Sitting of 1 February 1989

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

NEW WRITS
Motion made and Question proposed,
That Mr. Speaker do issue his warrant to the Clerk of the Crown to make out a new writ for the electing of a Member to serve in this present Parliament for the county constituency of Richmond, Yorks in the room of the right hon. Sir Leon Brittan, Knight, QC, who, since his election for the said county constituency hath accepted the Office of Steward or Bailiff of Her Majesty's Manor of Northstead in the county of York.—[Mr. Waddington.]
Mr. Tam Dalyell: I beg to give notice that at the proper time I hope to oppose the writ for the Richmond constituency.
Mr. Speaker: Objection taken. The proceedings will stand postponed until the commencement of public business.
Motion made and Question proposed,
That Mr. Speaker do issue his warrant to the Clerk of the Crown to make out a new writ for the electing of a Member to serve in this present Parliament for the Pontypridd constituency in the room of Brynmor John Esquire, deceased. —[Mr. Foster.]
Dr. Dafydd Elis Thomas: Object.
Mr. Speaker: Objection taken. That business will also stand postponed until the commencement of public business.

PRIVATE BUSINESS
  BRITISH FILM INSTITUTE SOUTHBANK BILL
    BROMLEY LONDON BOROUGH COUNCIL (CRYSTAL PALACE) BILL

      CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL
      Orders for Second Reading read.
      To be read a Second time tomorrow.

  MIDLAND METRO BILL
  Read a Second time, and committed.

  REDBRIDGE LONDON BOROUGH COUNCIL BILL
  Orders for Second Reading Read
  To be read a Second time tomorrow.

  WESLEYAN ASSURANCE SOCIETY BILL
  Read a Second time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
Oral Answer to Questions
  SCOTLAND

    Rating Reform
    Mr. Allen Adams: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any plans to meet the depute community charge registration officer in Paisley to discuss progress in compiling a comprehensive register.
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): I have no plans to do so.
    Mr. Adams: Given that the community charge registration officer in Paisley has designated me as the responsible person in my house, and has said in a letter that my wife is not a responsible person, why is it important that my wife should divulge her age on the registration form? If she refuses to tell me her age, can the Secretary of State advise me how to extort that information from her?
    Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the requirement for dates of birth was introduced following representations from local authority practitioners that it would be necessary. I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman may have some difficulty in establishing his wife's precise date of birth, but as I understand that he has already given that information to the press he should have no difficulty in giving it to the responsible officer.
    Mr. Douglas: What advice has the Secretary of Stale given to registration officers in the Highland region who have registered numerous people, particularly females, as having a date of birth of 1 January 1800?
    Mr. Rifkind: I am not familiar with the reasons which might have led to that date being inserted, but the hon. Gentleman will be aware that we received representations on the desirability of giving the date of birth because there could be circumstances in which more than one person with the same name resided in a house. The recommendation was made to enable a distinction to be drawn between such individuals.
    Mr. Buchan: When will the Secretary of State begin to realise the unpopularity of this legislation in Scotland? Today a petition containing the signatures of many hundreds of thousands of people was presented to the Prime Minister at No. 10. Is the Secretary of State aware that one person, Terry O'Donnell who is here today, single-handedly on Paisley piazza collected no fewer than 48,000 signatures against the tax? When individuals do such things, and when the mass do such things, the Secretary of State must surely have some sense and shift his attitude.
    Mr. Rifkind: The allegations made by the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. and hon. Friends about the community charge have turned out to be of little substance. For instance, the Opposition told us that registration would be a complete fiasco, and Labour and. the nationalists campaigned against it, but registration is complete to the extent of more than 99 per cent. throughout Scotland.
    Mr. John Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is wrong for certain individuals to cheat on society by using the services provided by local government and seeking to avoid paying for them? Does he agree that right hon. and hon. Members should take a lead in adhering to the law, rather than making promises to break the law?
    Mr. Rifkind: Those who were not liable to pay rates under the old rating system cannot be accused of cheating on society because no one volunteers to pay a tax that Parliament does not require them to pay, but certainly those who are liable under the new legislation and for various political reasons threaten to avoid payment will be sponging on the rest of society—if they get away with it.
    Mr. McAllion: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has taken steps to ensure that the community charge register for Scotland is compiled without reference to the electoral register.
    The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Mr. Ian Lang): No, Sir. The electoral register is a public document, and section 17(2) of the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987 makes it clear that community charges registration officers—who are, of course, also the electoral registration officers—can have access to and the use of any information that is held for electoral registration purposes in their areas.
    Mr. McAllion: Throughout Scotland, tens of thousands of registration forms have been returned bearing the imprint, "Not known at this address". Will the Minister confirm that registration officers will use electoral registers as one means of trying to locate missing persons liable to pay the poll tax? Does he understand that the poll tax, by taxing the vote, far from strengthening accountability within the democratic process, is driving out of the democratic process those who are poor and cannot afford to pay the poll tax?
    Mr. Lang: As I have said, the electoral register is one source of information available to registration officers. It is significant that despite the Opposition'campaign to frustrate compilation of the register an average 99 per cent. completion has been achieved, so the "Stop It" campaign did not stop it. Only by spreading the tax burden evenly over the whole adult population will it be fairly borne by that population.
    Mr. Worthington: Even at this late stage, will the Government show some common humanity and exclude from the register all those people suffering from degenerative diseases? All normal, decent people are offended that those suffering from Alzheimer's disease, for example, have to be included in the register. Will the Minister agree, even at this late stage, that that is offensive?
    Mr. Lang: There are a number of exemptions from community charge liability, and there will be an opportunity to answer the hon. Gentleman's point when the appropriate question is reached.
    Sir Hector Monro: Does my hon. Friend agree that in view of his statement that 99 per cent. of the electorate has registered, the problem is surely that local authorities have increased expenditure by far more than inflation, despite the fact that they have received greatly increased grants, so their community charges are much higher than they needed to be?
    Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is right, and it is undoubtedly the case that, perhaps under cover of the turbulence produced by the changeover to the new system, certain local authorities have sought to increase their spending substantially and blame the system for it. In due course, accountability will bring home to them the importance of taking account of the ability of all adults resident in their areas to pay the community charge.
    Mr. Dewar: Is not the fact that the electoral register is at the heart of the registration process, illustrated by the fact that the Strathclyde registration officer issued forms already completed with names taken from the electoral register? Does the Minister think that that is desirable? Also, does he accept that a married couple living in a house of average rateable value will together have to pay substantially more under the poll tax if they live in Glasgow, Edinburgh or almost any other part of Scotland than they pay under the present system? Given the shift in the balance of taxation against areas already disadvan-taged that is built into the poll tax, and the strength of feeling that exists in Scotland, is not the Government's thrawn determination to proceed with the tax a negation of democracy?
    Mr. Lang: The main source of information for the electoral registration officer will continue to be the use of inquiry forms and the annual canvass. Clearly, the procedure adopted by the registration officer in Strathclyde has been successful in view of the very high percentage registered. As to the hon. Gentleman's example, if the burden on residents in that area is rising it is because the local authorities are increasing their expenditure. The local authorities will be answerable to the electorate at the next election.
    Mr. Salmond: Will the Minister of State confirm that there are 39,000 fewer people on the electoral register for this year than the Government forecast in 1985? Does he think that this is due to the disincentive effect of the poll tax, or is it because Tory economic policy is causing mass emigration from Scotland?
    Mr. Lang: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman's figure, but we shall have to await the publication of the electoral register later this month. If there is misunderstanding as to the importance of the electoral register in the context of the community charge, it is probably because Opposition parties have described the charge as a poll tax, deliberately seeking to mislead residents in local authority areas.
    Mr. Harris: Will my hon. Friend accept from me and from many other Conservative Members that the Government's stance on this issue has the overwhelming backing of all fair-minded people not just in Scotland but throughout the United Kingdom? Does he understand the attitude of Opposition Members who seem to think that those who want the right to vote for local councils should escape their obligation to pay for the cost of those councils? My hon. Friend's attitude is right and the attitude of certain Opposition Members, including the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion), is completely fraudulent.
    Mr. Lang: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's reassurance. I also understand the envy of some English colleagues because we in Scotland will be getting rid of the domestic rates a year before the English.
    Dr. Moonie: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has had regarding the exemption of people with chronic degenerative brain disorders from payment of the poll tax.
    Mr. Lang: My right hon. and learned Friend has received a number of representations from Members of Parliament, interested organisations and individuals about the liability for the community charge of people with degenerative brain disorders.
    Dr. Moonie: As the stated aim of introducing a poll tax was to improve local accountability, how does the Minister propose that people with chronic degenerative disorders should exercise that accountability when they are incapable of voting? Should he not therefore consider exempting them from payment of the community charge?
    Mr. Lang: We took careful medical advice. The balance of medical advice is that it is impossible to establish a method of assessment which would enable a precise and accurate moment to be discerned when an individual should be exempted from the community charge without creating more anomalies than it would remove. Anyone in that condition in a long-term care hospital will be exempt from the community charge.
    Mrs. Ray Michie: Is it not an unfair burden on doctors to have to decide whether a person should pay the poll tax, and should not the registration officer also be medically qualified if, following receipt of a doctor's certificate, he has the right to determine whether or not to grant exemption?
    Mr. Lang: The whole point of requiring medical advice is so that professional expertise may be available to the community charge registration officer. Doctors have to take difficult decisions on a wide range of matters affecting the health of patients. Our decision on this difficult and sensitive issue was based on clear medical advice.
    Mr. Galbraith: Surely the issue is whether or not the patient is severely mentally impaired, not the way in which he comes to be so mentally impaired. Why should the 91,000 patients with Alzheimer's disease be discriminated against? They live for an average of 10 years after diagnosis. Why should they alone of the severely mentally impaired have to pay the poll tax?
    Mr. Lang: The provisions in the Act exempt from liability those with severe mental impairment from birth or as a result of an accident. Degenerative diseases are often of a fluctuating nature.
    Hon. Members: Rubbish!
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Lang: These are often of a fluctuating nature. There will be periods of lucidity. The best medical advice open to us has convinced us that there is no way of assessing the right moment at which exemption should apply without creating more anomalies that it would solve.

