incident?
Earl Ferrers:I can see the problem put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. However, he will find that it is covered by Clause 4(2) which states:
"This section applies to any information, document or other article …the disclosure of which … results in the commission of an offence",
and so on. The problem put by the noble Lord is answered in that clause.
Lord Renton: My Lords, it does not do that.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, we do not wish to rush the Minister but we must get this matter clear. The Minister will find that Clause 4 is headed,
"Crime and special investigation powers".
That is a proper definition of what is covered. If the Minister refers only to subsection (2), all that that information refers to is,
"the disclosure of which … results in the commission of an offence" —
the example I ventured to give is not covered—
"or … facilitates an escape from legal custody"—
that is not covered
"or … impedes the prevention or detection of offences or the apprehension or prosecution of suspected offenders" —
that may not be covered by the example I gave—
"or … which is such that its unauthorised disclosure would be likely to have any of those effects".
If the effects are not covered then subsection (2)(b) is inoperative. It therefore seems to me that there are two points to make. First, my example does not appear to be covered and, secondly, if it is covered what harm is there in having it covered twice?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord puts forward an example relating to blowing up the public. My understanding is that that is covered by Clause 4(2). However, while I know it may not be to the convenience of your Lordships, this is a specific point and I should like to write to the noble Lord and confirm the exact position in that respect.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, before my noble friend finally sits down, will he also undertake to write to me and state specifically where in the Bill there is protection for the lives of British citizens in this country?
4.30 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and to my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter for their support on this matter. There is a real difficulty about which. I could not expect my noble friend Lord Ferrers to know. He will not mind my saying that and I make full allowance. Under the rules of interpretation of statutes, the courts, if they have to try under this clause an offence relating to defence secrets, will be in a difficulty if it is alleged that a defence secret has endangered the safety of a British citizen in this country. In Clause 2(1)(a) there is no reference to endangering the safety of British citizens in this country. There is no such reference in any other part of Clause 2. Neither is there in Clause 4(2), nor anywhere else in the Bill.
Under the rules of interpretation—and I hope the House will forgive me if I use the Latin term—expressio unius est exclusio alterius. Subparagraph (b) refers to secrets which endanger the safety of British citizens abroad. Therefore the courts will not be able to deal with the breach of a secret involving endangering the safety of British citizens at home. If my noble friend does not here and now agree to the omission of the word "abroad" in the two places where it occurs, the Bill will go on to the Statute Book with a most unfortunate defect. Mainly because too few noble Lords have heard the discussion, I should not dream of dividing the House: one knows what the result of a Division would therefore be. However, in the public interest, in my noble friend's own interest and in the interest of the country, I make a last plea to him to leave out the word "abroad" in view of the arguments which he has heard.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I understand my noble friend's concern. I explained that if we were to accept the amendments there would be a much wider application than the specific application to which he refers. Its wider application would be detrimental. We do not have a test of endangering the safety of British citizens in this country, as to do so is itself likely to be a criminal offence. That seems reasonable and that is why I referred the House to Clause 4.
Safety abroad is another matter. That would be greatly outside the jurisdiction of our courts and that position needs protection. That is why I gave the House the reply that I did. I think that it is correct. I shall look further into the matter, although I know that that will not help my noble friend's specific

1083
difficulty at the moment. However, I can still look into the matter. It would have been a discourtesy if I had said that I would not consider my noble friend's point.
This is a technical and specific matter. I am advised that the position is correct, and it is correct for the reasons I have given. If anyone were to do that to a civilian it would be a criminal offence and the criminal offence is covered. I shall look further into the point and I shall write to my noble friends Lord Renton and Lord Boyd-Carpenter as well as to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, the noble Earl is being completely courteous and reasonable until he reaches the stage when he refers to looking into the matter. I anticipate that immediately following Third Reading someone—I imagine that it will be the noble Earl—will propose the Motion, That the Bill do now pass. I have a suggestion. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, will not think me discourteous. This is his amendment; it is not mine. I am merely supporting it. As the Motion, That the Bill do now pass, will not take very long to discuss, would not the proper procedure be not to take the Motion today but to take it on a date fairly soon so that the legislative programme is not interfered with. The Motion could be slotted in very easily as it will not take very long to debate. There is no point in the noble Earl saying that he will look into the matter after the Bill has already been passed. I therefore make that respectful suggestion to him in an endeavour to help.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, perhaps I may respond to that point. I said that this is a matter of reasonable technicality. I have explained why I believe I am right and why the advice I have given indicates that the point is covered without my noble friend's amendment. I have also indicated why, if my noble friend's amendment were to be accepted, it would have a wider implication than my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, have in mind. I feel satisfied that this is correct. I will go into the detail of the matter and give my noble friend a more complete reply. However, it would be a great mistake not to debate the Motion, That the Bill do now pass, because of a matter which, as I have explained to the House, is already covered.
Lord Renton: My Lords, we cannot go on with this indefinitely. I am grateful to my noble friend for the trouble he has taken. It is with deep regret that I have to say, before asking leave to withdraw my amendment, that I consider that he has been wrongly advised, that I do not accept his interpretation of the position and that the acceptance of these two simple amendments would not have the effect which he seems to think such acceptance would have. It looks as though the Bill will go on to the Statute Book with an inherent defect. That is very unfortunate. However, I have done my best. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 3 not moved.]
Clause 13 [Other interpretation provisions]:
Lord Monson Lord Monson moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 10, line 43, at end insert ("but does not include the European Community or any organ of it,".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is identical to an amendment tabled at Report stage in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, which was not in the event moved, doubtless because of the imminence of the dinner hour and the evident and understandable desire of the House for an early night for once. Whether or not for precisely the same reasons as the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, I consider it a most important amendment, which is why I move it this afternoon.
Few people find much difficulty in understanding why secrets have to be kept when one is dealing with foreign powers which are truly foreign. In a dangerous world—and danger abounds in almost every era one can think of—the object of any country's foreign policy is to secure the friendship, or at the very least the absence of hostility, of the maximum number of foreign countries of any significance. Even when this has been achieved, the continuing friendship, or at the very least the neutrality of other countries, can never be taken permanently for granted by virtue of the fact that they are by definition free agents whose first duty when it comes to the crunch is to their own peoples. That is why tact, discretion, subtlety and even a certain degree of polite hypocrisy are normally necessary when dealing with them. All this requires secrecy.
The European Economic Community is quite a different matter. For better or for worse, we are actually part of the Community. We see this every time we go through immigration control in an EC country. We do not go through the channel for foreigners. So there is no need to worry about shifting alliances or delicate or fragile relationships. We are not in a state of flux in relation to our membership, nor are we having to cope with the understandable fickleness of states which are wholly foreign.
The relationship is therefore not comparable to our relationship with, let us say, Burma, Bulgaria or Bolivia, where undoubtedly a high degree of tact and discretion will always be necessary. Nor indeed is it comparable to the relationship between the United Kingdom and the United Nations Organisation. On the contrary, it is increasingly, though not as yet wholly, analogous to the relationship between, say, Hampshire County Council on the one hand and Westminster and Whitehall on the other.
In these circumstances, excessive secrecy or the mincing of words is not only unnecessary but positively undesirable. Far better that a spade should be called a spade from the point of view of the British people and that the cards should always be on the table.
One is always, of course, aware that secrecy in relation to dealings with the EC has its attractions, behind which a hypothetical government might be tempted to shelter. Suppose, for example, that the European Commission was exerting enormous pressure upon a future British Government—I stress

1085
the word "future"—to impose VAT upon children's shoes forthwith, but that the government in question were facing a critical by-election in a marginal seat in eight weeks' time. Suppose that there were arranged a secret deal under which the government made a great show of resistance to the VAT proposals in advance of the by-election and the Commission agreed to soft-pedal its demands but reasonably soon after the by-election the government capitulated, pleading that their hand had been forced, and imposed VAT upon children's shoes.
As the Bill stands, it would appear to be a criminal offence to reveal the existence of any such agreement, because, although most of the mud emanating from the revelation would adhere to the government in question, undoubtedly some of it would rub off on the nation as a whole. I suggest that it ought not to be a criminal offence or anything more than a disciplinary offence, if that. For that reason, I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: This amendment is similar to one which was not moved at Committee, when it appeared in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson. However, I welcome the opportunity, even though it is at the eleventh hour, to explain why we should not treat the European Community as if it were not an international organisation when plainly it is one.
It is suggested, I know, that the European Community is not like any other international organisation, because a great deal of the information which it sends to us relates to our domestic affairs. So it does, but then the European Community does not usually send such information in confidence and so the information is not covered by the Bill.
Under the Bill as it stands, even if the information were confidential or related to international relations, it would not be an offence to disclose it under the Bill unless its disclosure met the test of harm in Clause 3. Its disclosure would have, for example, to endanger this country's interests abroad. Given the nature of our relationship with the European Community, such disclosures are most unlikely to be able to meet that test.
However, there are some disclosures of European Community information which clearly could harm this country's interests. They are covered in the Bill and they need to be. I am thinking, for example, of when the European Community acts on behalf of member states in negotiations with an outside state. The disclosure of information relevant to the negotiations could well harm our interests abroad. If this amendment were accepted, that could happen and this country's interests or the safety of our citizens could quite lawfully be endangered. That is a risk which we cannot and need not take and is, I hope, sufficient to persuade your Lordships that this amendment should not be accepted. Certainly the European Community is a particular kind of international organisation. But it is nevertheless an international organisation and the Bill should treat it as such. If we do not do so, we could put in danger our interests abroad.
Lord Monson: I am partially satisfied by the noble Earl's reply, but only partially satisfied. He talked about our interests being endangered. So much hinges upon the precise interpretation of the word "endangered". Questions of interpretation have come up at earlier stages of this Bill and again today. If one could be sure that the full rigour of the law would apply only if the interests of this country were really endangered, I should have no worries. What makes me hesitate is the fear that the law might be used in a case of mere trivial disadvantage. However, I do not feel strongly enough about this matter to divide the House, so I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.45 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass. I believe that your Lordships have fully realised the significance of the step which the Government have taken in introducing this Bill to Parliament. Your Lordships have, I think, welcomed our decision to reform at long last this important area of the criminal law.
The noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, at Second Reading referred to the Government's,
"courage in tackling this difficult and controversial subject".—[Official Report, 9/3/89; col. 1619.]
I was grateful to him for that. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins—himself not a wholehearted supporter of all aspects of the Bill—acknowledged in Committee that,
"this is in some ways a brave Bill. It is trying to grasp a nettle which no other government have grasped for 78 years".—[Official Report, 3/4/89; col. 909.]
I believe the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, was correct and that your Lordships have, if I may say so, made the best of the opportunities for consideration of this Bill.
The nettle which the Government had grasped is this. It is described in the Long Title of the Bill. It is simply to replace Section 2 of the Official Secrets Act 1911. And it is to replace that section by provisions which protect "more limited classes" of information. The Bill therefore formally and fully lays Section 2 to rest. Only those who like the idea of an ineffective and discredited piece of legislation would mourn its passing, I think.
In contemplating the passing of Section 2, your Lordships may remember the words of Malcolm in describing the Thane of Cawdor's death:
"Nothing in his life became him like the leaving of it".
I think that our debates will have been a more than fitting epitaph for Section 2. I doubt, however, if many of your Lordships would wish to go further into that quotation and agree that Section 2 has thrown away its life as if it were a "careless trifle". It has not given up without a struggle!
Nor have the ideas of past generations gone unrecorded in our consideration of this Bill. We have drawn on them and we have learned from them. But the central proposition of this legislation is radical and new. It is to set out in detailed provisions in legislation what we need to protect and the terms on which we want to protect it—and to leave the decisions on each case fully to the jury.

1087
It is fundamental to the nature of this Bill, and to the whole approach which it has adopted, that there is no place in it for ministerial certificates requiring the Jury to accept the Ministers judgment. This was a decision which came as a surprise to those who thought that the Government were locked into the unprofitable and unresolvable dilemma of the ministerial certificate.
I remember with some pleasure the comment of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, on 29th June last year when I presented to your Lordships the Government's White Paper on the reform of Section 2. The noble Lord said that he had on false assumptions prepared himself for a violent denunciation of the Government's proposals, but that I had painlessly extracted his teeth. Of course the noble Lord was speaking metaphorically on that occasion. However, it does not seem to have done him much long-term damage as he has been perpetually inquiring, requesting information and challenging—quite rightly so—the precepts of the Bill.
Perhaps because of that initial shock, some have found it difficult to accept the consequences of our central decision to rely on the jury and not on the ministerial certificate. This fundamental proposition requires the legislation to establish within a carefully defined statutory framework as clear and as objective tests for such an offence as are possible. The Bill does this.
I am sorry that some have sought to suggest that, because the Government recognised the need for a consistency of approach and because we recognised also the importance of providing a scheme which would be predictable and reasonably certain in its effect, we were somehow being obdurate.
This Bill is not the Bill which would have accompanied the White Paper which we published last June. It does not follow all the proposals which we made then. Of course it is similar in its structure and outline. Given the general welcome—not to say relief—which followed the publication of the White Paper, it would indeed have been odd if that were not so.
However, the Bill which I introduced to your Lordships House on 9th March had changed in some important aspects from our White Paper proposals. The Bill has been further changed in a number of respects in your Lordships' House. Your Lordships proposed changes and, having heard the arguments, the Government have responded. That is not the attitude of a Government who are not prepared to listen. I know that some of your Lordships would have wished us to respond more often and with perhaps more abandon. But, I make no apologies for having sought to persuade your Lordships otherwise.
I think that we are united as a House in wanting to reform Section 2. We are united in not wanting to pursue the proposal for ministerial certificates; we are united in recognising that we must have some form of effective legislation to replace Section 2 and to protect the nation's secrets. However, we have differed on some of the detail, and we have differed profoundly on whether we can—or need—add further to the basic structure and logic of the Bill without leaving it fatally weakened.
1088
However, I believe that, when the heat of debate has cooled, it will be seen that the Bill provides a fair balance between the freedom of the individual on the one hand and the interests of all our citizens on the other hand, and that it gives justice to the individual, while providing effective and necessary protection to the country's interests.
In commending the reforms in this legislation I should like to acknowledge the contributions which so many of your Lordships have made to our debates. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, has been as persuasive, gracious and well-informed as he always is. Indeed, there has not been an occasion when he has pursued the Government incorrectly.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and I have profoundly disagreed on some matters of considerable moment. That seems to be the way the fates have decreed we should live. But, he has never been other than unfailingly courteous and—if I may say so—dangerously persuasive.
If I add to my encomium the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, my noble friends Lord Home, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, and Lord Renton, and the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, I hope that other noble Lords will not feel that their contributions have gone unmarked; indeed, they have been marked. This has been a useful and a helpful exercise. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Earl Ferrers.)
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, before the Bill becomes an Act of Parliament I think that we should put on record the distate which is felt in many quarters of the country as regards certain sections of the legislation. Some of us have tried to support the amendments which have been put forward at all stages of the Bill's proceedings. Indeed, we expressed our fears on Second Reading. The noble Earl was totally frank with us when he said, as he did only last week on Report, that the central objection we have raised is a matter of principle. He repeated that argument this afternoon, as indeed he did several times last week. I think that that is a more frank description of the difference between the two sides in your Lordships' House than what he just said in moving the Motion, That the Bill do now pass. He said that we have differed on detail; we have not differed on detail, we have differed on principle. Moreover, we still differ on principle.
From the beginning of the debates on the Bill I have admitted without qualification that I welcome the reduction in the categories of information which are protected from disclosure within the Bill. However, when the noble Earl speaks about universal approval within this House for the reform of Section 2 of the existing Act, I think that he is being a little naive. It is true that we want Section 2 to be reformed, but not in the way which is proposed by means of this Bill. As the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, pointed out last week on Report, in the existing Act there is provision for the public interest defence. However, under the new Bill that provision is excised so far as concerns the six categories. Indeed, it is on the six categories that my main worries, and the worries of many people outside this house, are centred.