    Forestry
    Mr. Wood: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many jobs are associated with the forestry industry in (a) the United Kingdom as a whole and (b) Scotland.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): At 31 March 1988 there were about 41,000 jobs associated directly with the forestry industry in the United Kingdom, of which 11,500 were in Scotland.
    Mr. Wood: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that properly managed woodland can be both attractive environmentally and provide valuable jobs? Can my hon. Friend tell me more about the woodland, initiative for central Scotland and how that will help to improve the environment?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: My hon. Friend is right to say that many more jobs can be created by this means. We expect that several hundred jobs will be created by the central Scotland woodlands initiative and that this will bring more environmental and recreational opportunities. We envisage that in the next 20 years up to £50 million will be committed. The whole purpose is to improve the environment in areas where there are many derelict sites and scars on the landscape, and this will be of assistance to the local communities concerned.
    Mr. Nigel Griffiths: Does the Minister realise that the headquarters of the Forestry Commission in Scotland is situated in Edinburgh, and that the workers there will have to pay £393 in poll tax, whereas if the Government gave poll tax payers in Edinburgh the same subsidy as in Glasgow, they would have to pay only £151?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: That supplementary question could not spring directly from the main question, which is about jobs in the forestry industry. We expect that the number of jobs in Scotland, and in Britain generally, will increase greatly. I am delighted that the Forestry Commission's headquarters is in my constituency, and I shall give every possible support to my constituents in this matter.
    Mr. Andy Stewart: May I take this opportunity to congratulate the Scottish Office on its initiative in creating the new central lowlands forest? My hon. Friend will be aware that I am hoping that the English national forest will be in Sherwood. Will he send me the papers and tell me what job opportunities I can expect from the forest there?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I certainly will, and I will bring my hon. Friend's remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment as I think that my hon. Friend is referring to the forest of the legendary Robin Hood.