1089
When the issue of public interest has been debated, it has been said several times by noble Lords from the opposite side of the House that if the amendments we proposed were accepted the Bill would then become a charter for leakers. That is not so. The rejection of those amendments has meant that the Bill is now a charter for the protection of secret malpractice. The secrecy that has unfortunately become notorious as a characteristic of British government will, under those six categories, be increased rather than decreased as a result of the Bill.
It is not a Bill to liberalise in those particulars. Moreover, those particulars are of immense importance. In my view, it is a Bill which increases the bounds of secrecy within the categories which are nominated in the legislation. In that sense, it is a Bill which is doing away with what liberality there is under the present Act. Again, that fact was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, on Report.
There are many issues which the Government have never answered. Therefore, in conclusion, I shall put those arguments to them. The noble Lord, Lord Dacre, is unfortunately not speaking in this debate today, although I wish he were here to do so before the Bill is passed. I refer to what he said last week on Report. He drew attention to Irangate. He could also have mentioned Watergate. He pointed out that the principle—again, I accept the Minister's challenge that this is a matter of principle—that the Government are enshrining in the Bill is the one used by the prosecution at Nuremberg. It is the principle that it is not sufficient to say, "We did this because we were under orders from above". There is an individual responsibility.
This matter has been referred to again this afternoon, but when one looks at the history of this country's security and intelligence services—I accept that they are the odd exceptions, but they are important—and, for example, at what was done by the intelligence service to undermine and give false information about the members of the Government of the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Rievaulx; when one recalls what was done to one of our colleagues, the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara, a member of that Government; and when one recalls the trial of Clive Ponting, it would appear that the Government accept the judge's direction in the Ponting trial that the interests of Ministers are identical with the interest of the state. We do not accept that principle. We do not accept that public interest is to be defined merely by Ministers.
Throughout his speech on the amendment on Report last week the Minister constantly asked us whether we wanted to leave the matter to juries. My answer is, "Yes, we want to leave it to the jury". We wanted to leave it to the jury in the Ponting case, and it was left to the jury. I return to questions that I have asked the Minister from the beginning of the Bill's appearance in the House but which he has not answered. Would he have preferred that the Ponting case not be tried? Would he have preferred that the jury was not allowed to pass the judgment of ordinary people upon the actions of Clive Ponting? Does he believe that the Ponting case should not have been allowed to go to trial, as I understand it would not
1090
be if the Bill becomes an Act? Would it not have been the judge's duty to direct and not advise the jury? That is an example of how the Government distrust the people. They believe that they know better.
I shall add a further question that I have asked the Minister but which he has not answered. Is it not the case that under the new Act the security service would be unable to retract the evidence that it gave to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, in the Stephen Ward case—that Stephen Ward was not a member of the security service?
This afternoon the noble Lord, Lord Renton, referred to the Wright Spycatcher case and said that the case had done immense damage to this country. What damage? I believe that the Government did immense damage to this country's reputation, but what damage was done to this country's interests by the revelations (true or false) in the Spycatcher book? This is a closing down, a clamping down, on information. The individual's right and duty, if he or she sees a crime being committed or a malpractice being accepted, to let the public know, even if he or she is within the security service, is being destroyed in the six provisions within the Bill.
For those reasons, it would be wrong for the Bill to leave the House characterised as a liberalising Bill when in practice, in those specific categories, the Bill is much more reactionary than Section 2 of the existing law. It re-emphasises the Government's obsession with secrecy and with preventing vital information going to the public. It is a characteristic that the Government have shown in many different ways. It is a characteristic which we have tried unsuccessfully to remove from the Bill. The time must come when this country achieves a reputation for freedom of information rather than secrecy.
Lord Thomas of Swynnerton: My Lords — —
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord will give way for a moment. It may help everyone. It is obvious that some of us. are disturbed that the Motion, That the Bill do now pass, should proceed without a vital matter being studied. I appreciate that no one wishes artificially, or for any wrong reason, to delay the passing of the Bill. It might be of convenience to the House, and to those who are interested to see that something should be put right, if the House were to adjourn so that that vital matter might be considered. I wonder whether that view is accepted by the Government Benches?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, for having covered a difficult position with courtesy and clarity. I realise that the noble Lord and some of my noble friends are genuinely concerned about matters which they feel have not been properly addressed. I tried to explain to your Lordships why I believe that the matter they have raised is properly addressed. In his generous way, my noble friend Lord Renton did not seek to press his amendment, for reasons which he gave. I do not wish—perhaps I may use the word—to "steamroller" the Bill through your Lordships' House if there is a matter of concern. I understand

1091
that it is procedurally difficult to amend the Bill because it has passed its Third Reading. If it would be for the convenience of your Lordships to adjourn the debate on the Motion, That the Bill do now pass, so that there can be discussions and clarifications outside the Chamber, I should be content for that to happen.
If that course meets with your Lordships' approval, I am prepared to propose it. We could perhaps take the Police Officers (Central Service) Bill and the Disabled Persons (Northern Ireland) Bill forthwith, and return later to the Motion, That the Bill do now pass.
: Hear, hear!
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, if that course has your Lordships' approval, I propose that we postpone the debate on the Official Secrets Bill during pleasure.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, perhaps I may at once say that from our point of view we accept the suggestion with gratitude. I have only one personal embarrassment which I wish to place before the House. I should like to take part in the discussions but I am interested in the next Bill. I hope that the noble Lord who will move the Third Reading of that Bill and the Motion, That the Bill do now pass will not think me discourteous if I am absent from my seat. Perhaps I may tell him in advance that I have no intention of opposing either the Third Reading or the passing of the Bill.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, is this another official secret or may we be told what it is about? I am bound to say that for the last half hour I have found it distracting to see many comings and goings around us between those who, we felt, had some problem which they wished to be resolved. What is the trouble, and for how long are we asked to suspend the debate? Some of us are already building up our eloquence on the Motion, That the Bill do now pass.
My noble friend Lord Hatch of Lusby has had a wonderful opportunity to be the one voice to be heard at this stage in the debate on the Motion, That the Bill do now pass. Why cannot we proceed further with the debate until it seems to be exhausted, and then attend to whatever difficulty has arisen? Is it that it was discovered, after the noble Lord, Lord Renton, had sat down, that there was something in what he was saying, and it is feared that it is too late under our normal procedure for the House to take notice of his remarks, and write them into the Bill?
Is the difficulty that we are now on the Motion, That the Bill do now pass and we have no procedure for recommitting the Bill to the Report stage so that an alteration may be made to it which apparently we cannot make when we have once passed the Third Reading? I think this is so unusual that there should be a word of explanation. For how long are we to be sent away?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, perhaps I may add to what my noble friend Lord Ferrers and the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, have said. What happened about half an hour ago was that amendments which were moved by my noble friend Lord Renton were replied to by my noble friend Lord Ferrers. Both my noble friend Lord Renton and the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, on the Opposition Front Bench, felt that they did not agree with the Government reply. My noble friend Lord Ferrers then said that he would look into the matter. However, the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, quite understandably said that it was no good looking into the matter because the Bill was now about to embark on its Bill do now pass procedure.
My noble friend Lord Ferrers has now got to his feet during the Bill do now pass procedure and has said that he would be very sad and would very much deprecate the Bill passing, with a feeling both on the Government Benches and on the Opposition Benches that a point which should be examined had not been fully looked into. However, he was very careful to say that the advice as he has it at the moment is that the Bill now in your Lordships' House is no longer amendable because we have embarked on the Bill do now pass procedure.
Nonetheless as a courtesy, and in order to make quite sure that we have a word both with noble Lords opposite and noble Lords in other parts of the House, as well as on the Government's own Benches, about the procedure, and perhaps a further word in private about the merits, my noble friend was proposing to the House that the procedure on the Bill do now pass should be adjourned for the next two pieces of business. I have to say to your Lordships that for that to happen we should have to be unanimous. I have a feeling that the House is not unanimous about it.
There is another proposal which I can put to the House which can be agreed to by a majority. It is that the House do adjourn the present proceedings on the Bill do now pass for, say, half an hour. I think that probably it would be to the convenience of your Lordships' House, if, on behalf of the Government, I now put that Motion to the House, that we adjourn for half an hour in order to be able to discuss the issue which is troubling noble Lords. Then, in half an hour's time exactly we should return to the Motion, That the Bill do now pass debate and complete the proceedings on the Bill. So, if I may, I shall put to your Lordships that the debate be adjourned. If your Lordships agree to that Motion, then I shall propose that the House do now adjourn during pleasure for half an hour. The first thing I must do is to put to your Lordships that the debate be adjourned.
Moved, That the debate on the Motion, That the Bill do now pass be adjourned.—(The Lord Privy Seal, Lord Belstead).
5.15 p.m.
The Deputy Chairman (Lord Nugent of Guildford): My Lords, if noble Lords will allow me, we must have something before the House. The Question is that the debate be now adjourned.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, as regards the adjournment of the Bill, I am puzzled as to why we have two Motions before the House at the same time. However, let that go: I am no expert on parliamentary procedure. I am very disturbed indeed about the talk of some people having discussions in private. The suggestion is that within half an hour we shall reassemble and discuss the matter again, following some discussions in private. I do not know with whom and I do not even know the difficulties that have arisen from something which the noble Lord, Lord Renton, said.
I do know this. I am entitled to know if my vote is being requested at any time. I do not believe that it would be possible within half an hour to produce a statement of whatever solution the Government intend, to resolve these problems that have arisen which previously caused so much to-ing and fro-ing by leading Members on the Front Benches. I do not know whether it is possible or not. However, I do know that if the House is to be treated with respect on an extremely important matter which has nothing to do with party politics, then the House is entitled to a statement. Therefore, I oppose any adjournment unless we have an indication that before the House reassembles we receive a written statement from the Government so that everybody in the House knows where they are.
Lord Mischon: My Lords, I wonder whether I may pour a little oil upon waters which my noble friend has made rather more troubled than perhaps they need be. The House is united on one thing: that when we examine legislation and act as the House that is responsible for revising legislation we do our job properly and see that what passes through the House is what is intended by the House in the best interests of the nation.
A point has arisen which has not a scrap of politics in it. It is whether or not a section of this legislation carries out what is the unanimous intention of the House by way of protection of our citizens. It has nothing to do with imparting information; nothing to do—I am delighted to be able to tell my noble friends—with any of the defences that we should have loved to have seen in the Bill. It is purely a matter of whether or not proper protection is given to information which could endanger citizens of this country within the United Kingdom.
The opportunity has been very graciously offered for those who are concerned with the matter to discuss it and see whether we can do anything about it, if there is anything to be done. I am perfectly sure that after half an hour we shall be able to inform all those Members of the House who are sufficiently interested to come back after half an hour as to exactly what has transpired.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I now beg to move that the House do adjourn during pleasure for half an hour exactly.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 5.20 to 5.49 p.m.]
Debate resumed on the Motion, That the Bill do now pass.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I think it is right that as Leader of the House I should report to your Lordships what was discussed during the brief adjournment which we have had. My noble friend Lord Ferrers and I met those of your Lordships on all Benches who were interested in a particular point which was raised by amendments moved by my noble friend Lord Renton at Third Reading of the Bill.
In our discussions there were two matters which were at issue. The first was the procedural question On the advice that I have received the position is quite clear. The House has now completed its consideration of the Billon Third Reading and there is no procedural possibility of amending the Bill herafter.
The second matter which we discussed concerned the merits of the amendment of my noble friend Lord Renton. That amendment was discussed at Third Reading of the Bill and was then withdrawn by my noble friend.
That is what has passed in the discussions which we had in the half-hour adjournment. I now suggest that I am followed by those of your Lordships who wish to continue with the debate on the Motion that the Bill do now pass.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Nugent of Guildford): My Lords, the Question is that the debate be now resumed.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I believe that the House will be grateful to the noble Lord the Leader of the House for the explanation of what is an unusual procedure in your Lordships' House; namely, that the House be adjourned during pleasure so that two very important matters could be discussed. As the noble Lord the Leader of the House has said, one of those matters was the procedural point as to whether anything could be done on the basis that there was merit in the amendment that has been moved by the noble Lord, Lord Renton. As the noble Lord the Leader of the House has said, it was ruled that Third Reading having taken place nothing could be done.
As regards the merit of the amendment I hope that the noble Earl will think that I reflect accurately what he said would be done; namely that without altering the view that he had expressed earlier on the advice he had received he was prepared—in view of the weight of opinion in regard to that particular amendment—further to consider the matter. What action may result from that further consideration obviously cannot be forecast by any Member of your Lordships' House at this moment. Having said that, I now move on to the Motion before the House, That this Bill do now pass.
The noble Earl referred to the fact that I had made comments on the White Paper in which I said that I had come prepared to attack but that my teeth had been withdrawn somewhat painlessly by something which had occurred in regard to that White Paper. The noble Earl referred to that quotation with a smile. It is only fair to say that before the issue of

1095
the White Paper the press said, in very pronounced terms as though they were very substantially led to believe it to be the case, that certification would be back again and that in the White Paper we should see even more strenuous efforts than had been forecast on the part of the Government to see to it that the legislation was very strong legislation. I came prepared to wage that battle only to find that, if subtlety can be ascribed to the Government, if there had been any leaks they had been subtle enough to see to it that the eventual White Paper did not propose certification but left certain matters to the jury. That was why I made the remark that I did.
It has not in any way affected the view of those who sit on these Benches that the Government, while to be praised for their courage in dealing with Section 2, have not done so in a way that the nation would have wished and certainly not done so in a way that we would have wished. They have left defenceless those who, in our view, should be defended. I shall not treat noble Lords—if "treat" is the right word; I should say "inflict upon" noble Lords—to a repetition of the arguments which we have advanced from these Benches, and which have also been advanced from other benches, with regard to the defences of public interest and prior publication.
It is with no regret that one sees the end of Section 2. It is with considerable regret that one see the legislation leave this House without vital matters such as protection of freedom of the subject having been settled. Nothing has been said in regard to freedom of information. Only secrecy is protected. There is not one bit more of a statutory right for any citizen of this country to learn more than he does about the secrets of government.
I do not think that I can say anything further at this stage other than that some parts of the Bill are measures that one wants to see in a statute of this kind. There are others that one regrets to see. I am only sorry that there now appears to be a habit in government to take it for granted that it is a display of ministerial strength to resist every conceivable amendment that one can and that it is a triumph for the Government when they take through a measure almost completely unamended, if not completely unamended. It is not a triumph for democracy if that happens, nor is it a triumph for this House in its capacity as a revising Chamber.
I hope that in future measures there will be respect, such as we have not experienced in this case, for arguments that are good arguments and that there will be some flexibility where, so far as we on these Benches see, the rule is no flexibility at all and no surrender. This is not a battle; it is, I hope, a meeting of minds.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I should like to associate myself with the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and add that, to my recollection, the account of the meeting that he and the noble Lord the Leader of the House gave is entirely accurate. Had I known that the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, would cause such a brouhaha and such legal problems—not that I could understand fully the technicalities of the arguments
1096
on which the lawyers were engaged and which could quite happily have gone on for the rest of the evening—I should have said that my advice was that the interpretation of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, was correct. However, that is now water under the bridge and we reach this last and slightly melancholic stage of the Official Secrets Bill.
The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, congratulated the Government so much on the splendours of the Bill that they had introduced that I feel it is unnecessary for me to say anything laudatory about it at all. It had crossed my mind that I might think of one or two words of praise to utter, but these have now all been uttered by the author of the Bill and I feel that it is unnecessary to add to them.
At Second Reading I said that the way in which the Government treated the amendments put forward in this House would be a measure of the respect in which they held the House. By that criterion, their respect is minimal, as is their respect for the other place and for a number of distinguished Back-Benchers in another place and some distinguished Back-Benchers in this place. After all, the Bill is one of some constitutional importance. It is about the liberties of the people of this country and the degree to which they have to be limited, clinched and restricted in the interests of security. We all agree that there must be security and that that means limitations of liberty.
The question is: where do you draw the line?
When it was suggested in the course of our debate that those limits had been stretched too far and that the right of the public to information was something that was important and should be respected, the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, tended to reply, "This is an Official Secrets Bill; it is not a freedom of information Bill". That may be so, but when drafting an Official Secrets Bill those who believe that freedom of speech is a fundamental right consider that any government should bear in mind the restrictions that they are imposing. The liberties of the subject should be very much to the forefront of their mind.
Secondly, I should have thought that in a Bill of such constitutional importance most governments would attempt to reach some kind of consensus in order to produce a Bill to which both sides of the House could agree. But that is not the present Government's way. The present Government do not believe in consensus. In today's Independent is a report of a conversation between the Prime Minister and Sir Anthony Parsons. In effect, the Prime Minister says to Sir Anthony, "Do you think that anyone believes any longer in consensus politics?" In reply, Sir Anthony says, "Yes, I do. Quite a lot of people believe in it. I do myself'; to which the Prime Minister responds, "I regard the people who believe in that as quislings and traitors". That is the origin of this kind of legislation and the way in which Bills are thrust through Parliament, as was rightly mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon.
Finally, I should like to say that I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby. The differences which came up time and again in the course of the debates on this Bill were quite profound. They were differences of view. The fact of the matter is that