    Rating Reform
    Mr. McTaggart: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has had from organisations on behalf of disabled persons concerning exemptions from the community charge.
    Mr. Lang: My right hon. and learned Friend has received representations from a number of organisations which act on behalf of people with various forms of disability.
    Mr. McTaggart: Given the tremendous depth of feeling that exists on this issue, may I ask the Minister to agree that it is an absolute disgrace to differentiate between the severely mentally handicapped, the mentally handicapped and the handicapped to establish who should be exempt from this tax? It is also a disgrace that many of his well-heeled, greedy friends should gain enormously financially from the poll tax. Even at this late stage, will he abolish the tax or at least exempt this disadvantaged group?
    Mr. Lang: No. The distinctions have been made on the basis of medical advice and I believe that they are right. A great many of the physically handicapped would resent the implication that they were somehow incapable of playing their full part in public life, including participation in local government matters.
    Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: Will the Minister note that under the previous rating system none of the categories mentioned by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McTaggart) was exempt and that our system is infinitely more humane than the Labour Government's callous attitude ever was?
    Mr. Lang: My hon. and learned Friend is right. We are now spending about £7·3 billion in help for the long-term sick and disabled. That represents a 90 per cent. increase over what was being spent in 1979.
    Mr. Andrew Welsh: Will the Minister agree that warrant sales are a barbaric and inhuman procedure? Will he commend Angus district council for issuing a standing instruction banning their use? Given that one poll tax registration officer tried to pursue a warrant sale against an 82-year-old pensioner, will the Minister issue an instruction banning their use against the disabled, the handicapped and anyone else?
    Mr. Lang: Nobody welcomes the excessive use of warrant sales, but everyone acknowledges that a need for them exists. I believe that the modification that has taken place as a result of the Debtors (Scotland) Act 1988 has improved the situation considerably. I commend Angus district council for its support for the implementation of the community charge.
    Mr. Maxton: Will the Minister tell the House which medical advisers have told him that Alzheimer's disease is a fluctuating condition? Is it not morally repugnant that this tax is being imposed on those who are suffering from that disease, those who are mildly mentally handicapped and those who are severely physically handicapped, bed-ridden and in wheelchairs, while at the same time, on 1 April, the Minister and all his friends will receive a large fat increase in the money that they have, because their tax bills will be cut?
    Mr. Lang: Many degenerative diseases fluctuate considerably, with periods of lucidity. Alzheimer's disease involves the problem that I described earlier—the difficulty of deciding exactly when it would be appropriate to exempt a particular individual from the provisions of the legislation. The vast majority of the disabled, if on rebate,
    284
    would be eligible for a considerably enhanced entitlement to rebate in consideration of the disability premiums and allowances to which they are entitled.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received regarding the impact of the standard community charge on the tourist industry in rural areas and on agriculture; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Macdonald: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received concerning the effects of the poll tax in rural areas.
    Mr. Rifkind: I have received a number of such representations. In response to these, my hon. Friend the Minister of State has today issued a consultation paper proposing that empty farm cottages should remain in rating and hence not become subject to the standard community charge. I am confident that this will be widely welcomed. Copies of the paper have been placed in the Library of the House.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: While I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for responding to the representations that I and others have made, and without being in any way ungrateful—I believe that he has done the right thing— may I ask him to extend that sensitivity to houses which are let for holiday purposes? In parts of my constituency, certainly the community charge would hit the development of the tourist trade.
    Mr. Rifkind: I thank my right hon. Friend for the earlier part of his question. With regard to holiday homes, part of the problem has been caused because most local authorities have insisted on a multiplier of two, when the Act freely enables them to have a multiplier of one. If those authorities were to allow a multiplier of one, as they have a discretion to do, the consequential tax would be halved.
    Mr. Macdonald: Will the Secretary of State go one step further and restore the rating concession for crofters? Will he give an update on his 1986 estimate that the loss of the rating concession would cost crofters £500,000? Does he agree that this kind of financial blow to the crofting counties is senseless at a time when of the biggest economic problems facing Britain is the imbalance between regions.
    Mr. Rifkind: We gave careful consideration to the position of crofters. The hon. Gentleman, who is an honest man, will be the first to appreciate that it is difficult to suggest that a crofter should be given an advantage over another member of the public who might have the same income. A crofter on low income—[Interruption.] It is not only crofters who sometimes suffer deficiencies in services. A crofter on low income will be entitled to rebate. There is no reason in equity why a crofter with a specific income should be in a different position from any member of the public with the same income.
    Mr. Bill Walker: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for his helpful reply about empty farm cottages, but will he continue to bear in mind that in areas of Scotland where tourism is a vital and essential part of the local economy it is important that cottages, chalets, and so on, that are let on an ad hoc basis should be recognised as being part of a business and treated in the same way?
    Mr. Rifkind: It was for precisely that reason that we gave local authorities the discretion to determine the

    285
    multiplier to be used. With the exception of Western Isles district council, I believe that all other local authorities have chosen the higher multiplier. If authorities are concerned about the tourist implications in their area, it is open to them to halve the tax liability by using the discretion that Parliament has given to them.
    Mr. Canavan: Does the Secretary of State accept that it is blatantly unjust to impose a £50 fine for failure to register on an old-age pensioner suffering from senility, whether that person lives in a rural or urban area, and then to threaten such a person with a warrant sale for failing to pay that fine? Is it not absolutely draconian that sheriff officers——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The question is about tourist cottages.
    Mr. Canavan: —that sheriff officers in urban or rural areas are allowed to use Tory Government legislation to subject old-age pensioners to such Gestapo-type harassment?
    Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that no old-age pensioner living in a rural or urban area is liable to face any fine through failure to register through genuine confusion, misunderstanding or anything other than deliberate intent.
    Mr. Wilson: Will the Minister confirm his views on what I regard as his astonishingly dishonest comment on the second home multiplier?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Not "dishonest" in respect of the Minister.
    Mr. Wilson: I will withdraw that word. Will he comment on his astonishingly flexible use of the truth in relation to second homes?
    Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman confirm that the Scottish Office's calculations of poll tax for each area were based on the assumption of a multiplier of two? Will he confirm that the absurdity of that aspect of the poll tax is highlighted by the fact that the consequence of introducing a multiplier of one on local authorities would have been even more massive savings for those who own the most expensive and palatial second homes in a given area? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman confirm that it is now possible for a traveller from Muckle Flugga to Machrihanish to pass through Scotland without encountering one single inch of Scottish territory held by a Tory Member of Parliament? Will he name one local authority in the Scottish rural areas, of any political persuasion, which regards the poll tax as anything but a further disincentive to live in rural areas and a further blow to fragile communities?
    Mr. Rifkind: I am bound to say that the hon. Gentleman is getting into a lather with little substance. If rural local authorities believe that the community charge is an imposition on their local communities it is rather surprising that, in almost every case, they are proposing to increase their expenditure substantially and, as a consequence, are fixing community charges that are considerably higher than they would otherwise need to be.
    Mr. Maclennan: Does the Secretary of State realise that many people in rural areas with cottages let them for a few weeks in the year? They include not only farmers, who might be covered by the review that he has in mind, but
    286
    others who will be unable to let their cottages. Such people are having to seek expensive change of use approvals to take the cottages out of taxation. That is a disincentive to tourism and a positive burden on people who, in many cases, are on a low income. Will he extend his consideration of this problem beyond farmers to cover such people?
    Mr. Rifkind: I note what the hon. Gentleman has said, but in the shorter term his best course would be to make representations to the Highland regional council, as it is within its power to reduce substantially the level of tax on such properties. I shall, however, consider what the hon. Gentleman said about the wider issues.

    Competitive Tendering
    Mr. Jack: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress is being made towards competitive tendering for local government services in Scotland.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Local authorities are now fully engaged in implementing the competition provisions of the Local Government Act 1988. Detailed implementation regulations were made in August 1988 and the first round of contracts have to be let by 1 August 1989.
    Mr. Jack: Does my hon. Friend agree that negative attitudes to the benefits of competitive tendering are still being displayed by Opposition Members? Does he agree that such an attitude denies the Scottish people local services at lower prices? Does my hon. Friend have any evidence that the benefits of such tendering have penetrated the closed minds of Opposition Members?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I believe that there has been a change of attitude, as evidenced by the remarks of the president of COSLA, reported in The Scotsman of 5 January, who suggested:
    "the best answer councils could give in response to that threat would be to win compulsory competitive tenders so that services would remain in-house."
    The president is quoted as saying:
    "If that happens it will inject fresh confidence and life into local authorities and simultaneously disarm our critics."
    I believe that more and more hon. Members are coming round to that view.
    Mr. Michael J. Martin: I put it to the Minister that Strathclyde region has an excellent lighting department, but because he has forced competitive tenders— [Interruption.] It is not funny. Because he forced the local authority to accept competitive tenders the night shift was taken off—in a week when a young girl in my constituency was raped and brutally beaten up. The lighting in the city of Glasgow can be out for as long as two days, particularly over a weekend. Does the Minister care more about competitive tenders than the safety of our women and children on the streets?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman must be quite clear that local authorities remain responsible for deciding the level of service they wish to deliver. It is for them to write into the tender specification the precise level of service that they wish to have implemented. The activities listed in the Act cost £300

    287
    million, so it is quite clear that the modest target of 10 per cent. savings would lead to savings of some £30 million a year which are well worth making.