1097
there are two views—I have said this before so I hope that noble Lords will forgive me for repeating it—of the nature of liberty, freedom of speech and the right to information.
There is one view, which is expressed in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and in the European Convention on Human Rights; namely, that liberty is a fundamental right and one tinkers about with it at great risk. One treats it rigorously and carefully. The other view—the one adopted by the Government—is that liberty is a residual right. Liberty is what is left after statutes, common law and practice have eroded it. It is just that little bit that is left.
I and my noble friends on these Benches believe that liberty is a fundamental right, as in the First Amendment. That is why we found aspects of the present Bill so disturbing and were so alarmed at the refusal to accept the public interest defence. That is why we were so disappointed that prior publication was not taken as something which could be handled constructively. I am sorry that five days of debate in this Chamber and five days in another place have led to so little progress.
Lord Renton: My Lords, speaking of the Bill itself, I take a different view from that expressed by the noble Lords, Lord Bonham-Carter and Lord Mishcon. We all agree that liberty is fundamental to democracy and civilisation, but one cannot have liberty unless one lives in a country that is secure. Goodness knows, in our lifetime—and some of us are fairly old—we have lived through two of the worst wars in history and have known our country under threat in time of peace as well as in war. These days we also have to deal with terrorism. While accepting that liberty is a fundamental principle, we must realise that liberty becomes a nullity if there is not security.
I believe that the Government deserve to be congratulated on this Bill. They have been very brave. They have at last got rid of the catch-all Section 2 of the 1911 Act. Somewhat ironically they have replaced it by six lengthy, rather complicated and very technical main clauses which create new offences under this Bill. But put together those new offences do not go so far as Section 2. Incidentally, those six new clauses which create the offences have to be supported by 10 auxiliary clauses. Therefore, this was not an easy Bill. It was a very technical Bill and I think that my noble friend Lord Ferrers deserves great praise from all corners of the House for the way in which he has piloted it through this Chamber. I was glad that my noble friend the Leader of the House also took part in the discussion on some of the more important matters.
My noble friend Lord Ferrers sometimes was placed at a disadvantage, however unwillingly it was done, by the fact that some Members of the House, especially those who have legal experience, such as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, and the noble Lords, Lord Mishcon, Lord Boyd-Carpenter and myself, felt it right to try to get the Bill technically in proper form. It should not lead to endless wrangling in the courts, starting perhaps with the magistrate's court and going to the Old
1098
Bailey or the criminal courts outside London; it should produce a fairly straightforward situation for the defence as well as for the prosecution. But owing to the way in which the Bill is constructed every one of those offences, instead of being stated in broad terms, is hedged around with a great deal of detail. Personally I do not think that that was unavoidable. There has been over anxiety, an excess of zeal and a love of detail which have inspired those on the official side and among the draftsmen who have been responsible for advising Ministers on this matter.
I turn now to the efforts that I made when I detected what I thought was a real defect in the Bill; and I was not alone in my belief. It has led to the rather strange and almost unprecedented situation that we have experienced today. I did not raise this point for the first time at Third Reading. I raised it at length and it was discussed in depth at Report stage. My noble friend Lord Ferrers was good enough to say that he would write to me about this matter, but on rereading his letter I am aware that it does not answer the point. As the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, argued, I hope that my noble friend Lord Ferrers will arrange for it to have further consideration. It is very important.
The simple point is that in the opinion of some Members the Bill does not make it an offence to disclose matters which could endanger the lives of citizens of this country. It is as simple as that. Lots of other offences are created, but not that one. Alas, it is too late now for the matter to be put right while the Bill is before us. But it is a point of which we should not lose sight in the years to come.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I welcome this Bill and, like many noble Lords, I am relieved that at last a government have tackled the long-standing difficulties, doubts and dissatisfaction with the Official Secrets Act 1911. I am astonished to discover that when I entered the Civil Service in 1913 the Official Secrets Act was two years old. It was drawn to my attention and I have had to live with it ever since. The Inland Revenue decided that, although I left the department to become a full-time officer of a Civil Service union, the oath of secrecy that I had sworn so many years before still held me in its grip to my dying day. I am not sure that we would all accept that construction of the Official Secrets Act or the doctrine behind it. Nevertheless, as a former member for many years of the Civil Service national Whitley Council, and having seen many cases go through the courts which have disturbed the staff element as well as the official element, such a Bill is long overdue.
Many noble Lords may not have been in the House when my noble friend Lord Hatch spoke. He was very strong and eloquent in his denunciation of this Bill. I felt a little deprived that the adjournment not only interrupted our proceedings but detracted from my enthusiasm to tackle my noble friend Lord Hatch. However, we have to realise that we are the prisoners of our parliamentary system. It seems absurd that on a Bill of this kind, with all the amendments that have been put forward by the Opposition, the House should divide on party lines.

1099
Some better agreement could have been achieved with this Bill. I cannot believe that this side of the House alone believes a greater liberalisation of our official secrets legislation is desired.
I see no sign in my association with the Labour Party that it is all that liberally disposed towards the Civil Service. In those circumstances, I wonder what a Labour Government would have done about this Act had they tackled it, as they failed to do. However, the legislation should have been tackled. Everybody realises that. When such a matter has existed without remedy for so long because of the difficulties and complexities of legislating on the subject, there should have been a real effort to reach a consensus on this Bill.
The Liberal Government passed the 1911 Act. They were responsible for putting Section 2 into the Act. A Labour Government have since been in office for years. Conservative Governments have come and gone. It is only now that we are tackling this issue. It is sad that it is being tackled in a way that still leaves division within this House. I do not think that there should be division. There should be a formula for official secrets that would have enabled us to reach agreement on a non-party matter.
What is at stake here? It is the stability, integrity and loyalty of our Civil Service, not to mention government contractors who can probably give away as many secrets as civil servants and who must hold their own counsel on matters that they are handling on behalf of the Government. But there are some issues that I believe must be put above all others. One is the position of the Civil Service in our system of administration and government and in our relations between bureaucracy and the public. No opportunity for an individual civil servant to blow the whistle on a matter that he feels is quite intolerable and should be exposed should outweigh the considerations of integrity in the Civil Service.
If we wish to deal with this matter in a modern way, we need an audit of administration. We have had the Comptroller and Auditor General for over 100 years. With regard to any mischief, fraud, or indications of misbehaviour with public expenditure and finance, he is the man to go to. I have said that before. We do not have his equivalent in the Civil Service to whom civil servants can go if they wish to disclose their worries about something that they may believe is going on. We now have a National Audit Service which is doing splendid work. We need an audit of administration to which complaints, doubts or difficulties can be taken when necessary.
However, I am, and always will be, absolutely against placing on the individual civil servant the right for him to determine what he will disclose in the public interest. Moreover, I believe, as does the noble Lord, Lord Renton, that the more defences one erects in this Bill, the more one excludes all others, and the more one gives a temptation to a person who may be accused, or is feeling tempted to commit what he fears may be a breach of the Act, to consider under which of the exemptions he will plead. I believe that that is bad either way. When a civil servant takes upon himself the responsibility of
1100
a disclosure of profound importance and with far reaching consequence, he should either have someone to whom he can unload his sorrows and doubts and on whom he can shed the responsibility, or he has to put his head on the line. We cannot prescribe for that. He must feel so strongly about it that he is willing to put his career at risk to discharge a public duty.
Since these cases must go to a jury, the jury may take a common sense line although there are no signposts of what the defences should be. Even if the judge directs the jury that a certain defence is not within its purview a jury can still find a man not guilty, as it did in the Ponting case. However, Ponting was a member of the Civil Service, not of the security services. He was a member of the administrative class. I submit that he had opportunities of taking his case, such as it was, an important one no doubt, to higher authorities. The mischief in that case was that he selected a Member of Parliament to whom to make his confession. The matter was straight away plunged into the House of Commons and politics. That was the trouble there.
One cannot prescribe for every situation. One cannot define everything. This Bill tries to satisfy the principles of our law making: first, that the law should be clear, and, secondly, that so far as possible it should be certain. This is not a liberalising measure. I dispel any idea that this is a liberalising measure with regard to the Civil Service. The measure brings practicality to Section 2 of the Official Secrets Act which has existed in all its clumsy nakedness for 78 years. It makes it an Act with which the courts can deal, as a substitute for Section 2.
Those concerned can identify from the new Act what their responsibilities are. Do not let us forget that in the background we have the discipline within the Civil Service. This Bill makes no difference to that. Disciplinary measures can be taken against a delinquent civil servant under this and any other legislation under which he may be up to some mischief. It is there all the time. We must not lose sight of it.
The Government have done a good job. Perhaps a better job might have been done. However, I do not think that we could have done business with my noble friend Lord Hatch. In my humble judgment, he has taken a fundamentally different view of this situation from those of us who regard it as a matter of public administration. Much of what he said would drive us to a political Civil Service. We would have "placed" men in government positions every time that there was a change of government. That would be bad. Otherwise one must preserve the neutrality but gain the co-operation of the Civil Service. That cannot be done by giving any encouragement, or even suggesting for that matter, that civil servants hold individual audit of administration posts, that they have responsibility for the probity of everyone around them and that if they see anything which they regard as putting the public interest at stake they are free to make disclosures. The Civil Service is not walking about Whitehall its pockets stuffed with official secrets looking for an opportunity to give them away if only the Act would describe enough defences. That is not the position.

1101
Such problems are rare and, if they do arise, are mostly complex and difficult. I do not think one can prescribe for every eventuality. Someone has to take the decisions; martyrdom may follow. But there is nothing new in that, either in the Civil Service or elsewhere.
Let us give the Government at least a word of praise reflecting our satisfaction with the Bill. My noble friends can say what they like, but no government since 1911 have tackled the problem. Everyone who has borne office, including myself, has some responsibility for not having tackled it.
I hope that my speech does not give discomfort to my noble friends; in my view this is not a party matter. I put my interests and my work for the Civil Service over the past 40 years much higher than any party differences over the Bill; that is why I am expressing myself so forcefully.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, will he accept for the record a correction to the impression he gave? The debates and the Divisions on the libertarian amendments have been supported on all sides of the House. Will he be fair to noble Lords on the other side of the House who have spoken as we have on this side on the question of public interest and who have voted as they have spoken?
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, what my noble friend has said is true. The only thing I can say is that when there has been a Division, that is how the Divisions have been.
Lord Thomas of Swynnerton: My Lords, I believe that someone from outside, not having heard the earlier discussions on this Bill, would be somewhat amazed that no members of the Opposition, with the exception of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton—I am not absolutely certain that he can be classified as a member of the Opposition—seem to grasp the great liberalising quality of the Bill. After all, as many noble Lords pointed out during the Second Reading debate, the Bill frees from criminal charges at least 95 per cent. of domestic politics. Anyone who in the past has tried to gain information, admittedly not relating to the security and intelligence services or to the foreign service, has often been thwarted by civil servants or directors of other government agencies by reference to the Official Secrets Act.
I remember myself once trying to find out what the plans were likely to be for the projected new British Library. I was told that it was an official secret. I know of someone who tried to find out what were the guidelines for prison visiting in a certain prison. She was told that it was an official secret. Both instances occurred during the term of the last Labour Government. As I said during Second Reading, I believe the Opposition have shown themselves rather churlish in their reaction to the main part of the Bill. I am certain that when they come later to consider their attitude to the Bill, they will recognise that.
Having ventured to speak, I want to make three more points. In general, I felt a good deal of
1102
sympathy with the speech and the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Monson, about whether the European Community should, for the purposes of the Bill, be regarded as an international. Organization. Indeed, I had thought of putting down an amendment of that nature myself. I did not do so as I did not think that discussion of the Official Secrets Act in this House was an appropriate occasion for a definition of what the European Community is or is not. I continue to think that. Nevertheless, in the long run, if the implications of the Single European Act are carried into practice, we shall have to consider the matter again.
Secondly, noble Lords may be aware that I supported an amendment which hoped that in certain circumstances, when the questions at issue were no longer of urgent security importance, ex-members of the security and the intelligence services might, if they went though the proper channels, be able to publish some account of their lives and work. The amendment echoed amendments put forward by Members of another place. The discussions on that amendment, which my noble friend Lord Dacre of Glanton introduced, were full and interesting. Although not fully satisfied, I have to say that the comments that in rare and exceptional circumstances authorisation would be given by the appropriate Minister or the appropriate head of department satisfied me, as I believe they partially satisfied my noble friend Lord Dacre.
We were worried that procedures in the past which had enabled members of those services, from Sir Paul Dukes in the 1920s to J. C. Masterman in the 1970s, to publish accounts of what they had done would not be available to their successors who might not be able to do the same. I felt in general that the Government appreciated the point. The discussions were full and interesting and I believe that in the future such recollections will probably be published.
Much discussion of the Bill, if one considers it carefully, has related to an important but most unusual set of circumstances which were envisaged by the Opposition; namely, what should be done if someone in the security or intelligence services discovered something which might be described as gross iniquity, gross incompetence or treachery. What should be done in such circumstances? The Government took one view and the Opposition another. I was sympathetic to many of the speeches made by noble Lords opposite. But the circumstances as envisaged are most unusual and rare; so I do not believe our discussion, interesting and important as it was, should affect our general judgment on the Bill. I believe the Bill to be generally liberalising and in most respects something close to a public information Act.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, I do not believe that at this stage we should enter into any details of the Bill at all. To my mind this is the parliamentary way of saying that Parliament has had its say. It has now constituted a Bill and we should consider it as a whole. Looking at it as a whole we should ask: are we satisfied or not satisfied that this meets the wishes of Parliament and the people of the country? I look

1103
at the Bill from that angle alone. I took no part in its proceedings because I preferred to leave it to those more expert in the Civil Service and in secrecy matters.
However, I watched it with interest. I see the conduct of the Bill taking the same pattern as that of other fundamental Bills which have passed through this House. They have offended many people and have not had the support of a majority. There were Bills such as that providing for the abolition of local government because somebody determined that it was being awkward. There were other Bills in respect of which the Opposition in a genuine attempt at improvement put forward amendments. Not one was accepted.
What has happened in relation to this Bill? There has been no acceptance whatever of the other point of view. That is the major problem faced by the Bill. I opposed the moving of the adjournment because it was evident that it would achieve nothing. The adjournment could tell us nothing and it was a waste of half an hour. The Government had got themselves into a mess because they refused to see the wisdom of an amendment moved by someone on their side. That is typical. The Government's attitude is that if they produce a Bill and table amendments, that Bill is right. They will not hear one word against it.
I should like to say to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, that freedom and security do not always go together. During our lifetime there have been two states which were very secure but one would not wish to praise them for being the custodians of safety. I refer to the Soviet Union and to Hitler's Germany. Of course they were secure but there was not a great deal of fundamental freedom. That was because people inside those states could not, in one case, and did not, in the other case, see the elective dictatorship which grew up in Nazi Germany without a majority of support.
The debate is about whether we should pass the Bill. I am forced to rise to my feet to support my noble friend Lord Hatch of Lusby. I do not know whether he will press the Motion to a vote—I have not asked him. However, I can assure him that if he decides to do so he will have something that I did not have when I acted on a Third Reading. He has the promise of a teller.
"Consensus" may be a dirty word and it may be very efficient from the point of view of a leader of the party who does not care much about the opinions of people who "are not one of us". But consensus is the very stuff of our democracy. This Bill is the product of an elective dictatorship and I believe that we should record our disapproval by voting against it.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, that was a stirring speech from the noble Lord, Lord Sefton of Garston, but I found it peculiarly difficult to agree with any of it. When the noble Lord says that he wants consensus I reply by asking: how can you have consensus when you have views as far apart as that expressed by the noble Lord— —
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, will the noble Earl give way?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I have just started!
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, I do not mind being criticised. I did not say that I wanted consensus. I merely pointed out that some people in political life will not wear it at any price.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, that is that! I expected the Bill to be difficult because the whole issue of official secrets is difficult. The drafting of the Bill is difficult because its nature is difficult. However, I had not expected the difficulty to arise on the Motion that the Bill do now pass.
My noble friend Lord Renton was kind enough to say that he felt some sympathy because I was disadvantaged by not having a legal background such as he has. I was grateful to him for that understanding. However, I assure my noble friend that from the start it is a formidable experience to be confronted by my noble friend Lord Renton, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter and the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington. If I have not measured up correctly or with equal ability then I apologise.
The Bill has been difficult because its whole nature is difficult. I make no bones about it and do not suggest otherwise. Equally I accept the fact that your Lordships have tried to get it right and have wanted to do so. I believe that to be wholly worthy. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said that he wished the Government would have respect for the arguments of other people. We have respected the arguments. There have been occasions on which we have been unable to agree with the arguments but I believe that, taking his normally generous view, the noble Lord will agree that they have been respected. Of course there is a divergence of views.
The noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, said that this measure is long overdue. He is entirely right. It is long overdue because it has been difficult to obtain any consensus of opinion upon it. Ten years ago we tried to do so and produced a Bill which did not meet with the accord of Parliament. It has not been an easy matter.
I was sorry to hear the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, say that it is not a liberalising measure. I believe that it is. It is a brave step to decide to limit the scope of criminal law as proposed in the Bill. If it limits the scope of the criminal law then, presumably, it must release some people who would otherwise be curtailed by it. At least in that respect it is a liberalising measure.
My noble friend Lord Thomas of Swynnerton agreed with that view and I was grateful to him. He said that 95 per cent. of those who would otherwise be caught will not now be so. He is a brave person for giving percentages but I should not wish either to confirm them or to follow him. However, I shall say that he has pointed his arrow in the right direction.