    Employment Training
    Mr. Hind: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the current situation regarding the implementation of employment training in Scotland.
    Mr. Lang: I am glad to say that employment training is now progressing well. There is no shortage of employers willing to participate and the latest figures show that almost 16,000 people have entered the new programme.
    Mr. Hind: No doubt my hon. Friend will have noted that since January 1987 unemployment in Scotland has fallen by 80,000. Does he agree that local authorities in Scotland and the Scottish TUC, in turning their backs on the unemployed and not participating in the employment training programme, are ensuring that many of them will not have the opportunity to fill the 20,000 vacancies that currently exist in Scotland?
    Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The failure of the STUC and COSLA actively to support the employment training scheme has led to a widening of the differential in unemployment figures between Scotland and England. Although COSLA is modifying its attitude to some extent, if the STUC persists in its view it will become increasingly uninfluential and irrelevant to the economic scene in Scotland.
    Dr. Godman: In regard to the fusion of employment training and enterprise creation under the umbrella of Scottish Enterprise, I remind the Minister of the dreadfully high unemployment figures in Greenock and Port Glasgow. The present situation at the Ferguson yard in Port Glasgow is causing very deep concern. Will he urge on his ministerial colleagues at the Department of Trade and Industry the urgent necessity to welcome further offers for the acquisition of the yard? Does he agree that the offer from Ailsa Perth of Troon was pitifully inadequate and therefore was understandably rejected by the entire work force?
    Mr. Lang: I am glad that unemployment is falling in Greenock and Port Glasgow and has done so in the past two years, as it has elsewhere in Scotland. However, I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the figures remain far too high. The area has particular economic difficulties and that is why we are setting up an enterprise zone in that area. I believe that the fusion of the Training Agency with the activities of the Scottish Development Agency will lead to an improvement in the way in which we are able to respond to such matters. As to his reference to the bid for the Ferguson yard, while negotiations are taking place it would be inappropriate for me to comment on them.
    Mr. McLeish: Is the Minister aware that out of a planned provision of 41,000 places in Scotland, his Government have managed to fill only 12,000 places? Does he regard the shortfall of 30,000 places as a success or, as we would describe it, as a classic failure? Will the Minister acknowledge that the responsibility lies fairly and squarely with the Government? Will he give the House an assurance that he will arrange an early meeting with the STUC, COSLA and the voluntary sector to put together a
    288
    package to help the 100,000 unemployed, instead of displaying complacency at the Dispatch Box on every occasion?
    Mr. Lang: I had a meeting with the STUC general council only last Friday at which it did not seek to raise that matter. As for the hon. Gentleman's figures, there is high demand for places on the employment training scheme which has been doing well since it started. Like all new schemes, of course it will take time to get going, but almost 16,000 people have entered the new programme since its inception—hat is not the figure that the hon. Gentleman gave the House. If the STUC would co-operate and support the scheme, which is of crucial importance in preparing people for the 20,000 job vacancies mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) and for the fact that some 700,000 jobs turn over in the Scottish economy every year, the scheme would work much more successfully.
    Mr. Neil Hamilton: Does my hon. Friend agree that the protestations of Opposition Members about unemployment ring rather hollow, considering that they will at no stage assist in valuable measures such as the employment training programme which are designed to put people back into work and to remove the unemployment problems about which those Members claim to be so concerned?
    Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is very encouraging that unemployment has been falling steadily in Scotland over the past two years. That, of course, is a phenomenon with which no Labour Government have ever been familiar.

    Rating Reform
    Mrs. Fyfe: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has any plans to publicise the effects of the poll tax on women in Scotland.
    Mr. Lang: No, Sir.
    Mrs. Fyfe: That was a commendably brief answer. Will the Minister nevertheless explain to the women of Scotland why they will have to pay the same amount of poll tax as men when, on average, their earnings are only three quarters as much? How does the Minister justify the joint and several liability provision in the legislation, whereby if a marriage breaks up and the man leaves the home—as commonly happens—the poll tax officers will demand the unpaid poll tax from the woman, regardless of how low her income may be? How does he justify all the other injustices perpetrated on Scottish women by the poll tax?
    Mr. Lang: The income of a man or woman becomes relevant in the context of an application for a rebate. The vast majority of specific groups such as single pensioners, most of whom are women, or single parent families, most of whom are led by women, will benefit from the community charge.
    Joint and several liability provisions have been inserted to protect the woman in a marriage or other partnership who, in many cases has no income, and might otherwise be unable to pay the charge if her partner declined to do so.
    Mr. Sillars: Will the Minister return to the point that he has just made and answer the question that the Secretary of State for Defence so conspicuously failed to answer on

    289
    the BBC's "Scottish Question Time"? What happens to a woman whose husband has been responsible for her poll tax, because she has no income, when he leaves her and cannot be found, and she is left with the legal responsibility of joint and several liability?
    Mr. Lang: If, as is implied, the woman has no income she will be eligible for income support, and on income support she will be eligible for an 80 per cent. rebate. The level of income support has been raised to take account of the remaining 20 per cent.
    Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Has my hon. Friend read the reported comments of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) about the community charge in the Communist paper the Morning Star on 17 September last year? She said that if voting did not get people what they wanted they must resist the Government by any means available to them. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is not a democratic way of opposing Government policy?
    Mr. Lang: I think that it was James Thurber who said that a woman's place was in the wrong. In the case of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) he was clearly quite right.
    Mr. Ernie Ross: I am sure that the women of Scotland will take note of the acid comments of the Minister who is supposed to be responsible for the poll tax in Scotland and for ensuring fairness and justice. It might serve the Conservative party better if he tried to deal honestly with the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe).
    Women are generally exploited and less well off, and it does not help the Minister to be supported by comments such as those of his hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) on such a serious issue. Women are looking for a response from the Government, but all they are told is that they may not be responsible. What is the Minister doing to help women, who generally do not earn as much as men, to offset the damage inflicted on them by the poll tax?
    Mr. Lang: As I have said, there is a rebate scheme from which more than 1 million people in Scotland should be eligible to benefit. That is about 30 per cent, of Scotland's adult population. I have cited specific groups in which women predominate and will benefit. In so far as women's interests are a specific feature of the impact of the community charge, we have tried to make provisions for them. For instance, there is provision for women's refuges, and women are entitled to register anonymously if they are in fear of physical violence.
    Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: Does my hon. Friend understand my confusion that women should suddenly be resurrected by the Socialist party as an identifiable group? I understood that, under all the legislation introduced by the Labour Government, we were supposed to regard each other as persons and that women were not identifiable as a group. As the Lord Provost of Glasgow is a woman, what on earth are we talking about?
    Mr. Lang: My hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right. Essentially, there is no difference, but, as I am sure he will agree with me, "Vive la différence".
    Mr. Dewar: I fear that we now have evidence that the Minister of State lives in an unreal world.
    290
    Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, because of longevity, Alzheimer's disease is a particular hazard for women and that many Members have sad family and constituency experience of that disease? Does he recognise that those struggling to help people suffering from Alzheimer's disease will be appalled by the insensitivity of the Government's response? Does he also accept that we are genuinely astonished by the continued exclusion of those suffering from Alzheimer's disease and from other degenerative brain disorders and even more astonished that the ground given is that the disease fluctuates? Will he call for a report on that aspect of the matter and the medical situation from his new chief medical officer, Mr. Kenneth Caiman, and publish that report so that the House can see the basis on which the Government have acted in a mean and mistaken way?
    Mr. Lang: These matters were fully debated when the Abolition of Domestic Rates etc. (Scotland) Act 1987 and the Local Government Act 1988 went through Parliament.
    I readily acknowledge, as I did in my earlier answers, that the subject of degenerative diseases is a sensitive and difficult issue, but, on the best medical advice available to us, we decided that to seek to establish a specific exemption would create more anomalies than leaving the situation as it is, where, in the vast majority of cases, people will either be on rebate, and thus be eligible for a small proportion of the community charge, or in long-stay homes or hospitals.