1105
The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, said that because of the adjournment he did not have the opportunity of "going" for the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby. He made up for that on our return. The noble Lord, Lord Hatch, again mentioned his great concern about the Bill. He returned to the question of the Ponting case which he said that I have not answered. He is right: I have not done so. I do not propose to do so because in the Bill we try to see a new range of protections and freedoms for the future. The principle is that the measures can be decided by the jury. We do ourselves a disservice and cause frustration by trying to ask how such and such a case would have been altered, and we also do so by asking how a case which was decided some years ago in different circumstances would be changed under a new set of circumstances. How can one tell? How can one say what view a jury will take? I do not believe that that is a profitable exercise.
Some noble Lords have said that it is necessary to have a consensus but I believe that to be difficult. There is a wide divergence of opinion and one must try to obtain a common denominator of agreement. We have tried to achieve that. I believe that that is what your Lordships have agreed to. There has been a common denominator of agreement both in another place and in your Lordships' House. We have not been guilty, as the noble Lord, Lord Sefton of Garston, said, of not accepting anyone else's views. If he has followed the proceedings on this Bill, he will see that we have accepted other views and have brought forward amendments to accommodate those views.
Perhaps I may say this on the situation in which we find ourselves, because I believe that it is quite important. There was an unusual occurrence in that we adjourned in the middle of this debate on the Motion that the Bill do now pass. I believe that it is wise to look back and see what happened. My noble friend Lord Renton tabled an amendment on Third Reading on a matter about which he was quite concerned. He took a certain view about it. I tried to give the Government's view; namely, that we felt the noble Lord was wrong. My noble friend Lord Renton thought that we were wrong. That is not an unusual state in which your Lordships find yourselves periodically. The matter was up to my noble friend, because had he felt strongly he could have put it to a Division. I believe that out of courtesy and practicality he decided not to do that. Therefore, that stage passed.
My noble friend and other noble Lords were still concerned that there was a difficulty, and they did not feel happy. Before I suggested that the House be adjourned, I explained that we did not wish to push—and I believe that I used the word "steamroller"—the Bill through if there was a degree of concern. Therefore, we adjourned the business in order to try to see whether we could better understand the areas of concern.
I am bound to tell your Lordships, as has my noble friend Lord Belstead, that the House has completed its consideration of the Bill on Third Reading and that therefore there was no procedural possibility of amending the Bill thereafter. However, on a matter as sensitive as that I did not wish to see your
1106
Lordships inconvenienced or disgruntled, if I may put it that way, over the way in which this matter was handled. Therefore I wished to give your Lordships the opportunity of discussing the matter, and we have done that.
Procedurally the amendments cannot be made because the Bill has reached its present stage. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, asked whether anything could be done as there was merit in the amendment of my noble friend Lord Renton. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said that there was merit in it, but I believe I should point out that although the Government understood the reason for the amendment we took a contrary view. As I said and as I repeat, I shall draw this matter to the attention of my right honourable friend. It is right that I should do so as it is a matter of concern. What action can be taken thereafter is, as the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, rightly said, a matter for the future, if action should be taken. I do not say whether or not action should be taken. However, I undertake to draw the point of concern to the attention of my right honourable friend. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and my noble friend Lord Renton will accept and understand that.
I am grateful to your Lordships for the consideration which has been given to this Bill. I believe that it is a matter of considerable significance that the Government are ready to leave it to the jury to decide the main issues which the Bill establishes. The Bill which leaves your Lordships' House is significant and is a necessary reform of an area of our public life which for far too long has defeated the ingenuity and the imagination of Parliament and the Executive. I hope that this Bill will meet the needs of the nation because it properly protects the interests of the nation—that much arid no more. I am grateful to your Lordships for the consideration and understanding which has been shown as regards this Bill.
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Police Officers (Central Service) Bill [H.L.]
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be read a third time.
As I said on Second Reading, this is a small Bill and a non-conroversial one. Although small, nevertheless it affects some 600 police officers who are seconded to central services in England, Wales and Scotland. Its sole purpose is to overcome certain difficulties which have arisen over the status of those officers. I commend the Bill to your Lordships.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time—(The Earl of Arran.)
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, the House will be grateful for that short, concise and courteous description of this Bill. We have no observation to make except to thank the noble Earl for the way in which he has presented it.
On Question, Bill read a third time.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass—(The Earl of Arran.)
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

Disabled Persons (Northern Ireland) Bill
6.46 p.m.
Lord Blease: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
This Private Member's Bill was sponsored by the honourable Member for Belfast, South, the Reverend Martin Smyth. I am pleased to add that in accordance with the procedures in another place, the Bill was presented by the Reverend Martin Smyth with strong cross-party support. The principle of the Bill is parity—parity by the enactment of measures for disabled people in Northern Ireland equivalent to the measures available to disabled people in the rest of the United Kingdom.
The Northern Ireland Bill is drafted actively to reflect the measures in the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986. That includes various provisions designed to improve the co-ordination and effectiveness of services for disabled people in the Province. The services involved are in the main those concerned with the planning and delivery of health and personal social service matters.
In particular, the new legislative measures for Northern Ireland will not only bring the Province in line with the rest of the United Kingdom but will also enable a number of relevant legal inadequacies to be tackled. Above all else, the legislation will help disabled people to have a much greater say in decisions affecting their own lives. The new proposed consultative processes will enhance the sense of personal dignity and well-being of disabled people. The current position concerning services for disabled people in Northern Ireland is that designated services are provided under the Health and Personal Social Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1972 and the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons (Northern Ireland) Act 1978.
In passing, I wish to pay tribute to the parliamentary representative work of my noble friend Lord Fitt. It was my noble friend Lord Fitt who, when a Member of another place, successfully sponsored and had enacted the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons (Northern Ireland) Act 1978. That legislative measure was achieved by the hard work of my noble friend Lord Fitt some eight years after the legislation was introduced for England and Wales. From my knowledge and direct experience I can state that much of the reason for the delay then in providing that important legislation for Northern Ireland was the high political preoccupation with the issues of civil disorder and the then rampant terrorism in the Province. Sadly, the saga continues today. Many vital and necessary beneficial social and economic measures are being seriously hampered and denied to the people of Northern
1108
Ireland by the criminal action of paramilitaries and terrorists.
However, we have a time lag of some three years since the enactment of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986. One of the reasons that has prevented any earlier attempt to replicate for Northern Ireland the measures contained in the 1986 Act is the difference in the administrative structure of the health and personal social services in the Province compared with the structures and responsibilities of these services in Great Britain. Northern Ireland has an integrated structure for delivery of both health and personal social services. This integrated structure I believe provides a number of administrative factors which could, should the Government propose legislation, be implemented with speed, efficiency and effectiveness as resources become available.
There already exists in Northern Ireland close working relationships between the different professional disciplines. There is also a highly developed single avenue of access to a whole range of services where people require help from the facilities and provisions provided by the health and personal social services. Therefore, I am confident that the enactment of this Bill will be warmly welcomed by the providers and the consumers, by the professionals and the administrators, and by disabled people and their carers in Northern Ireland. The Bill should be a valuable addition to the existing legislative and administrative framework for the delivery of health and personal social services in the Province.
The Bill consists of 12 relatively short clauses which mirror the parent 1986 Act. At this Second Reading stage of the Bill I wish to deal briefly with the key elements of the respective clauses. However, before I do so I should mention first the definition of the words "disabled person" as contained in the Bill. Clause 11, at page 11, line 36 of the Bill, states:
"disabled person" means a person to whom section 1 of the 1978 Act applies".
We turn now to Section 1 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons (Northern Ireland) Act 1978 which states:
"The Department of Health and Social Services for Northern Ireland shall inform itself of the number of and, so far as reasonably practicable, the identity of persons who are blind, deaf and dumb, and other persons who are substantially handicapped by illness, injury or congenital deformity and whose handicap is of a permanent or lasting nature or are suffering from a mental disorder within the meaning of the Mental Health Act (Northern Ireland) 1961, and of the need for the making by that Department of arrangements for promoting the social welfare of such persons under Articles 4(b) and 15 of the Health and Personal Social Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1972".
I should add a caveat that the Mental Health Act (Northern Ireland) 1961 was amended by the Mental Health (Northern Ireland) Order 1986, but that clause stands as I have already quoted. Therefore, the situation is that "disabled person" covers all aspects of mental and other forms of physical disability.
Clauses 1 and 2 provide for the appointment of authorised representatives of disabled persons and the rights of authorised representatives of disabled persons. These two clauses provide, for the first time

1109
in Northern Ireland, a legal framework for advocacy and representation. An authorised representative is appointed by or for a disabled person, to act on his or her behalf in relation to the provision of personal social services by a health and social services board. The authorised representative may accompany the disabled person to meetings or interviews arranged by the board and can receive information and inspect any documents to which the disabled person would have access. Where the disabled person is living in a certain hospital or other accommodation his representative may visit him and interview him in private.
Clause 3 deals with the assessment of the personal social services needs of a disabled person. This clause is intended to facilitate constructive communication between a health and social services board and a disabled person when his or her personal social service needs are being assessed. The clause establishes procedures to ensure that when a health and social services board assesses these needs the disabled person or his representative has an opportunity to make representations about his needs. The board must also, if asked, provide a written statement specifying its decision and its reasons.
Clause 4 confirms that a board must assess the needs of a disabled person for any of the social welfare services listed in Section 2 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons (Northern Ireland) Act 1978 when asked to do so by specified persons.
I said I would deal briefly with the clauses but I mention the importance of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons (Northern Ireland) Act. Section 2 contains eight subsections which deal with the practical assistance that may be given to a disabled person, such as obtaining wireless, television, recreational facilities, the opportunity to attend lectures, telephone arrangements and a host of matters that can now be enshrined in law for the benefit of the disabled in Northern Ireland.
Clauses 5 and 6 establish procedures aimed at ensuring that disabled young people have a smooth transition from full-time education to adult life. An education and library board and a health and social services board are required to co-operate in identifying disabled young people. A health and social services board must then arrange for an assessment of their personal social services needs to be made before they leave full-time education.
Northern Ireland already has a legislative framework to keep health and social services boards informed of when disabled children leave school, within which an education and library board is required to notify the appropriate health and social services board of a child who is about to leave or has left school if the education board considers that he or she needs further care, treatment or supervision because of physical, intellectual, emotional or social development.
Clause 7 deals with persons discharged from hospital accommodation. It deals with procedures designed to ensure that when a person leaves hospital after receiving medical treatment for mental illness or mental handicap as an in-patient for six months
1110
or more, the health and social services board responsible for the hospital must notify the health and social services board responsible for the area in which the person is likely to live after discharge. If the person is less than 19 years old t he appropriate education and library board must also be notified. Unless the person objects, arrangements must then be made for an assessment of his needs for both health services and personal social services.
Clause 8 requires a health and social services board, when assessing the personal social services needs of a disabled person who is receiving substantial care from another person, I o take account of the ability of the carer to continue to provide appropriate care. Boards are also required to provide interpretation services if the carer is unable to communicate because of disability.
The inclusion of Clause 8 in the Bill is welcomed in Northern Ireland. It is the first time in Northern Ireland's legislation that this very valuable contribution made by the carers of disabled people, often at the cost of considerable personal sacrifice, has been recognised. One could go on to illustrate the problems of those people who are caring for elderly people, or elderly people caring for their younger children. They do so at great personal sacrifice and at times it may be very much a cause of deterioration in their own health. This is a welcome clause. Carers will be brought to the fore and will receive the attention they deserve in the legislation of Northern Ireland.
Clause 9 deals with appointments to the committees and organisations which deal with the special needs of disabled persons. It stipulates that such bodies should be properly consulted. Clause 10 is the kind of clause that is normally included in such Bills. It states:
"The Department shall annually lay before the Northern Ireland Assembly a report containing the following information".
Since the suspension of the Northern Ireland Assembly the information is normally included in the records of another place and of this House. Members of another place with constituencies in Northern Ireland, and Members of this House with an interest in Northern Ireland, will normally be supplied with the documentation and reports. This will open up the reports to debate, if necessary in the Chamber.
During the Third Reading debate of the Bill in another place it was pointed out that five sections of the 1986 Act have still to be implemented. It was claimed that the reason for the delay was lack of resources. However, this aspect of the 1986 Act is outside the scope of the Second Reading debate of the Disabled Persons (Northern Ireland) Bill. I mention the matter of implementation because it relates directly to the financial implications of the Bill and the resources that will be required by the Northern Ireland departments and the health and social services boards. I understand that during the Third Reading debate in another place on 7th April 1989 the Northern Ireland Minister, Mr. Richard Needham, welcomed and supported the Bill and indicated at col. 532 of the Official Report that steps would be taken to discuss the costs of this legislation once it is introduced.

1111
At the beginning of the debate I mentioned that the Reverend Martin Smyth, the honourable Member who sponsored the Bill, had strong cross-party support for its enactment. I wish to add that during the debate in another place the Reverend Smyth expressed his appreciation of the helpful guidance he had received from the Minister, Mr. Richard Needham, and from the Northern Ireland DHSS officials on the drafting and presentation of the Bill. I am encouraged by this indication of government support for the Bill and am pleased to see that the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, is to take part in the debate. I am sure that he will confirm this support.
I am honoured and privileged to be invited to present the Bill to the House. It is an important and necessary legislative measure for Northern Ireland and should help considerably to improve and add to the care arrangements and facilities for disabled people that are currently provided in Northern Ireland. These will be enshrined in law and should enable disabled people to have a greater personal fulfilment in life and actively to share in community affairs in the Province. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Blease.)
7.4 p.m.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I have spoken enough in your Lordships' House today. I do not propose to inflict more than a brief few words in connection with the Bill. I am sure that the House will want to thank the noble Lord, Lord Blease, for introducing this extremely important and necessary measure which I should like to support on my own behalf and and on behalf of my noble friends on these Benches.
As the noble Lord explained, the Bill is about disabled people, of whom, I understand, there is a higher proportion in Northern Ireland than on the mainland. Therefore it answers a need which is already met by the parallel Act which came into effect in this country three years ago. The Bill is not only about disabled people but about the resources which are available to them. It is also about consultation—the right not only of disabled people to be consulted, but also the right of the organisations which represent them. It is no doubt the case that such consultation already takes place. It is nonetheless important that this should be enforceable in law. The Bill confers a duty on local authorities to intervene before rather than after the event; to prevent a disaster rather than to try to clear up after the disaster has occurred.
Clause 7 seems to be of particular importance today. It is concerned with the transition of disabled persons from care—either hospital or institutional —to the outside world. "Care in the community" is a fashionable phrase these days. It sounds marvellous but is so only if resources and people are available in the community to provide the disabled person with the care that he or she needs. Hence the transitional arrangements are of the greatest importance. Transitional arrangements may cover a handicapped child, a mentally handicapped child
1112
leaving school or an institution for the wider community. The Bill makes provision for that particularly delicate and important situation. I feel that this clause needs careful examination.
I have only two other things to say. First, it is extremely important that the Bill should be implemented rapidly; secondly, adequate resources should be provided in order to make it effective. I understand that in the early stages of the implementation of the equivalent provision in this country the resources were inadequate and the implementation rather slow. I trust that we will have learnt from that experience and that in Northern Ireland, where the Bill will meet a longstanding need, resources will be made available and that implementation of the Bill will be rapid. I should like once more to thank the noble Lord, Lord Blease, and to express our support for the Bill.
7.8 p.m.
Lord Fitt: My Lords, I too wish to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Blease, on his presentation of the Bill and thank the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, for his helpful remarks in relation to it. Although it is only a small Bill it will have tremendous effect on the everyday lives of those sections of the community which are sorely in need of all the attention we can give them. They are among the most vulnerable groups in our society. I refer to the disabled, the elderly, psychiatric patients and families under stress.
In 1978 I had the great pleasure and honour to pilot through another place what became the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons (Northern Ireland) Act. Before bringing that matter before Parliament I obtained a medical dictionary, because during all the years that I lived in Northern Ireland I was told that there was a higher incidence of disease and disability there as opposed to other parts of the United Kingdom. Many of the words in the dictionary were unpronounceable for me, but I put down a series of Questions to the relevant Minister in another place to ask how many instances of different diseases or disabilities the Government had on record. For example, I asked about multiple sclerosis, spina bifida, and Down's syndrome and, much to my amazement, the answer I received was that the Government did not know. They had no idea of the numbers of people in Northern Ireland who were suffering from specific diseases.
That is why, when the Bill eventually became law, Clauses 1 and 2 laid a responsibility on local authorities and health service boards to ascertain the number of people in Northern Ireland who would need help or who would benefit by that legislation. I should have hoped that Sections 1 and 2 of that Act would have had the effect that I intended them to have. But I am not quite certain that local authorities have lived up to their responsibilities and have really acted on the instructions which were very clearly laid down in Sections 1 and 2.
I have received today—and I am certain that the Minister will be aware of it—a communication from the Citizens Advice Bureaux in Northern Ireland which carried out a survey between July and October last year. They found in respect of existing legislation

1113
that there were four major areas of complaint. First, there is a lack of knowledge about the benefits available among clients and social workers. Secondly, there are difficulties in claiming benefits due to strict interpretation of the qualifying criteria. Thirdly, there have been cuts in the availability of home helps—and, in relation to what has just been said by the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, there must be adequate resources if we are to implement the provisions of this Bill. Fourthly, the early discharge of people from hospitals without proper support is causing great concern to the Citizens Advice Bureaux.
As in previous legislation relating to Northern Ireland, there is a key clause in this Bill and that is Clause 7, because it covers people who are being released from institutionalised care into the community. They are released into the hands of carers who have been referred to by my noble friend Lord Blease. In many cases the carers are members of one's own family and they would be quite prepared, if they had adequate resources, to care for their ageing relatives. After all, the motive behind the legislation is to take people out of institutions and put them into a caring community; if at all possible, into the hands of their own family.
I found during the course of the debate in the other House that when the Minister was talking about people being released from institutionalised care, psychiatric hospitals etc., he said:
"People are not moved out of hospitals or institutions without there being a plan for them to go into the community".—[Official Report, Commons, 22/3/89, col. 8].
The organisation to which I have referred contradicts that. It says that it has a complaint on record and that,
"Psychiatric social workers also seem to be very thin on the ground in that patients are being discharged from hospital and receiving little transitional support in the community. Two cases from one bureau illustrate how the client or the family has to make the first approach to social services."
It goes on to quote:
"A client was released from a psychiatric hospital and had no money and nowhere to live. After we contacted the Social Services they agreed to see him that afternoon".
I suggest that before that person was released from hospital, all necessary steps should have been taken regarding how he was leaving, where he was going when he left, what accommodation he would have, who would be the carers and what financial wherewithal would be given by the social services. That is what this Bill is intended to ensure. But that was also the intention by Sections 1 and 2 of the 1978 Act when a responsibility was placed upon the local authorities.
My noble friend Lord Blease has mentioned two other significant clauses, Clauses 5 and 6. They relate to disabled young people who are suffering from specific diseases or disabilities. I believe that where there is a disability or a disease affecting young people it should elicit more compassion, because those young people have all their lives to live with that affliction and no effort should be spared by local authorities to make their lives easier.
The document which I have received also refers to the Griffiths Report. Evidently that committee sat
1114
for 13 months inquiring into the specific problems which arise as regards carers in the community and putting people from institutionalised care into community care. They say—and I have had no further communication from them—that 13 months seems to be a very long delay if action is to be taken on this report. This report is not being acted upon. I will not say that it is being pigeon-holed, but I believe that whatever action may be taken upon it in this part of the United Kingdom will not be taken in Northern Ireland. I know that the Minister in another place said that Northern Ireland is different and that it is not necessary to wait for the conclusions of the Griffiths Report to be debated, as action can be taken within the Northern Ireland context.
This Bill comes as a result of the Act which went through in 1986. That Act led to the promulgation of this Bill by Martin Smyth, the Member for Belfast, South. He also is deserving of our congratulations and commendation for showing such care. I know from reports that I have had from Northern Ireland that he is very caring about disabled people.
I should also say—my noble friend Lord Blease will be aware of this—that one of the great advantages of this legislation is that disabled people will have representation as of right. They will not have to go to some locally elected representative and depend on his goodwill, as to whether or not he will have time to represent them at a local tribunal or at a hearing in respect of disability.
I was a member of a local authority in Belfast for many years. A great deal of my time was spent—and I was happy to do so—in representing people at local tribunals. I found that when they had a solicitor to represent them, that solicitor was not behind the door in charging them for his services. On the local tribunals, as they were then constituted, there was a chairman, an employers' representative, a local authority representative and a trade union representative.
I should say that when the Bill was going through another place there was some implied or slight criticism of trade unionists in respect of restrictive practices in relation to some legislation. I can only say, with years of experience, that trade union members in Northern Ireland, particularly those who sat on the local tribunals, showed every ounce of concern and compassion for those who were afflicted with a disability and had to appear before them.
My noble friend Lord Blease was a distinguished member of a trade union for many years, and he will be aware of the concern and compassion that was shown by the trade union movement as regards claims and representation on behalf of disabled people. That is why I am glad to welcome the legislation which makes it a responsibility to ensure that disabled people will, as of right, and without begging or seeming to beg, be able to have representations made on their behalf.
This is a small Bill. I must say that I am very happy with all its clauses. However, I should like to see it implemented as quickly as possible with all the necessary resources. Of course I know that we shall never be happy with the amount of resources which are made available, but that is a fact of life.

1115
We shall never be happy in that respect because there will always be a disparity between the amount of money needed and the amount of money actually provided. I believe that the maximum possible should be provided so as to alleviate the suffering of people in Northern Ireland who are victims of disablement and disease through no fault of their own. It is up to those of us who have all our physical and mental capabilities to do what we can to help those who are less fortunate than ourselves.
7.21 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Blease for introducing this Bill to your Lordships' House. Indeed, it is deserving and fitting that a Bill which will enhance the services for the disabled, and which recognises the human dignity of the disabled person, should be presented to this House by my noble friend. He has toiled tirelessly throughout his life for the disadvantaged people of his native Northern Ireland, to which he is always so loyal.
My noble friend has introduced the Bill with characteristic sincerity and modesty. I think it is most appropriate that the Bill should be supported by all the political parties and all the voluntary organisations which have a primary interest in services for disabled people, or in some aspects of those services. My noble friend has handsomely acknowledged that in a sense he is building upon the earlier structure which was constructed by my noble friend Lord Fitt.
As my noble friend clearly explained, the Bill puts into Northern Ireland legislation the provisions contained in the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986 which applies to England, Wales and Scotland. The Bill's principles are identified in its Long Title. They are three in number: the provision of services; adequate consultation; and adequate representation of the views of disabled people by disabled people themselves, wherever that is possible.
In another place the Northern Ireland Minister with responsibility for health made known on many occasions that in the circumstances and in the context of Northern Ireland the Bill merely carries good practice into legislation. I am not quite sure what to make of that statement. In a sense it could be argued that it is the weakest of all ministerial arguments, if it be true. But nevertheless the effect of placing good practice on a statutory basis should never be underestimated, because it converts good practice into a legal right and a correlative legal duty. I very much agree with my noble friend Lord Fitt that to give rights and duties a source in law, a source in an Act of Parliament, must inevitably be to the positive advantage of disabled people and their families in Northern Ireland.
My noble friend Lord Blease explained that the Bill follows closely the provisions contained in the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986. I assume from that that experience since 1986 in England, Wales and Scotland of those parts of the Act which have been activated has not indicated the need to amend any
1116
of the provisions. It would indeed be reassuring to know if that is the case.
As I say, the Bill is almost identical to the 1986 Act, or is almost an exact replica of it. However, it appears to me—although I could well be mistaken—that the 19th birthday of a disabled person has a different significance under Sections 5 and 7 of the Great Britain legislation from that which is proposed in Clauses 5 and 7 of the Bill now before us. As the reason for that difference may not immediately be apparent—at least, it is certainly not apparent to me—I wonder whether the explanation is to be found in the law on children which applies exclusively to Northern Ireland; or perhaps it is the case that there is no significant difference between the Bill and the Act in that respect. It may be that I have just missed the point.
As my noble friend Lord Blease explained, Clause 10 of the Bill provides for an annual report to be presented and laid before the Assembly. The report must contain the information which is specified in that clause. That mirrors the Great Britain legislation which provides under Section 11 for a similar annual report to be laid before Parliament. Perhaps the Minister will kindly confirm that in the absence of a Northern Ireland Assembly—wevery much regret the absence of an Assembly—the annual report will at least be published and made easily available to all those who are concerned with the services for the disabled, and that it will also be made available to Parliament. Further, what will become of the annual report? Is it contemplated that the Secretary of State will invite the health and social boards, or perhaps the Housing Executive and any other relevant bodies, such as the education board and voluntary organisations, to comment upon the contents of the annual report to see how gaps in the service which are disclosed by such a report can be made good?
I have just one further question for the Minister. It is a question which has already been asked by the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, and by my noble friends Lord Fitt and Lord Blease. It is this. When will the provisions of the Bill be activated? If it is the case, as the Minister explained in another place, that in practice no new duties or rights are involved, is there any good reason for not implementing all the provisions at the same time and at an early date? If that is not the case, is it contemplated that Northern Ireland will have to wait upon the implementation of the 1986 Act in the rest of the United Kingdom?
I am sure that there is no need for me to reinforce the plea which has already been made by every speaker in this short debate; namely, that it is most desirable that on the issue of disability the pace of progress in Northern Ireland should not be dictated by the lower pace and the lower rate which is contemplated for the rest of the United Kingdom.
Clearly we on these Benches give our full support to this worthwhile legislation. Once again, I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Blease for his contribution, of which he can be proud.
7.30 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Lyell): My Lords, I

1117
shall start by reiterating the concluding remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies. The whole House, and all of us who work in Northern Ireland, are immensely proud of and grateful for the work, attention, love, care and skill that the noble Lord, Lord Blease, has devoted to the Bill. He took up the running of a Bill which was started by the honourable Member for Belfast, South, the Rev. Martin Smyth. I and my ministerial colleagues welcome the Bill. As the noble Lord, Lord Blease, said, it is designed to extend to disabled people in Northern Ireland the rights and benefits which are accorded to disabled people in the rest of the United Kingdom by the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986 of which we have heard a good deal this evening.
If the Bill successfully completes its passage through your Lordships' House, of which I have no doubt, it will be a valuable addition to the legislative base for services for disabled people in Northern Ireland. I wish to record my thanks to, and admiration of, the noble Lord, Lord Blease, for proposing the measure and for the succinct way in which he went through the Bill almost clause by clause. He did not go into some of the latter clauses in great detail. We may find some fascinating points if we look there. The noble Lord gave an example of how to pick the important details of a Bill of this nature.
The common thread of the queries raised by all noble Lords who have spoken relates to the Bill's implementation. As with the 1986 Act for England and Wales, this will be phased over a period of time, which is what your Lordships would expect. Secondly, it will depend upon the necessary resources being available. It is the Government's intention to proceed as quickly as circumstances and, above all, resources allow. The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, was worried about whether implementation of the Act in Northern Ireland would depend upon the implementation of the 1986 Act in England and Wales. I hasten to tell him that implementation will be a matter for Northern Ireland itself.
The noble Lord also asked about the report mentioned in Clause 10. It was, if I may paraphrase what he said, an invitation to interested parties. The noble Lord and the noble Lord, Lord Blease, will know that there is no need to invite comments; they will come in. Given the nature of the integrated system for health and social services in Northern Ireland, I have no doubt that through the report and in the course of implementing the Bill, the Department of Health and Social Services and the personal social services will be in touch with virtually all the interested parties about whom the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, was thinking. If there are any gaps we shall consider the matter.
The noble Lord, Lord Blease, was a little worried about the scope of the Bill. I reiterate what has been strongly emphasised about the scope of the Bill. Like the 1986 Act, the implementation of the Bill's provisions will be phased. This will depend upon the resources being available. I reiterate the pledge given by my honourable friend the Minister responsible for health and personal social services in Northern
1118
Ireland at col. 6 of the Official Report of another place on 27th March. I add my pledge to that one.
The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, was also concerned about the rapid implementation of the provisions. I believe that the confirmation that I have given to the noble Lord, Lord Blease, will satisfy the noble Lord. The noble Lord, Lord Fitt, was worried about whether there was any record of the number of people in Northern Ireland suffering from specific disabilities. I am not aware of any sweeper system whereby we maintain lists. If I obtain any information on that matter, I shall inform the noble Lord and forward a copy to the noble Lord, Lord Blease.
The noble Lord, Lord Fitt, mentioned documents and information from the Citizens Advice Bureaux. I have seen nothing from that organisation. I cannot speak for my honourable friend the Minister, but if he has received anything I shall inform the noble Lord. As far as I understand it, the Government have received nothing. The noble Lord mentioned one case. If he lets me or my honourable friend have the details, we shall pursue the point.
The noble Lord also mentioned the Griffiths Report. I reiterate what was said by my honourable friend the Minister in another place. On Third Reading my honourable friend was replying to a question from the honourable Member for Redcar. I hope that I am permitted to quote from the record of another place so that the Government's intention is clear and put beyond doubt. My honourable friend said:
"The 1986 Act was appropriate for Northern Ireland because in Northern Ireland the social services and health boards are integrated" —(Official Report, Commons, 7/4/79; col. 531.]
He went on to say that that was why the Griffiths Report did not have the relevance to Northern Ireland that it had to the rest of Britain. I hope that that information will be of some help to the noble Lord, Lord Fitt. It will no doubt also assist the noble Lord, Lord Blease. If there is anything further, I am sure that both noble Lords, will be in touch with me.
Your Lordships will not wish to hear any more from me. I shall not take what I call "the glory" from the noble Lord, Lord Blease. I moved a similar measure from the Opposition Benches 12 years ago. The noble Lord, Lord Blease, is an example to us all in the care that he has taken and the research that he has done. We are all grateful to him, and we are full of admiration for the way in which he proposed the measure.
7.37 p.m.
Lord Blease: My Lords, I wish to thank all noble Lords who have taken part for their kind words. I am only the carrier of good tidings. The Bill is the result of the Rev. Martin Smyth's success in the ballot. He chose the subject. He will be pleased to hear the pleasant remarks that have been made in the House. We are delighted to know that the Bill is supported. We shall be looking anxiously for its implementation. We shall have further pleasure from that.
I shall make a few brief remarks, because the Bill has been well covered during the debate. I totally

1119
agree with what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, about care in the community and I thank him for his kind support. Too often in various parts of the community we see that it is not "care in the community" but, sadly, "care by the community". We want to change that completely. The rights of the disabled should stand on their own and the carers should be taken care of.
I fully support the point about implementation made by the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter. He mentioned the high incidence of disability in Northern Ireland. I agree that on that matter there are many factors involved, and any data or information I possess shows the trend. It is blamed on high unemployment, social deprivation, the volume of debt, and even the water we drink in Northern Ireland is supposed to be responsible for disabilities, as are marital problems and the different cultures. The age and number of children also give rise to such factors. It has even been stated that the Celtic culture and habits are responsible.
What I can say is that I am aware that an assessment has already been made and a survey carried out on disability in Northern Ireland. I understand that the assessment has been conducted and undertaken by the Government along the lines of the Sumner survey taken in Great Britain. I believe it has been taken over by a department of government, it will take two years to complete and has now been under way for six months. The rights of representations were dealt with by my noble friend Lord Fitt, and I thank him for his very practical contribution to the debate. My noble friend Lord Prys-Davies, with other noble Lords, went into this aspect in great detail, having given considerable thought to the Second Reading of the Bill.
Perhaps I may attempt to deal with one point raised, that there was no mention of 19 year-olds. I understand from the Notes on Clauses that Clause 5(9) gives the definition of "child". It says:
" 'child' means a child who is at least 5 and less than 16 years old and who is registered as a pupil at a school or institution of further education; in the case of a child with special educational needs the upper age limit is less than 19 years old' ".
If under 19 year-olds are not mentioned in the Bill, that age is certainly implied through reference to other legislation. I shall check that and come back at a later stage if the position is any different.
At this time in the evening I wish to thank the Minister for his pledge of support and for the fact that every effort will be made by the Government to implement the legislation as quickly as possible, and also that thought has been given to the need for financial resources in this respect. With that, I move the Second Reading of the Bill and commend it to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Parking Bill
7.44 p.m.
Lord Teviot: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. Thirty-three years ago
1120
Parliament accepted the recommendations of a government working party and agreed to an experiment with parking meters in central London. These were designed to help the short-term parker to secure efficient use of space at the kerbside, but frankly it was to stop selfish behaviour, which is still to be found at the kerbside where there are no meters. It was considered not unreasonable that the motorist should be asked to pay for parking. The recommended charge was sixpence for one hour, a shilling for two hours. That was in 1956. The enabling Act was the Road Traffic Act of that year.
Within five years, over 12,000 meters had been brought into operation in central London. Half as many spaces again were available for off-street parking. Meter schemes were gradually introduced in places as far afield as Bristol, Manchester, Newcastle and Southend. But it was already becoming difficult in the early 1960s to find an empty meter in parts of London during the day. The then Minister of Transport, Ernest Marples, recognised that meter charges needed to be increased if meter parking was to help secure a better balance between supply and demand.
Many of us here will recollect those days clearly, but we would do well to remember that this objective is at the heart of parking controls. On-street parking was an issue even before the days of motor vehicles. I am reminded of the celebrated case in 1812 in which the proprietor of a Greenwich stagecoach was prosecuted for allowing his coach and horses to stand on the public highway near Charing Cross for long periods between his twice daily trips to London. Private carriages were thereby obstructed from access to houses on the opposite side of the road. The then Lord Ellenborough upheld a charge of unauthorised obstruction of the highway with the immortal words:
"No one can make a stableyard of the King's Highway".
I will proceed with my introduction before noble Lords seek to draw modern day parallels from this episode.
To return to meters: in 1963 the Minister of Transport took powers to approve the type and design of parking meters. That power remains with the Secretary of State to this day. It is now in the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. Whilst its origins may have been influenced by concerns about the environmental and aesthetic aspects of the first parking meters, there is a more fundamental reason why it has become an established and accepted feature. The indications given by a parking meter can be used as evidence in criminal proceedings. Prior approval of equipment by the Secretary of State offers a safeguard to the public and ensures that minimum performance standards are met. The approval process is linked closely to appropriate British Standards, where possible.
This Bill is concerned only with methods of payment for parking. It seeks to conclude a piece of unfinished business following a similar measure brought to this House in 1986 by the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, and to the House of Commons by Mr. Kevin McNamara. It had become apparent at that time that the Secretary of State's