    Tree Planting
    Mr. Stern: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if there are any Government initiatives to encourage tree planting down the hill.
    Mr. Rifkind: There are a number of Government initiatives in place to encourage tree planting down the hill. Both the woodland grant scheme and the farm woodland scheme which we introduced last year have added incentives for planting carried out on arable and improved grassland. They also offer much higher grants for the planting of broadleaved species, which do well on lower ground of better quality.
    Mr. Stern: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the schemes that have been introduced are necessary to maintain rural economies and communities, and would have been much more difficult to implement without the fiscal initiatives introduced in the last Budget?
    Mr. Rifkind: That is so, and they are much more environmentally attractive and consistent with what the public expect from a woodland policy?
    Mr. Foulkes: The hill referred to is clearly in Cumnock and Doon Valley. The Secretary of State will recall the excellent visit that he paid to Cumnock and Doon Valley. I am sure that he is as sorry as I am to know that the employment situation in Cumnock and Doon Valley, in textile and other industries, has not improved since his visit. Will he consider carefully the representations that I have now made to him on behalf of Cumnock and Doon Valley district council and have an urgent follow-up meeting to consider carefully the measures—including tree planting—that might improve the chronic unemployment: situation which is causing great distress in Cumnock and Doon Valley?
    Mr. Rifkind: With the best will in the world, I cannot claim to remember tree planting as one of the suggestions raised at the time, but I am happy to consider the hon. Gentleman's point and look carefully at any representations that might be made.

    Zircon Film
    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what consideration he is giving to charges following the raid by special branch on Queen Margaret drive, Glasgow, in relation to the Zircon film.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Consideration of criminal charges was, of course, a matter for the Lord Advocate, not my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State. As I informed the hon. Gentleman in the House on 9 December 1987, the then Lord Advocate announced on 27 November 1987 that no criminal proceedings would be instituted in Scotland.
    Mr. Dalyell: On Tuesday 27 January 1987, what indications were available to the Secretary of State personally that special branch might visit Queen Margaret drive?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The short answer is none. The Secretary of State became aware that there was likely to be a police operation at the BBC's premises when, quite coincidentally, he visited them with the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) on the evening of Friday 30 January to participate in the recording of a BBC Scotland television programme. That was after the decision had been made and warrants issued by the sheriff court in Scotland. There are no grounds for the allegation that the Government were involved in that decision.
    Mr. Galloway: BBC Scotland's headquarters are in my constituency. Brian Barr, who was witch-hunted as a result of that raid, is one of my most distinguished constituents. The incredible gymnastics of the Minister's answer, supplemented by a brief quickly whispered to him by the Secretary of State, do not disguise the simple question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). Did the Secretary of State for Scotland know on 30 January that there was to be a police raid on BBC Scotland? Yes or no? The truth please.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I made it quite clear that the decision was made when the warrant was submitted to the court. My right hon. and learned Friend was informally informed of the decision that evening by a police officer at the BBC Scotland premises. He was not consulted about the decision before it was made and was not in any way involved in it. The decision was the responsibility of the Law Officers and the procurator fiscal.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Does my hon. Friend agree that there was nothing unusual about this incident? The police entered the premises to look for evidence, having obtained a warrant from a sheriff. That is not an unusual occurrence. The next question is whether the evidence found is sufficient to bring charges. That is how the police and courts normally operate.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The Lord Advocate was certain that the proper procedures for obtaining the search warrant were followed, and that the involvement of the procurator fiscal and the sheriff was in accordance with
    292
    the established law in Scotland. On 27 November the Lord Advocate announced that, having considered reports from the fiscal, having consulted the Attorney-General and having regard to the public interest, he had issued instructions not to institute criminal proceedings in respect of any disclosure.
    Mr. Galloway: Apologise then.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: There is no need for me to apologise. The police were investigating a potentially serious criminal offence. The fact that, at the end of the day, no criminal proceedings were instituted, does not mean that the police action was wrong.

    Revenue Support Grant
    Mr. Ingrain: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how he arrived at the safety-netting levels applicable to individual authorities in the revenue support grant settlement for 1989–90.
    Mr. Rifkind: The Government decided to end the excessive grant entitlements of high-spending authorities. Rather than eliminate them immediately, they decided, as with many other reforms, to phase the changes, and that will be achieved over a three to five-year period. The arrangements for 1989–90 were arrived at having regard to the effect of these grant changes on community charge payers. Details of the calculations are explained in the report on the Revenue Support Grant (Scotland) Order 1988, copies of which have been placed in the Library.
    Mr. Ingram: Does the Secretary of State accept that the arrangements have worked harshly against East Kilbride district council? They have taken it from the third-lowest rated council to the highest poll-taxed council in Scotland. Will the Secretary of State assure us that the revenue support grant settlement will be reviewed in the light of the outturn on poll tax yields, rate products and other relevant factors?
    Mr. Rifkind: I shall consider all relevant factors. The hon. Gentleman is correct; the district council did not benefit from the changes. However, East Kilbride taxpayers did. The combined effect on the regional and district councils has given East Kilbride taxpayers a net benefit of £6 per adult.
    Mr. Doran: Apart from the efforts of the Secretary of State to reduce the income of local authorities, all Scottish hon. Members will be aware of the principled stand taken by Councillor Roy Munn of Grampian regional council to reduce the income of his own authority. What the House may be less aware of is that last year, in Grampian regional council there were 28 warrant sales, which were authorised by the finance convenor. Twenty-two of those were domestic warrant sales. We know that the finance convenor at that time was Roy Munn, the very same individual involved in the principled stand. Is such a principled stand by the Scottish National party one of which the Government approve?
    Mr. Rifkind: We are all familiar with nationalist rhetoric and nationalist actions having nothing in common.
    Mr. Redwood: When considering the overall revenue support grant for local authorities, did my right hon. and

    293
    learned Friend take into account that it is one of the benefits of the Union to Scotland? Is it for that reason that some Opposition parties are not joining the SNP and are walking out of the constitutional convention?
    Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend is right to point to the
    substantial level of support that Scottish community charge payers receive from revenue support grant. Wales has a higher level of revenue support grant and England has a lower level.
    Mr. Steel: Each elected local authority in Scotland, of
    whatever political persuasion, considers that its expenditure needs are higher than the Secretary of State considers and, therefore, has produced a higher poll tax than he forecast. How long does the Secretary of State intend to maintain the fiction that they are all wrong and he is right?
    Mr. Rifkind: I should be more inclined to accept what the right hon. Gentleman said if his own regional council in the Borders had not received a revenue support grant of 13–5 per cent. To use that as a basis for increasing expenditure in the way that it has done shows a strong commitment to high spending and, perhaps, insufficient consideration for the interests of community charge payers.