1121
powers of approval were limited to coin-operated equipment, that being the only form of equipment previously available. But new developments in parking technology were introducing the prospect of payment otherwise than by coins—for example, magnetic cards or tokens. The Road Traffic Regulation (Parking) Act 1986 therefore amended the existing legislation to permit "cashless" equipment to be approved for use on the street. This need not be limited to traditional parking meters. It may involve pay and display systems, now very common in local authority off-street car parks. Or it may cover the use of vouchers which can be bought in advance and displayed in the car window when the vehicle is parked. An excellent example of this is already operating successfully in Bath.
Electronic devices are also available which count down parking time while the motorist is absent and can be cancelled on his return. As yet no local authority has taken up this system, but one or two are seriously considering it at the moment. I am also informed that the system is widely used in Norway. Since 1986 it has become clear that the Secretary of State's powers to approve such equipment in local authorities' off-street car parks are still deficient. This Bill will put that right. Further, it will expand the methods of payment to include payment by bank notes in addition to coins, and by credit or debit cards.
Before I begin to explain the Bill, I should say that I am extremely pleased that I have had the privilege to be associated with it. The Bill was introduced in another place by Mr. Timothy Kirkhope who got the Bill through almost by an electric current. The Bill is an enabling Bill. It raises no new issues of principle nor does it impose any new duties or responsibilities on local authorities. However, local authorities remain the largest collective providers of off-street parking spaces nationally and, under the Bill, will be given greater freedom to introduce new payment systems for car parking. We owe it to them to see there is no impediment to the use of modern technology in this area.
Cashless systems have the advantage of reducing the amount of cash on the street and in car parks, which, as we know, can be prone to vandalism and theft. They offer benefits to the motorist who may choose to purchase a card or a book of vouchers in advance and so avoid the necessity of having to carry the correct change every time he or she wants to park. As we all know, when we go somewhere we do not quite know what coins to carry. That can cause difficulties.
The Bill will allow compatible equipment to be installed for both on-street and off-street parking. It should therefore open up a more stable market for the equipment manufacturers, of whom there are a number. I hope that they are watching now and that they will get the equipment ready by the time the Bill is enacted. I hope it will be enacted very soon.
I turn now to the Bill's provisions. Clause 1 sets out the main purpose of the Bill, and is largely modelled on the equivalent provisions in the 1986 Act for on-street equipment. It amends Section 35 of the 1984 Act to provide for the use of non-coin operated equipment at off-street car parks under
1122
local authority control. "Parking device" is shorthand for any method of paying in advance for parking, rather than by a coin in a slot at the time. The clause also enables the Secretary of State, by regulation, to amend the definition of "parking device" if technological advances produce variants which are not currently caught by the description given here. The negative resolution procedure is prescribed for that. The clause also contains a safeguard to ensure that the Bill does not disturb any existing arrangements.
Clause 2 re-enacts the existing provisions in the 1984 Act concerning offences for contravening or failing to comply with parking place orders, and for fraudulent misuse of apparatus or devices. These are essential to effective enforcement. The provisions are expanded to cover misuse of any apparatus or devices permitted under Clause 1. The Bill does not create any substantive new offences. Your Lordships will be pleased to hear that. The clause also defines the expressions "credit card" and "debit card". The basic distinction is that the former allows the user to defer payment, while the latter effects payment electronically at the point of use. Parking systems which accept credit cards are already in use at airports.
Clause 3 introduces the schedule which makes minor and consequential amendments to other legislative provisions to reflect the changes introduced in Clauses 1and 2. Clause 4 provides for the short title and leaves the Secretary of State to appoint a day for commencement. This would allow time for his department to issue any necessary advice or general approvals, and provides that the Bill, like its parent Act of 1984, does not extend to Northern Ireland.
The Bill has attracted widespread support and, to my knowledge, no real opposition from any quarter. That makes it a remarkable measure. I believe it will usefully clarify the law on this admittedly narrow aspect of parking. It will assist local authorities which are keen to exploit new approaches to car parking and to adopt new control systems which are efficient, secure and cost effective. Motorists will benefit from more choice and convenience in payment methods which the Bill will provide. I commend it to your Lordships' House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Teviot.)
7.55 p.m.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, for explaining the background to the Bill and its clauses. I echo what the noble Lord said as regards thanking Mr. Timothy Kirkhope, the Member of Parliament for Leeds North-East, who introduced the Bill in another place.
As the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, said, the Bill gives the same facilities for off-street parking as were approved in the Private Member's Bill, the Road Traffic Reglation (Parking) Act 1986, which dealt only with street parking. I want the Minister, if he can, to give the House some indication of how many authorities have used the provisions of1he 1986 Act. If only a few have done so, that does not necessarily

1123
mean that the Act is a bad Act. Perhaps the Minister can also tell us whether the same systems that are proposed for off-street parking can be used both for on-street and off-street parking when this Bill is passed.
Both legislative measures provide an opportunity for more effective and orderly use of approved parking places. The Bill is national in that it covers all of Great Britain. Although many cities have parking and congestion problems, in some cities the problems occur only at limited peak periods. The major problem is in London. The Bill is useful but we must not deceive ourselves that it offers the solution to all parking and congestion problems. I shall quote from the document published recently by the Department of Transport, entitled Transport in London. The document has a foreword by the Secretary of State which states:
"Sensible parking policies can make a significant contribution to tackling the problem of congestion. A single badly parked vehicle can halve the capacity of a road junction, reduce a dual carriageway to a single lane, or even block a road completely. London, particularly central London, cannot afford to see scarce road capacity squandered in this way".
I am one of those bad creatures who travel up to your Lordships' House by car, for various reasons, almost every day. I see the problem each time I travel here from the suburbs of Essex and through the City. Many motorists indulge in selfish, unthinking parking. There is also inadequate enforcement of parking regulations. I live in the Epping Forest district council area. It covers a number of separate districts, many of them divided by the forest. Where I live a traffic warden is seen once in a blue moon. However, I can think of two roads within a few hundred yards where buses and delivery vehicles constantly travel up and down. Despite that fact, people park on yellow lines and there enforcement of parking regulations again takes place once in a blue moon.
There is also the problem of residents and parking facilities. Where residents-only parking areas exist, the problem is resolved reasonably satisfactorily. However, even where there are residents-only parking areas, congestion still arises. The problem of residents and parking occurs not only in central London, but also in inner London and outer London. It is a severe problem. The Bill makes no reference to that problem. However, I thought that as the Bill is entitled the Parking Bill, I should make some general comments on parking problems without of course wishing to delay the business that is to follow.
Where there are no special residential parking areas, parking for residents is a problem. If one parks as one should, on the road, one creates the kind of phenomenon that the Department of Transport document mentions. On the other hand, if one thinks that because it is a narrow road one will park on the pavement, that is illegal. I travel through the City, Hackney, Leyton and Woodford where, frankly, the only places where residents can park their cars is on the pavements. That is unfair to pedestrians and particularly to the blind. Therefore it is a problem.
I am certain that both the Member for North-East Leeds who introduced the Bill in another place and
1124
the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, would agree that the other issue is whether easier parking will cause more car commuters to drive into central London and create greater congestion. That is a problem which has to be faced. Why do some of us, because it is convenient for other purposes, come by car?—because there is a car park outside the House of Lords. If I had to use the underground car park across the road, which is for season ticket holders only, it would cost me a fortune to park there every day. This is a useful Bill but we must not deceive ourselves that it solves all the poblems of parking or of congestion.
In my view there is a need for more parking facilities at surburban stations, both Underground and British Rail. When I travel to the House I cannot get into my local station car park, although it is a fairly substantial one, because it is full. On one occasion I had to pay to come out of the car park in order to take my car back home and somehow hobble on a bad leg back to the station, simply because I could not find a space in the car park. All the roads round the station have yellow lines and as a law-abiding motorist, I refuse to park on them.
We also have to look more carefully at the problems in relation to the effect of parking and congestion on public transport. I hope that we can deal with that aspect very thoroughly when we debate London transport in your Lordships' House on 3rd May.
With those general comments on the problems of parking, we give this Bill full approval in the hope that your Lordships' House will pass it.
8.2 p.m.
Lord Mountevans: My Lords, I too am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, for so ably introducing this Bill and for making clear to me one or two points which are not readily apparent. Although it is a modest measure it is not the most modest of Bills. I should also like to congratulate the honourable Member for Leeds North-East on getting the Bill to this stage.
As was touched upon by both the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, and the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, paid-for parking has a role to play in simplifying parking and thus a role to play in easing congestion. Legislating for the use of pre-paid stored value cards is, I believe, a definite step in the right direction. But I believe that legislation for the use of credit and debit cards is a much greater step in the right direction because it seems to me to take account of changes in our habits. In the old pre-inflationary days we used money to pay for an awful lot of things. Cheque cards had modest guarantee values. Nowadays some of us at least are used to using an international credit card rather than a pre-paid card to make a phone call from trains. Soon we shall be able to make phone calls from aeroplanes using an internationally recognised credit card. Therefore I feel that this is a step in the right direction. It brings systems of payment for parking into line with current practice. We all carry plastic nowadays.
The Bill would also make life easier for most of us in the sense of simply finding a parking space. It

1125
makes life easier for foreign visitors, who were so much my concern until very recently. It might even go some way, if suitable facilities are provided, to facilitate the parking of British and foreign coaches, a topic which crops up with considerable frequency in your Lordships' House, particularly in relation to central London. That is a point which the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, touched upon indirectly.
I realise that this is an easier payment-for-parking Bill rather an easier parking Bill. I go along with much of what the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, said. I read on the tapes this evening that the Secretary of State will perhaps announce a substantial cutting back of the red tape surrounding our road construction programme. That would be welcome if it helps people to get more easily from A to B. But there is no point in making their journey from A to B easier if there is nowhere for them to park when they reach point B, their destination.
We are not debating parking, and therefore I do not propose to make a speech on that subject. Far be it from me, as probably the only speaker tonight who does not hold and has never held a driving licence, to go into those eternal verities. I believe this is a very competent, very good, and super little Bill. I join both the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, and the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, in wishing it well.
8.5 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, it may be helpful if I intervene briefly to give the Government's view on the Bill. We are all grateful to my noble friend Lord Teviot for his explanation of what the Bill does.
The Government fully support the Bill. It is a detailed and somewhat technical measure but no less important for that. It is perhaps unfortunate that it is needed at all, but it was widely assumed in 1986 that the amendments then made to the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 would suffice. It was only when the department was subsequently approached with a request for approval of cashless equipment in an off-street car park that the Secretary of State's powers were found to be inadequate. This Bill offers an opportunity to put the matter right and we welcome it.
Local authorities have wide powers under the 1984 Act to designate parking places on highways in their area, and to provide off-street car parks. My noble friend Lord Teviot reminded us of the early history of parking meters. As he said, other methods have been developed which do not require every parking place on the street to be accompanied by a meter. I hope we can exploit those to the full, if only to help minimise the amount of clutter on our streets. This Bill should help authorities, and manufacturers, to continue to think imaginatively about methods of parking control, as well as to pursue systems which are secure, efficient to operate and easy to maintain.
As users, we should all welcome the prospect of greater choice in payment methods and the convenience which pre-paid cards, like phonecards, can offer. We live in an increasingly cashless society. There is no reason why we should not pay for parking
1126
by means other than cash at the point of sale, when so many other goods and services can be purchased in this way.
The Bill has a narrow and specific focus. Your Lordships can no doubt think of many other aspects of parking which they feel could be improved. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, mentioned badly or illegally parked cars. I entirely agree with what he said. My own experience is that they cause traffic jams far beyond the minor nature of the offence. The noble Lord also mentioned enforcement and the problem of pavement parking. All of those are problems which the Government need to tackle. The noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, mentioned the problem of coach parking.
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, asked me one specific question about what examples we had of the operation of the 1986 Act. A low technology voucher-style parking card system was approved in 1987 for use by Avon County Council in Bath. My noble friend Lord Teviot referred to that scheme in his opening remarks. Various local authorities are attracted by its undoubted success but are awaiting the results of a TRRL survey before proceeding themselves. With regard to high technology systems, both manufacturers and local authorities are awaiting the imminent publication of a British standard. I understand that several informal requests have been received by the department. A limited scheme has been introduced for coach parking in Westminster using card-operated machines. I understand that there is also a system in Birmingham but I do not have details of that scheme.
As the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, indicated, an important point in this Bill is that compatibility with off-street systems is likely to give an increased impetus to the introduction of new technology. This Bill will help to extend freedom of choice to providers and users alike. I therefore commend it to your Lordships.
8.9 p.m.
Lord Teviot: My Lords, I am most grateful to noble Lords who have stayed and taken part in the debate, and for the kind remarks that have been made.
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, rightly introduced the wider subject of parking, rather than keeping to the narrow aspects of the Bill. I hope that his points have been answered by my noble friend the Minister. I feel rather guilty because one or two other noble Lords had put down their names to speak but, owing to another engagement, could not be here. Convention does not allow me to deal with their points when they are not here, but the points raised by one absent friend were aptly dealt with by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, so I feel slightly less guilty about that. I regret the absence of the promised contribution from the Liberal Benches.
The noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, is raring to speak at any moment, as is the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, who simply cannot wait. I have been told to get on with my speech, as I shall do. My experience with this Bill has been most agreeable. This is the first time in 21 years that I have been asked to take on a Bill from the other place. It has been very nice to take on so successful a measure.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Dock Work Bill
8.11 p.m.
Lord McCarthy Lord McCarthy rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether, before proceeding further with the Dock Work Bill, they will refer to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission the allegedly restrictive labour practices in docks covered by the Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Act 1946.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in asking the Question in my name on the Order Paper, I should like to begin by trying to make clear to the House what an unprecedented position we are in with regard to the Dock Work Bill. It was only 18 days ago—indeed, only 11 parliamentary working days ago—that the Secretary of State for Employment rose in another place and announced the abolition of the dock labour scheme. The Second Reading of the Bill took place seven days ago and the Bill goes into Committee tomorrow. We understand from the Government, through the usual channels, that they have every hope that the Bill will be enacted in late June or early July.
That degree of speed is without precedent. Not only has there been speed, but there has also been no preparation for the policy as a policy. On 10th March 1988, in reply to a debate on the subject, the Under-Secretary of State at the Department of Employment said that the Government had no plans to abolish the scheme. On 19th January this year, at Question Time, the Prime Minister said that she had to disappoint honourable Members in another place in their expectations and hopes that the dock labour scheme would be abolished. On 20th March, when the Government published their latest Green Paper on removing barriers to employment—which will subsequently find enactment in a further employment Bill next year—the Secretary of State said that he had nothing more to add to the statement of the Prime Minister on 19th January.
There has therefore been no previous announcement. Nothing was mentioned in the Conservative Party election manifesto or in the Queen's Speech; yet, two weeks after the statement, a White Paper is published, the First Reading is the following day and the Bill is to be steamrollered through both Houses.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Disgraceful!
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, there was no consultation and no discussion. The Government will push the Bill through in that way. There has never been a precedent for such action, certainly not in the field of industrial relations. Employment Bills in 1980, 1982, 1984, 1986 and 1988 were all preceded by consultation documents, Green Papers or White Papers, as has been the present Employment Bill and next year's employment Bill. There has never been such a precedent in the field of industrial relations, nor has there been a precedent outside.
1128
If we examine the Government's present policies, we see that there have been Green Papers or White Papers and consultation documents on their proposals for the National Health Service, water privatisation, the poll tax, football membership and reform of the legal profession. Indeed, because of the problems and difficulties that have arisen and the consultation and representation that has taken place during the passage of the football membership legislation and during discussions on the reform of the legal profession, those proposals are either being delayed or more time is being taken to bring them forward. No such precedent has been set by this Government or any previous peacetime government.
What can be the possible justification for that combination of secrecy and immediacy? We know what the Government will say, because we know what the Secretary of State has said so far. At Second Reading in another place on 17th April, the Secretary of State said at Column 44 that there had been "an evolving consensus" on the subject and that there was a strong and unanswerable case.
The fact is that one other argument was put forward at that time. He said that in 1986, when the two sides of the industry were discussing the problem of a replacement for the present provisions, the national officer of the Transport and General Workers Union at that time, Mr. Connolly, said that the union was opposed to the amendment and revision of the existing scheme. Mr. Connolly was reported to have said in the Lloyd's List publication:
"Our opposition will take the form of a national dock strike".
That is the justification; namely, an emerging consensus, an unanswerable case and a statement by a national officer two or three years ago. That is the justification for the present policy.
I seek to suggest to the Minister and the Government that there is no such consensus. There may be unanimity in the Carlton Club and a two-thirds majority in the Athenaeum, but there is no emerging consensus. I do not seek to suggest that there is no answer; I seek to suggest that the Government have not listened to the answer. In any case, they have got the TGWU's position quite wrong, as they have been told on several occasions.
Something must therefore be done. My proposal is that the Government should refer the matter to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, and I shall say why subsequently. In order to make the case, I must summarise the Government's case in the White Paper and the objections that have been raised to it. As I understand the case—if I am mistaken, I am sure that the Minister will tell me—the central argument of the Government is that it is the system of joint control, in which the T&G's nominees sit on the National Dock Labour Board, which results in a number of malpractices and restrictive arrangements and in the fact that there is a job for life for registered dockers; that there are so many restrictive practices, such as ghosting, welting and bobbing off; that we are told that employers are unable to discipline their labour forces; the high handling costs in the registered docks; the failure to encourage new investment in the hinterland of registered docks; and the continuing strike pattern in the registered docks.