    Primary Schools
    Mr. Ian Bruce: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to monitor the performance of primary schools in Scotland.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Forsyth): My right hon. and learned Friend has decided to intensify the assessment of achievement programme to cover English, science and mathematics in a three-yearly cycle, instead of five-yearly as hitherto. An assessment of English will be undertaken this year. Regular reports are also received from Her Majesty's inspectors of schools.
    Mr. Bruce: Does my hon. Friend agree that parents in Scotland are keen to see such assessment coming on to the scene? They are keen to see that their children are keeping up to the standards throughout the nation. Can my hon. Friend also tell us what discussions he has with colleagues such as our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science about feeding back the good experience in Scottish schools and transferring some of the excellence in Scottish primary schools to English and Welsh schools?
    Mr. Forsyth: My hon. Friend is right about the interest that parents have in the achievements of their children at school, and our proposals to introduce testing in English and mathematics in primary 4 and primary 7 will provide for that. The "Home from School" report provided clear evidence of parental interest in the matter. I shall quote one parent who put the matter succinctly, saying:
    "It is all very well to say he is competing against himself. Great. But he is not competing against himself when it comes to getting a job and then he has got to wake up to the rude discovery that he is only pretty good in his own terms but not by anyone else's standards."
    My hon. Friend is right. Parents want testing in schools so that they know how their children are getting on in those basic subjects.
    Mr. Tom Clarke: Will the Minister accept that educational provision in primary schools in Scotland is considerably hampered by the incredible lack of provision hitherto for under-fives? We have some of the most disgraceful circumstances in the whole of Europe. When will the Minister do something about that?
    Mr. Forsyth: The provision of education for under-fives is a matter for local authorities, and the hon. Gentleman's own party is in control of a number of those authorities, so it is in a position to do something about it. The results from the assessment of achievement programme in Scotland show clearly that there has been a decline in performance in mathematics and English over the past five years. When I read data that show that in primary 7, a total of 22 per cent, of children cannot divide 630 by 10, I am convinced that our proposals to bring testing into the curriculum and to introduce testing have the support of parents, if not of Opposition Members.

    Trunk Roads
    Mr. Kirkwood: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the Government's review of future development of trunk road routes south of Edinburgh.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: There has been a slight delay in preparation of the report of the "Routes South of Edinburgh" study which was due to have been submitted by the end of January.
    Mr. Kirkwood: Why has there been that delay? It is vital to the whole Borders region that the Al, A68 and A7 are improved and developed. Will the Minister assure us that the report will be published before the summer and that there is no suggestion that detrunking will play any part in action implemented by the Government?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Some delays ensued from technical difficulties, but the more important fact is the increasingly evident need for interchange between the M74 studies and the "Routes South of Edinburgh" study.
    The hon. Gentleman asked whether the report would be published. The document is technical and it is not usual to publish such documents, but we plan to publish a summary of the recommendations and then state what action we intend to take as a result. We shall do that as soon as possible. There was also the problem that the study area proved larger than the usual computer programme could handle, so that had to be rewritten to cope with the amount of data involved.
    I note also the hon. Gentleman's comment about detrunking, but at this stage I cannot give him the commitment that he seeks.
    Mr. Strang: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In the exchanges between my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) and the Minister on question No. 2, you will have noted that the decision of yourself and your staff to allow the poll tax to be called the poll tax on the Order Paper, and not to give way to the Government in calling it the community charge, was completely vindicated. I hope that when the broadcasting organisations in Scotland report today—when representatives from all walks of life in Scotland present a petition with a third of a million signatures against the poll tax

    295
    —and say that the only concession that we achieved was for empty farm cottages, they will recognise that we are talking about a poll tax and not a community charge.
    Mr. Speaker: That is hypothetical at the moment.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. When a statutory body such as a local authority is established by the House by statute and operates under the statute for collecting local taxation, is the local authority allowed to call that local taxation by a term other than that which this House has passed?
    Mr. Speaker: The correct term is what is in the Act.
    Mr. Home Robertson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. As the Secretary of State for Scotland announced a major concession to farmers in empty farm cottages, have you had any indication from him that he intends to make any statement of any relief for the 11,000 farm workers in tied cottages who will be worse hit than those farmers?
    Mr. Speaker: I have had no indication of that.

New Writ (Richmond, Yorks)
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That Mr. Speaker do issue his Warrant to the Clerk of the Crown to make out a new writ for the electing of a Member to serve in this present Parliament for the county constituency of Richmond, Yorks in the room of the right hon. Sir Leon Brittan, QC, who, since his election for the said county constituency, hath accepted the Office of Steward or Bailiff of Her Majesty's Manor of Northstead in the County of York.—[Mr. Waddington.]
3.33 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: I rise to oppose the issuing of the writ for the Richmond, Yorks constituency, under the rules set out in "Erskine May", pages 326 and 327, and on the precedent of 19 April 1983.
The crux of the argument for opposing the writ is that, before the electors of the Richmond, Yorks constituency go to the polls, they are entitled to the truth about exactly what happened in January 1986. Before the writ is issued a tribunal should he set up under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act 1921, which should report to the House about what occurred before the by-election takes place.
As things stand at present, the purpose behind the writ, to allow one of our former colleagues—we must now call him Sir Leon Brittan—to become Vice-President of the European Commission, seems improper. To many of the electors of Richmond, it looks like the reward for silence.
In normal circumstances perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman would have been a highly qualified candidate on grounds of intellectual and academic attainment and of experience of great offices of state. But as things stand at present the circumstances are far from usual; in fact, they are exceedingly unusual and abnormal. The electors of Richmond need to know the real reasons for the departure of Sir Leon Brittan before they are required to make an electoral judgment.
Mr. Tony Marlow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I understand that this is Opposition time. Would it be in order, if the hon. Gentleman is to make a speech about the writ, for hon. Members on this side of the House to make speeches of similar, if not greater, length? If so, it might be rather tragic for the Opposition motion this afternoon.
Mr. Speaker: As the House knows, the motion is debatable; but it must be debated in order.
Mr. Dalyell: Whether hon. Members like it or not, the fact is that the former right hon. and learned Member for Richmond remains the scapegoat, the fall guy, the man who has taken, and continues to take, the blame for one of the most shoddy misunderstandings that this House has seen.
There are colleagues who say that the Westland affair occurred three years ago, but it continues to be the case that the electors of Richmond need to know whether the House of Commons is simply going to shrug its collective shoulders when it knows that matters have not been cleared up. Are we doucely to allow a by-election to facilitate the then Member who, we are required to believe, caused misunderstandings in the stratosphere of British politics? The electors of Richmond are entitled to know, because it is an issue of the collective self-respect of the House and, in my opinion, the self-respect of the honourable profession of being a politician.
298
Remember the consternation of the present Attorney-General, formerly the Solicitor-General, the author of the Law Officer's letter which was so abused without his knowledge. Remember how the then Attorney-General, Sir Michael Havers, came back from his sick bed and was so angry that he said that if an inquiry were not set up he would have the police at the door of No. 10 Downing street. That is why an inquiry was set up—because of the Attorney-General's threat to have the constabulary at the door of No. 10 if an inquiry were riot agreed to.
Before we agree to the issuing of a writ, the electors of Richmond should have an explanation about how that inquiry never came to any conclusions about the timing and the state of knowledge of senior Ministers as to how that leak occurred. The electors of Richmond will want to know, before they choose a new Member, how it was that their last Member appeared before the Select Committee on Defence, chaired by a Conservative Privy Councillor subsequently sent to the House of Lords, and solemnly refused to answer questions properly put by his colleagues and mine.
Never has a Minister treated a Select Committee of the House in that manner. Members of the Committee and others present, as I was, will not forget the contemptuous attitude displayed upstairs that day by our former colleague Leon Brittan, stonewalling a Committee that was set up by the House to do a job.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I also took the trouble to attend that Committee meeting. I could see no sign of contempt on the part of our colleague.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Lady can make that point if she catches the eye of the Chair.
Mr. Dalyell: One thing will alter our attitude towards the by-election and allow us to send our former colleague on his way to Brussels with our good will, and that is if it were explained to the electors of Richmond that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was not to blame for the Westland affair and that he was simply carrying the can for the misbehaviour of someone else.
In order to accept the Prime Minister's version of events in January 1986, the House has been required to believe that, for 14 days or more, Leon Brittan, the cause of this by-election, kept his senior civil servants, such as Sir Brian Hayes, his Cabinet colleagues and his Prime Minister in the dark about his role relating to the Law Officer's letter. If Leon Brittan really did that, should the House be creating a by-election to send him as our country's nominee to a highly prestigious job in the EEC? If the right hon. and learned Gentleman's behaviour is by no means the whole story, should not the electorate of Richmond——
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Gentleman keeps referring to 1986. There has been a general election since 1986 at which Leon Brittan had an overwhelming majority. The people of Richmond must have been highly satisfied with their representative.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman might make that point if he is called to speak.
Mr. Dalyell: The electors of Richmond will want to know about the Prime Minister's answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), who has often put pertinent questions to her. She said to my hon. Friend that she did not know about the role of the then Trade Secretary until the inquiry had reported. Before a writ is issued, a tribunal should be satisfied on that point.
Mr. Ian Bruce: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether I could have your guidance. Clearly this is a narrow debate on whether the writ should be moved. We all know that the former Member for Richmond has already left. Surely we must be talking about the candidates who are to be put forward. Clearly Sir Leon Brittan is not to be one of those candidates, so what we are hearing must be out of order.
Mr. Speaker: I am listening with great care, as I listened on Friday nearly two weeks ago when this writ was first moved. Nothing that the hon. Gentleman has said today and nothing that was said then was out of order.
Mr. Dalyell: Before the House agrees to the issuing of a writ for the Richmond constituency, for the sake of the good name and reputation of the former Member, should not the Prime Minister give the electors of Richmond an explanation of her own role——
Mr. Barry Field: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Is it a point of order? I have heard nothing out of order from the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell).
Mr. Field: Representing the Isle of Wight, I cannot take too much excitement. I have heard this argument once or twice before. I wonder whether it would be in order to move a writ this afternoon for a by-election in the constituency of the hon. Member for Linlithgow.
Mr. Dalyell: Before the House agrees to the issuing of a writ, for the sake of the good name of Leon Brittan, should not the Prime Minister give an explanation to the electors of Richmond of her own role in the Westland affair? The House heard her answer yesterday to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. All this could have been avoided had she explained her role. After all, at the end of the day the Prime Minister is accountable not to President Bush, Mr. Gorbachev or any other world politician; she is accountable to the British electorate through the House of Commons, and particularly to the electors of Richmond.
The House has not yet had an explanation of the unique resignation correspondence between the Prime Minister and the then right hon. and learned Member for Richmond, Yorks, which ended:
"I hope that it will not be long before you return to high office to continue your Ministerial career."
The Prime Minister did not say that to the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) or to anybody else. That is unique. How could any Prime Minister have expressed such a hope if her Secretary of State for Trade and Industry had really misled her? The electors of Richmond will want to know.
They will want to know that it was a negotiated correspondence. As things turned out, the Prime Minister found it hard to deliver her side of the bargain. What we have before us today, with the Government asking for the
300
writ to be issued, is the shoddy compromise of being made a Vice-President of the European Commission. Should the House of Commons go along with allowing the by-election to oblige the Prime Minister and Sir Leon Brittan?
Is it not in the interests of the electors of Richmond that we should have an inquiry which might ask Colette Bowe and John Mogg why they found it necessary to put their accounts of these events in a bank vault? Civil servants whose accounts of events tally with that of their political masters do not normally find it necessary to put their accounts in bank vaults.
The inquiry might also ask Mr. Ingham and Mr. Powell why they did not tell the Prime Minister what the Select Committee—chaired, I repeat, by a Conservative Privy Councillor, sent subsequently to the other place—knew about Leon Brittan's role: paragraph 187 of the report of the Select Committee on Defence.
The Prime Minister should also be asked by the inquiry for the benefit of the electors of Richmond why, if Mr. Ingham and Mr. Powell failed to tell her what they knew about the Law Officer's letter, they still remain in two of the most important offices in Britain. Why are they still in Downing street, basking in unprecedented favour, if that was the case?
The tribunal might also ask why this most inquisitive of Prime Ministers—no Conservative Member would deny that—requires us to believe that she never had the curiosity to ask her Secretary of State for Trade and Industry——
Mr. Derek Conway: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Gentleman's comments are interesting, and we have cantered round this course before, but how far are you prepared to let the debate widen? For some while the hon. Gentleman has been talking about circumstances in which Sir Leon Brittan left the Government, not the House of Commons. Therefore, I suggest that he is going wide of the point.
Mr. Speaker: I was present for much of what went on a fortnight ago when the motion was first debated. Nothing was out of order then, and nothing that I have heard today has been out of order. However, I hope that the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) will not take too much time of the House.
Mr. Dalyell: I am curious to know how it was that, according to the Select Committee, Mr. Powell and Mr. Ingham knew all about its former member's role on 7 January, and yet a Prime Minister who saw them five times a day never sought to ask about a matter that was threatening her Government, or at least her personal position, day after day. That was an exceedingly uncharacteristic lack of curiosity.
There is something more that the Prime Minister and Sir Leon Brittan ought to tell the electorate.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has given the House his views on that matter. Perhaps he will return to explaining why he believes that the writ should not be issued.
Mr. Dalyell: Before any writ is issued, and before any by-election takes place, there ought to be an explanation as to why, on 27 January, the Prime Minister could murmur, "I may not be Prime Minister at six o'clock tonight."—[Interruption.] She herself confirmed that to David Frost.