1129
I suggest that each of those assertions contains a paradoxical element and can be challenged. Perhaps I may take first the assertion that there is a job for life. It is a strange kind of job for life when, since 1951—the peak period of employment in the docks-88 per cent. of the labour force has been declared redundant or taken voluntary redundancy. However, it did not all happen back in the 1950s: the labour force has been reduced by 65 per cent. since 1979 and by 31 per cent. since 1985. In the last two years, 10 per cent. of the labour force has taken severance. It is a funny kind of job for life when, over five years or so, the chances are that at least half the present number of registered dockers will find themselves outside the industry.
There are three things to be said about the web of restrictive practices. One would have thought that, if the union were in a powerful position and the organisation had a stranglehold upon the industry, the average earnings of dockers would be more than £310 a week—22·5 per cent. over the average for male manual workers. It is not Fleet Street; it is not the Inns of Court. Earnings are roughly those of other workers of similar skill.
One would have thought that some of the arguments and examples of restrictive practices given by the Government in their White Paper would be rather more persuasive than they are. One would have thought that more than one of them at least would postdate 1983; in fact all but one of the examples in the White Paper predate 1983 and some go back to the 1940s and 1950s. One would not expect, it might be thought—if there were such restrictive practices—to see a higher output per man shift in the registered schemes than in the non-registered schemes. But it is some 20·7 per cent. higher. Is all that taking place in a web of restrictive practices?
Thirdly, the assertion is made that there is an inability to discipline in the docks. One would have thought that no one was ever dismissed. On the employers' own figures, it is true, the substantial majority of dismissals are followed by reinstatement. But 12 per cent. of dismissals are upheld by the Natonal Dock Labour Board. The only sense in which one can say that this is unusual is if one compares it to the level of dismissals and reinstatements in industry generally. It is true that there is no system of reinstatement in industry generally and no system of reinstatement operating under the Government's employment legislation. What the dockers have is a system of reinstatement. Whether it is fair or unfair, it does not prevent dismissal. Subsequent investigation would be required to see whether or not it is disproportionately in favour of the workers rather than the employers.
Fourthly, there is the assertion of very high handling costs. It is made much of in the White Paper. Where do those costs come from? The insinuation in the White Paper is that a substantial part comes from the very high level of severance pay which the dock employers are forced to give in order to run down the labour force as they have done. Yet the average severance pay since 1972 has been £13,974 per docker which is roughly average male earnings of 40 weeks pay for the dockers. There is
1130
little sign of the kind of power, and abuse of power, that, it is true, we saw in Fleet Street and certain other situations where there was a powerful union involvement. And, of course, in order to get the maximum redundancy pay it is necessary to have 15 or more years' service.
Moreover, still on the issue of the high cost of handling in the registered docks and looking carefully at the employers' own evidence, it appears that the employers do not blame labour costs for the major difference in handling costs between registered and unregistered docks and they do not blame labour costs for the uncompetitive nature of both registered and unregistered docks in comparison with international ports elsewhere in Europe. They blame the system of subsidies in Europe. They blame the fact that a whole range of dues—lighthouse dues, customs services, pilotage and so on—which are subsidised and paid for centrally in Europe are not paid for in this country.
So it is the employers and not the union who say that the real and dominant deterrent is the need for British dock workers and dock employers to bear an unsubsidised system. The union maintains that a part of the increase in labour costs arises from the fact that the employers will not train people, and because they will not undertake training the system of ghosting continues.
Fifthly, there is the argument about discouragement of investment of which much has been made in the White Paper and elsewhere. There are three things to be said on that score. First, there is still very considerable investment in many of the registered ports. Secondly, in general this is not an industry which is without profits or investment or an industry that is facing bankruptcy. Let us take for example the largest firm in the industry, Associated British Ports. It is responsible for some 25 per cent. of the total tonnage. It has been described by its chairman, Sir Keith Stewart, as having had last year a highly profitable year. There was a 46 per cent. increase in profits and a 21 per cent. increase in the chairman's fees, allowing him an annual salary of £97,000 plus a share of the profits. This is not an industry which is going bankrupt; it does not appear to be an industry without the money available internally to finance investment for itself.
On the question of investment in the industry, much false information about the disadvantages of entering the travel-to-work area around the docks has been advanced. Much false information has been advanced and is repeated verbatim in the White Paper about the consequences of abandoning the registered scheme in terms of improved employment opportunities. A forecast introduced by the Wharton Group which was commissioned in 1988 by the National Association of Port Employers and which is much in evidence in the White Paper suggests that if the dock labour board scheme were abolished another 50,000 jobs would be created between now and 1992.
That is based upon a very dubious sample of small ports. It is based upon assumptions that past job loss rates can be extrapolated. It is based upon unrealistic growth rates in the future and above all it is based

1131
upon a series of employers' subjective estimates of the consequences of getting rid of the dock labour board scheme.
Let us consider the assertion made about industrial relations in the docks. One of the most remarkable disingenuous pieces of information was advanced by the Secretary of State in his Second Reading speech when he said that there had been 3,569 disputes in the dock industry since 1967. If one divides that number by the number of years over which they occurred, it does not indicate a large number of strikes. But the fact is that the overwhelming preponderance of those strikes took place before 1975. The number of strikes in the docks industry is now so small that one does not know how many there are, because the Department of Employment does not consider it worthwhile to publish the figures separately. However, so far as we have figures it appears that last year on average the number of working days lost in the industry was something less than half a day per worker employed. From the point of view of industrial unrest, this is a long story of long ago and far away.
Finally I come to the misrepresentation of the union. The union says that in 1982 it sought to persuade the employers at the first conference ever held on the future of the industry to adopt a common approach tithe Government and a continental model for the British ports industry, concentrating on a few large integrated ports rather than a very large number of competing ports. It complains that the new policy was making some progress in the industry and among employers until 1983 and the coming of privatisation. However, with the privatisation of ABP, unification of the case against the dock scheme and the abolition of the present provisions became widespread in the industry. It is claimed that it was in that context, the context of a commitment in the industry to repeal the whole of the dock labour scheme, that Mr. Connolly made his statement in 1986.
I do not say that the union is right or that the case is overwhelming. The case of both sides can be contested. There is nothing in this extremely complicated and difficult industry to suggest that the Government can be so certain that they are justified in rushing forward in this way and breaking all precedents. Therefore, there should be a reference to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission under Section 79 of the Fair Trading Act. The commission should be asked to decide on the possible existence and effects of alleged restrictive labour practices. It would need to decide whether they exist, whether they are restrictive and whether they operate against the public interest.
The House will know that such a reference has been made. It will know that in the most recent case, when the Prime Minister said that the last bastion of trade union power and monopoly—perhaps she meant the penultimate—was the television and film industry, the television and film unions were referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. The House will know that unfortunately for the Government, when the MMC reported it said that technological and market changes had made those practices
1132
a moving target at which essentially it was not worth shooting.
The Government should send this set of complaints of alleged restrictive labour practices to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission in the same way as they have done in the past to see whether this moving target is worth shooting at. They could refer the constitution, practices and policies of the NDLB for consideration to see whether such practices allow and encourage jobs for life, ghosting, welting, bobbing off, or the discouragement of investment. The T&G will say that they do not. If they do, it will say that they are an insignificant and moving target, disappearing into the far distance. The employers may say something different. We shall see. We can wait and have some facts.
The Government will no doubt say that their dogma tells them already. If so, in conclusion I ask them to remember the words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, in the debate in this House on 7th April on the Lord Chancellor's Green Paper. The noble and learned Lord said:
"My noble and learned friend says that he starts from first principles. My view, for what it is worth, is that that is about the worst point from which to start. When I hear a person say that he starts from first principles, I know in advance that he is going to rely either on uproven dogma or else on platitude. Both are bad sources of policy. The right place from which to start is a correct analysis of the relevant facts".—[Official Report, 7/4/89; col. 1333.]
That is what I ask the Government to do tonight.
8.33 p.m.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, on the presentation of his case. I do not think that it will altogether suprise him, in view of our differing reactions to the government Statement earlier this month about their intention to abolish the dock labour scheme, that I am unwilling to support his contention that before proceeding with the Dock Work Bill the Government should refer to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission the allegedly restrictive labour practices in docks covered by the scheme.
Speaking on behalf of my noble friends in response to the government Statement, I expressed surprise that the Dock Work Bill was to be introduced in another place so soon as the following day. I even went so far as to say that in my view an opportunity should have been given for the interested parties to express their views on the Government's proposals before final arrangements were made. That was because I felt that faced with the Government's firm intention to make radical alterations to working arrangements in ports covered by the scheme, the Transport and General Workers Union might itself have come up with suggestions that would have had the effect of making certain modifications in the Government's detailed plans, thus enabling the transition to take place on a more generally acceptable basis and without undue disruption.
However, the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, has now raised a quite different issue. The Government earlier referred to the question of alleged restrictive practices in the film and television industry to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, which concluded that the practices were not against the

1133
public interests. The noble Lord seized that referral as a precedent—perhaps as a reason—for doing the same in the case of the docks. I cannot agree. On these Benches we see no need for any third party to tell us whether or not current practices under the dock labour scheme are damaging to the national interest. We have reached the conclusion that they are.
Indeed, when the Government made their earlier Statement, I made it plain that in our view the present arrangements amount to a practice that is both monopolistic and restrictive; that the minority who enjoy these privileges in regard to discipline and employment protection do so at the expense of others and to the detriment of this country's trade; and that the chief beneficiaries of the present scheme are places such as Rotterdam, Antwerp and other major Continental ports.
This is not the occasion to rehearse in detail the nature of all the old Spanish customs that have been involved. Reference has been made by the noble Lord to bobbing and welting, under which numbers of those employed on a particular job have been paid to bob off, perhaps to their homes or the nearest pub. Ghosting is the system under which a registered docker has been paid to do nothing but shadow an unregistered man brought on to the docks to perform a specialist task beyond the capacity of the "ghost", and so on. Perhaps the most damaging of these practices is where an employer goes out of business and his employees are transferred automatically to another company although that firm will almost certainly lack any work for them to perform. We regard these as practices that have taken place. However, the time to debate them is surely when the docks Bill eventually comes to this House.
Meanwhile, events have moved on. There is to be a strike ballot. The Bill has had a Second Reading in another place, where my right honourable and honourable friends voted for it in principle. However, the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, should not think that we on these Benches shall be altogether unsympathetic to the Bill being amended in Committee. Indeed, if necessary when the Bill comes here I may well put forward amendments myself; for example, to make statutory provision for the retraining of registered dockers who are made redundant. However, all that is for the future.
To be candid, the substance of the Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, seems in reality to be a pretext to postpone parliamentary discussion of arrangements that have long since outlived their usefulness and should now be brought to an end.
8.37 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, as a socialist, I have always believed that the production process, especially in a mixed economy, needs the co-operation of government, unions and management, whether that management is in nationalised or private industries. I do not expect the noble Lord who will answer this debate to agree. However, I refer him to the much quoted Select Committee Report on Overseas Tade. That committee considered the contrasts between industrial activities in this country and in those of our major
1134
competitors. As the noble Lord knows, there was a majority of his supporters on that committee. We found that whether we considered Germany, France, Japan or many other countries, the essential difference is that in those countries industrial relations and industrial production are virtually out with the arena of party politics. They are accepted as a national asset because governments, unions and management work together whatever the colour of the government. It seems to me that, as has been so ably expounded by my noble friend Lord McCarthy, this action by the Government illustrates the way in which they are apparently incapable of recognising the importance of that kind of trilateral operation. As the noble Lord has pointed out, this is a very sudden decision. I hope that the noble Lord who is to wind up will tell the House why, as recently as 14th March, the Under-Secretary of State for Employment said that the Government had no plans to change or to abolish the dock labour scheme, whereas the announcement that it was to be abolished by legislation was made as soon after that as 6th April.
I do not think the noble Lord will expect the House to believe that if that decision had not been taken as early as March, when the Under-Secretary made that Statement, the Bill could have been prepared by 6th April. I am not suggesting that the Under-Secretary misled the House of Commons, but if he did not mislead it then he was not told himself. That is a peculiar way to govern the country and to conduct industrial relations. I hope the noble Lord will address himself directly to that issue.
This has been called by the Sunday Times, no friend of the Labour Party, the best kept secret for years. Was it a secret? There has been at least one report of a leaked document that suggested—indeed, asserted—that the preparations for this measure have been in progress for the past 18 months. Why have the Government taken this disruptive attitude in industrial relations at this time? Has it anything to do with the figures that we shall see this week of the latest trade deficit? Would it be convenient for the Government if there were a dock strike? Have the Government been trying to provoke a dock strike? Do the Government believe that that will reduce the deficit by reducing imports?
I am asking these questions, but it is a curious coincidence that, as my noble friend Lord McCarthy has pointed out, this intention has never appeared before in Conservative Party manifestoes, the Queen's Speech or, as I have pointed out, in Answers to Questions in the House of Commons. Will the noble Lord address himself to this issue and explain to us why the Government have taken this provocative action? Why do they not see that their most constructive role would have been to encourage the port employers and the unions to discuss together alterations to the dock labour board? None of us has ever considered that this is perfect, but alterations could have been made in an atmosphere of co-operation; instead of which the Government plunged in, produced a White Paper one day and a Bill the next day, against all that government spokesmen have said in the past.

1135
I should like to address myself to just one of the arguments that have been put in support of the abolition of the dock labour scheme, one that is connected with my main theme tonight: the comparison with the ports of other European countries. Perhaps the noble Lord will consider the situation on the Continent. He will find that the rival ports to those in this country are heavily publicly subsidised. They have very similar job security arrangements to the dock labour board, but they do not have what we have in this country—a proliferation of small ports. They have concentrated, as it was suggested several years ago that we should concentrate, on the larger ports which are not competitive with each other but complement each other. In that way there has been a conscious policy of concentrating trade into well-equipped ports with the infrastructure provided there: ports such as Rotterdam, Antwerp, Hamburg and Le Havre, the competitive ports. That could have been done in this country. How is it that this country is one of the few countries in the Community which has not ratified the ILO convention—I believe it is Convention 137—which calls for registers of dock workers and opposes casual labour?
I suggest that the Government have a question to answer for this House and the country. As my noble friend has said, they could have referred what they claimed to be restrictive practices—they are very dubious when examined in detail—to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. They could have brought together the employers, the unions and the Government to work out a co-operative scheme for the benefit of the docks, the dockers and our trade. They have done none of those things. They have jumped in suddenly, completely reversing the statements that their spokesmen made in the past. They have thrown industrial relations into turmoil, quite unnecessarily, and that can only be to the detriment of the economic prospects of this country and of social peace within it.
8.48 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I should like to commence by expressing my thanks to my noble friend Lord McCarthy for putting down this extremely timely Question. The report of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission on labour practices in TV and film making has recently been published. This is a result of the first reference under Section 79 of the Fair Trading Act 1973. That reference was made jointly by the Secretaries of State for Employment and for Trade and Industry, and the Home Department. The commission was asked to report on whether certain practices said to exist in those industries were restrictive labour practices and, if they existed, whether they operated or might be expected to operate against the public interest.
The commission sought and obtained evidence from interested parties, including all the unions concerned and the employers. The similarities between the two sets of circumstances—government allegations or beliefs in the existence of restrictive labour practices in the TV and film making industries and also in the dock industry—are clearly
1136
very close, as my noble friend Lord McCarthy said. It is therefore quite legitimate to ask why the Government chose in one case to make a reference under Section 79 of the Fair Trading Act and in the other to produce a statement that they intended to introduce legislation to end the dock labour scheme on one day, a White Paper on the same day, and a Bill in another place on the day following that.
In one case there has been an investigation involving those with a direct interest and in the other a White Paper full of assertions, some of which are open to a great deal of questioning and indeed have been disputed by the union directly concerned. However, there has been no investigation and no consultation. Everyone agrees about that, including the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, who, I was glad to note, believes that there should be consultation although he does not agree with the main thrust of the Question.
Barristers may rightly feel aggrieved about the inadequate time provided for consultation about the so-called "legal reforms" but they are better off than the dockers who have had no consultation or time for that at all. As we all know, the dock labour scheme was first introduced in 1947. The intention was to bring to an end a particularly degrading and inhuman system of working in the docks. It was the system known as "casualisation". Before the scheme was introduced dock workers were treated like animals. They were hired and fired by the day. Men fought each other for work at the dock gates. As one of them once said, "We were ashamed but what could we do? I had children at home to feed". Yes, and at 6d. an hour and with little in the way of safety regulations. That was a life of no security or self-respect.
It is difficult for those of us who are used to salaried employment to realise what that must have been like. But I am the daughter of a manual worker who was brought up on a council housing estate during the years before the war. I know what it is like to be a child in a household where the breadwinner has no security of employment. Union organisation has ended that for many workers, including dock workers. Even so, as my noble friend has indicated, dockers are not all that well remunerated for the hours that they work. I understand that the average working week is 45 hours for which they receive approximately 13,000 a year. Nor is it true that the scheme itself provides jobs for life. Dockers can be sacked for justifiable reasons such as misconduct. Thousands of dockers have left the industry under voluntary severance terms. But registered dock workers have the right not to be dismissed without cause and not to be made redundant without severance payments. And dockers receive a minimum guaranteed daily pay as do many people in salaried occupations. They know that if they turn up for work on a day they will be paid for it.
The employers and the Government claim that there is no intention to return to casualisation. It is said that, anyway, that would be outdated because now the need is for a stable, highly-skilled workforce. That is partly true but the very nature of the industry makes it likely that, given the choice, employers will

1137
revert to a form of casualisation. A core workforce that is highly skilled is required, but there is also work for dockers who are less skilled. Sometimes only one ship will dock at a port while on other days there will be several ships. Therefore the demand for semi-skilled workers fluctuates. The union sincerely believes that, given the opportunity, casualisation with all its evils will come back again.
The Government claim that the scheme has driven port investment elsewhere. In fact, major investments have been announced for scheme ports such as Immingham, Southampton, Bristol and London. Much has been made of the growth of Felixstowe, a non-scheme port. But, as I said in this House on 6th April (at col. 1200 of the Official Report) its success may be more attributable to its geographical position than to the absence of the dock labour scheme. When I made that statement in your Lordships' House there was mocking laughter from the Government Benches. But it is true that east coast ports—including Ipswich which is a scheme port—have grown because of the shift of trade towards Europe.
Comparisons with European ports have been made, a matter dealt with by my noble friend Lord Hatch. But rival ports in Europe have public subsidies. All have similar job security arrangements for dock workers. Major ports in Europe have systems to avoid casualisation of dock work, including registers and structures which carry out similar functions to the dock labour board. Furthermore, the United Kingdom is one of the few EC countries not to have ratified the International Labour Office Convention 137 which calls for registration of dock workers and opposes casual dock labour. If the Government are opposed to casualisation, why do they not ratify the convention?
The Government White Paper contains five case studies said to show that the dock labour scheme is reponsible for the problems that have arisen. In each case any negative differences between scheme ports and non-scheme ports are blamed on the existence of the dock labour scheme irrespective of any other possible cause. Reference is made to threats of national strike action, whether or not such threats were made. The dock labour boards are joint bodies of equal employer and union representation but are represented as dock workers attempting to impose a monopoly. In fact, they have enabled a genuine system of worker participation to develop. In a recent press interview a docker said:
"What they [the Government] are after is to abolish the protection we have had … the say we have had in our industry is the say every working man should have in his industry. We have it and they are trying to take it away from us. Under the National Dock Labour Scheme we have an input into how our industry is run, something that is totally foreign to this Government's way of thinking. No working man should have a say in how his industry is run—that is the way they think—and that's what it's all about. It's got nothing to do with efficiency, it's all to do with dogma".
I should like to look at the case studies in detail and I must say that in each case there is a different side to the story. I do not say that I necessarily agree with what the union is saying in each case but it indicates that there is something to be investigated and that the case put forward by the Government is open to challenge.
1138
As regards Liverpool (Case No. 1 in the White Paper on page 17) I am advised that there had already been extensive redundancies in the docks. More than 6,500 dock workers, out of a total of 7,639 employed in 1975, had lost their jobs. The local dock labour board tried to save as many jobs as possible in an area of high unemployment. The National Dock Labour Board, as a joint forum, sought to resolve the problem and eventually it was found possible to relocate those who were threatened with job loss. The final sentence of this case study gives the impression that because of this firms went out of business. I am informed that that is grossly misleading because at the time massive changes were taking place which had nothing to do with that decision.
On page 21 of the White Paper we find Case No. 2; that of the Thames Barrier Gates. Here again, the union has a different case to make. It believes that the difficulties arose from the failure to train dock workers, despite union pressure to do so. For that reason dock workers were not available to do the work. The gates could not be moved for a much shorter period than the time given in the White Paper.
On page 23 is Case No. 3; that of Aberdeen, Fleetwood and Grimsby. Again, the union claims that this passage is a travesty of what has occurred. The main reason for the decline of fishing in those ports was the decision by Iceland to impose a 200-mile limit (thus resulting in the so-called "Cod War") and European Community access to traditional fishing grounds. In Aberdeen the union co-operated with a number of arrangements for the use of labour for unloading boats. The scheme was made more flexible to suit the needs of employers. Similarly at Grimsby there is a history of very flexible working arrangements. Nor is it true, says the union, that trade is shifting from Grimsby to Hull. The whole picture is of a backwards and forwards shift of business between the two ports. In any event, I am informed that trade in fishing ports is determined by a quota system and not by competition between ports.
Then we have Case No. 4. It is the only instance where a national stoppage was actually threatened. It was a case in which a company sought to break the existing law and the terms of the licence it had just received in order to employ fewer workers to do more work for less pay than other Clyde companies. Joint union and port authority action was used to prevent this exploitive activity by a cowboy employer. Currently the issue is before an industrial tribunal.
Finally, there is Case No. 5; that of Southampton. The union tell me that it is a non-case. An agreement for handling goods was reached acceptable to both sides. The union took a flexible attitude. Although it would have preferred all workers to have the protection of the scheme, it has agreed to the employment of equal numbers of registered and unregistered dockers at this free port. 1t asks: what is the problem? Whatever it is, they believe that it cannot be put down to the existence of the scheme.
I have referred in some detail to the bases set out in the White Paper because that represents part of

1139
the Government's case for doing away with the scheme. Whether or not what I say is accepted, it demonstrates that there is another side to the argument. There are different versions and different attitudes to be considered, particularly among those who work on the docks.
There is also disagreement about the Government's assertion that the creation of new jobs will be the result of the disappearance of the scheme. There will almost certainly be further redundancies. In fact it has been estimated that in the short term there could be 15 per cent. redundancies, and that is not just the union's view but was expressed in a Centre for Policy Studies booklet called Clear the Docks.
I believe that what is clear is that there is something here to be carefully and fully investigated. The machinery for such an investigation already exists. As we already know, the Monopolies and Mergers Commission is in place. Why will the Government not do here what they have already done in the TV and film-making industry? Can it be that the commission in that case did not come up with the answers which the Government would have preferred? Are they disappointed that in that case the commission found in most instances that restrictive practices operating against the public interest either did not exist at all or were on the point of being already negotiated out of existence? Are the Government so unsure of their case against the national dock labour scheme that they prefer not to risk an independent investigation since that might result in a report which did not confirm their prejudices?
We are entitled to ask those questions otherwise we shall be justified in coming to the conclusion that the Government's action in regard to the national dock labour scheme is motivated by dogma and that they are out to provoke another confrontation with the trade union movement. Again, I wish to record my thanks to my noble friend Lord McCarthy for introducing the debate this evening.
9.2 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, has raised an important topic for debate tonight, but I am bound to ask why he should have felt it necessary to do so. The Government have decided that the dock labour scheme should be abolished and have accordingly introduced the Dock Work Bill. The reasons for that were made quite clear in the Statement, in the White Paper and in my right honourable friend's Second Reading speech in another place.
The scheme was introduced by Parliament, and only Parliament can remove it. Only Parliament can debate that, the Monopolies and Mergers Commission cannot. This House will shortly have an opportunity to debate the Bill and the important issues that flow from it; that debate will provide the appropriate opportunity to discuss these issues.
Unlike other noble Lords, I do not propose to make a Second Reading speech but to answer the Question on the Order Paper about a reference to the MMC, and I have to say that the reference to
1140
the MMC advocated by the noble Lord would be of little or no practical value.
The power to refer restrictive labour practices to the MMC is contained in Section 79 of the Fair Trading Act 1973. Under this section, the Secretary of State may refer to the MMC the question whether a restrictive labour practice exists, and, if it does, whether it acts against the public interest. However, Section 79(5)(a) provides that the MMC can only examine restrictions or practices which could be discontinued without contravening existing law. In considering, therefore, whether the restrictive labour practices of the dock labour scheme could be referred to the MMC, we need to establish whether those restrictions are in fact established by statute. That is the difference between broadcasting and this issue.
The fact is that the dock labour scheme imposes rigid statutory controls and restrictions. Fundamental to the scheme is its statutory definition of dock work and its statutory monopoly on who can carry it out. Only employers who are on a register maintained by the dock labour boards may undertake dock work. Only workers who are on a similar register of dock workers may carry out such work. The employment of any other worker without the agreement of the local board is a criminal offence. The scheme also sets out what work is reserved for registered dock workers.
There is also a statutory control on the number of dock workers that can be employed in scheme ports. The national dock labour board's 20 local boards are alone responsible for deciding how many, and which, people are to be included on the board's registers and therefore employed as registered dock workers. Thus, the joint boards control recruitment and severance. Any employer wishing to recruit a dock worker or reduce the number he employs can legally only do so through the local boards.
The noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, and the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, referred to jobs for life. However, severances of surplus RDW's from the industry can only be achieved with their voluntary agreement, induced by large cash payments of up to £25,000.
There is also a statutory control of discipline by the local boards. The only disciplinary sanctions open to employers are suspension of an employee for five days or dismissal. However, anybody dismissed will have their case reviewed by the local board, and anybody suspended may appeal to the board. The board may oblige the employer to withdraw a suspension or reinstate an employee, and they have frequently done so. Indeed, in eight major ports between 1980 and 1986 100 out of 122 registered dock workers whose dismissal was sought by employers for disciplinary reasons were reinstated by dock labour boards.
These controls on what constitutes dock work and who may do it, on numbers employed, on recruitment, severance and discipline represent the fundamental restrictive labour practices in the scheme ports. They are all enshrined in statute and are an essential element of the scheme itself. They cannot therefore be referred to the MMC, and such a reference would serve no purpose. They can only be

1141
removed by statute, and that is why the Government have acted decisively in introducing the Dock Work Bill.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, would it not have been possible for the Government to refer the issue to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission before coming out with their White Paper? They could have proceeded with their White Paper if the MMC had recommended that they should so proceed.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, no. That is exactly the point which I am trying to make at the moment. These are statutory provisions and therefore the MMC cannot make recommendations on them. I shall not give way to the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy. He spoke for 20 minutes, which is quite enough on an Unstarred Question. I did not interrupt the noble Lord and I should be grateful if he will give me the opportunity of giving the Government's response.
I should also like to refer briefly to the restrictive labour practices of "ghosting" and "bobbing", which have been referred to so often in previous debates. Indeed, they were referred to by the noble Lords, Lord McCarthy and Lord Rochester. The development of "ghosting"—whereby RDWs are paid to "ghost" work done by non-RDWs whether or not they do any work—is a direct consequence of the dock labour scheme. In many ports the allocation of a registered dock worker to ghost has become a tacit condition of the employees' acceptance of the employment of non-RDWs. Equally, the practice of "bobbing" or "welting"—where more RDWs than required are allocated to a job and the surplus then "bob off" home—is a direct consequence of the requirement of the scheme that the local dock labour board determines the number of men allocated to each employer.
But what would a referral of these restrictive labour practices achieve? As the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, said, we all know that these practices exist; they are well documented. Nobody has suggested that they do not. So we do not need the MMC to tell us whether or not such practices exist in the scheme ports. In any event Section 79 of the Fair Trading Act does not provide any order-making power to remedy or prevent any adverse effects specified by the MMC. In fact, the MMC can only make suggestions to replace any restrictive practices that are found to exist, and the Government could not enforce those suggestions on the industry.
The fact is that these restrictive practices have evolved as a direct consequence of the fundamental restrictions of the scheme itself. It is because the local boards have a direct and statutory control on
1142
the number of dockers employed in scheme ports, and it is because of the power of the unions on those boards, that "ghosting" and "bobbing-off" have developed. It is because the boards have failed to agree to a reduction in the number of RDWs to meet employers' requirements that men are allowed home if there is nothing for them to do. The practice of ghosting is a direct consequence of the scheme's requirement that dock work can only be done by RDWs; so the local boards have insisted that non-RDWs can only do specialist work if ghosted by an RDW.
Noble Lords asked why there were no negotiations or consultations. This point was fairly well covered when the Statement was made. Nobody can negotiate on the scheme itself. That is a matter for Parliament. The scheme was set up by statute and can only be repealed by statute. In any event the TGWU has consistently refused to negotiate on the scheme; not just on the central issue of whether the scheme should be abolished, but even on its amendment or revision. In February 1987 Mr. Connolly, who has been referred to, said:
"The policy of the Docks and Waterways Group has not changed. There will be opposition to the amendment or the revision of the scheme, and the opposition will take the form of a national dock strike."
Again, on 1st April of this year, with regard to the dispute in Aberdeen, Mr. Connolly was quoted in The Times as saying:
"Any move to abolish the scheme which effectively prevents the dismissal of registered dock workers would be met with a national strike".
The National Association of Port Employers invited unions to negotiate changes to the scheme on no fewer than five occasions. On each occasion the union refused. Whatever noble Lords opposite may say, the union's position could hardly be clearer.
I return to the Question before us this evening. We will be unable to deal with these restrictions unless we address the basic problem. A reference to the MMC will merely waste public money, to no good effect. It could not address the key issues. It could only examine a consequential aspect of the problem. We must address the fundamental statutory restrictions of the scheme itself which are at the very heart of the problem and the root cause of the other restrictive practices that have evolved. The Government cannot allow the scheme to continue to hinder the future prospects of our ports. They must act decisively to bring the scheme to an end.
House adjourned at thirteen minutes past nine o'clock.

  STREET LIGHTING
  STREET LIGHTING
  INSURANCE AND BREACH OF LAW
  INSURANCE AND BREACH OF LAW
  UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT: UNDERPAYMENT
  UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT: UNDERPAYMENT
  YOUNG PERSONS IN SECURE ACCOMMODATION
  YOUNG PERSONS IN SECURE ACCOMMODATION