301
He asked her four times, and on the fourth time of asking she replied to Mr. Frost, "Well, it is just one of the things that one says."
Mr. Speaker: Order. That has nothing to do with the issuing of the writ. I ask the hon. Gentleman to return to that matter.
Mr. Dalyell: The British electorate may wonder why, after seven years in Downing street, and wanting to be re-elected for a third term, the Prime Minister would say such a thing. She said it for one reason only—because she did not know whether Sir Leon Brittan, sitting on the Back Benches, would spill the beans on her. That is why she said, quite uncharacteristically, that she might not be Prime Minister by six o'clock on that night.
I do not wish to try the patience of the House, but for some right hon. and hon. Members these are not frivolous issues but issues of deep importance concerning the integrity and probity of public life. That is why—for the first, and I suspect only, time—I oppose the writ.
3.52 pm
Mr. Ian Gow: The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) seems not to have understood that our former right hon. and learned Friend took up his appointment as commissioner in Brussels at the beginning of last month. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman's attempt to deny the people of Richmond the opportunity to have a Member of Parliament, if its purpose is to prevent Sir Leon Brittan from becoming our commissioner, is futile. The hon. Gentleman told the House today nothing that he has not told it on many previous occasions. I have no doubt that the electors of Richmond will pay precisely the same avid interest to his remarks this afternoon as they paid to his remarks on all the previous occasions.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. McLoughlin) pointed out, since the events to which the hon. Member for Linlithgow referred took place in January 1986, there has been a general election, when Sir Leon Brittan was Conservative candidate for Richmond. Between January 1986 and June 1987, the hon. Member for Linlithgow made many speeches almost identical to that which he made this afternoon. Therefore, if the people of Richmond were to be influenced by his words, they had the opportunity to do something about the matter in the months that elapsed between January 1986 and June 1987. The people of Richmond gave their verdict on our former right hon. and learned Friend when, at the last general election, the Conservative majority in Richmond increased from 18,000 to 19,500. That was in marked contrast to the Labour majority in Linlithgow, which fell from 11,000 to 10,000.
We are entitled to inquire about the real motive behind the hon. Gentleman's speech. At the last general election, the Labour candidate for Richmond received even fewer votes than the alliance candidate. This time the Labour party, characteristically, has chosen a dud candidate in Richmond.
The reason why the hon. Gentleman seeks to defer the writ——
Mr. Frank Dobson: Does the hon. Gentleman regard as a dud a man who parachuted at 2 in the morning of D-day to capture the bridges behind the beaches? Is that man a dud? He is our candidate at Richmond.
Mr. Gow: The courage of the Labour candidate is not in doubt; but, almost by definition, if one is a candidate for the Labour party in present circumstances, one is a dud. Indeed, it is a mark of the courage of the Labour candidate at Richmond that he has put himself forward as a candidate.
We may mark the contrast between the courage of the Labour candidate at Richmond and the courage of the Labour delegation which has made a journey to Moscow to seek advice about what defence policy should be put before the electorate. Indeed, that is one factor behind the wish of the hon. Member for Linlithgow to defer the by-election, for it may take many months—some might think many years—for the Labour party to fashion a defence policy suitable to be put before the electorate of Richmond, or anywhere else.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is in his place. He is anxious to expound the virtues of the Government's housing policy, but my right hon. Friend will expect, as I do, that those on the Opposition Front Bench will seek to prolong the life of this Parliament so that they may try to get together a defence policy to submit to the electorate.
There is another aspect of the Richmond by-election. You will recall, Mr. Speaker, because you follow these things closely, that at the general election there was but a single candidate for what was then called the alliance. Since then the alliance has split asunder and we are told that there will be two candidates for the single grouping which at the general election formed the alliance. l could well understand it if the representatives of the Liberal party and of the Social and Liberal Democratic party had sought to postpone the by-election because they need more time to get their act together.
I have a keen affection, as does the hon. Member for Linlithgow, for another former Member of the House, Dick Crossman. I had the good fortune to be the Conservative candidate in Coventry, East nearly 25 years ago. I have to say, because I am a fair man, that as a result of my efforts, Dick Crossman's majority rose from 6,000 to 16,000—but we shall let that pass. I have been re-reading the diaries which are so beloved by the hon. Member for Linlithgow. On page 49 of volume 1 these words appear:
"Tam Dalyell himself makes it very difficult. He is as awkward, stubborn and lovable as ever."
I agree with Dick Crossman's verdict.
4 pm
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): The House has considered at some length the question of the issuing of the writ for the Richmond by-election. On a previous occasion I said that I preferred to rely on the judgment of the Patronage Secretary as to when the writ should be moved, although I signified that he would, of course, follow the convention of moving it before three months had elapsed from the time the seat became vacant.
My right hon. and learned Friend is now keen to give the voters of Richmond the opportunity, as is their wont, to return a Conservative Member of Parliament. A wide variety of issues concerning this motion have already been debated, from the likely weather on polling day to the rigours of Catterick camp.
The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) has made his predictable speech and he will know by heart my

303
response to it. We have an important Opposition day debate this afternoon, and I do not think the hon. Gentleman's colleagues would thank him if their Supply Day were truncated by yet another debate on the Richmond writ.
I hope that the House will now approve the motion.
4.2 pm
Mr. Matthew Taylor: I support the Leader of the House in calling for the House to move ahead with the writ. The people of Richmond have been deprived of representation for a considerable time by silly party political bickering between Labour and Conservative Members over the timing of this by-election.
The real scandal is the delay on the part of the Conservative party over this by-election, which could have been over before Christmas and the people of the constituency would have had proper representation. The delays that are now occurring are preventing important matters being debated, including housing.
4.3 pm
Mr. Neil Hamilton: We should be told why the Labour party is so undesirous of having this by-election held. This is the second occasion on which the Government have attempted to move the writ. Two weeks ago the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) frustrated the evident desire of the people of Richmond to have a Member of Parliament to represent them. Today the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) seeks to delay the moving of the writ yet again.
The hon. Member for Linlithgow is sticking as tenaciously as ever to his obsession with the Belgrano, with Westland and with various other issues in which the country long ago lost any interest. Just as the Belgrano has gone to the bottom of the Atlantic, so the Labour party will go to the bottom of the poll when this by-election is held. Although the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) sits on the Labour Front Bench and appears to be desirous of having this by-election, Labour Members are running scared and do not want it to take place under any circumstances.
We could resolve this matter today and the hon. Member for Linlithgow could bring his views to the attention of the country if he would apply to the Patronage Secretary for the Stewardship of the Manor of Northstead, resign his seat and then become the Labour candidate in the by-election in Richmond. In those circumstances, the hon. Gentleman, who is a member of the county aristocracy in his part of the world, would greatly appeal to the up-market members of the community in Richmond. So he could do a great deal to improve the Labour party's potential in the by-election.
But if the hon. Gentleman were to take that course, it might not appeal to the occupants of the Labour Front Bench. I do not think they would be happy to have a by-election in Scotland at this time. It is not long since there was a by-election in the Glasgow, Govan constituency, and just as Queen Mary of England went to her grave with "Calais" written on her heart, so I believe the Leader of the Opposition will go to his political grave
304
at the next election with the word "Govan" tattooed on his fingers. Therefore, the Labour party would not be keen on having an election in Scotland, or anywhere else, just now.
The Labour candidate in Richmond is performing the same sort of function as the Light Brigade performed for this country in the Crimean war. He knows that he is going into the jaws of death and the mouth of hell, and we admire his courage.[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. Will hon. Members who appear to be having a committee meeting on the Bench below the Gangway please desist or leave the Chamber?
Mr. Hamilton: I know what it must be like to be the Labour candidate in Richmond. On the first occasion that I put myself forward as a parliamentary candidate I stood for Abertillery. I duly turned in 9 per cent. of the vote, which I doubt the Labour condidate in Richmond will achieve. A least I had the satisfaction, when we were able to bring the boundary changes into force after the election, of seeing that constituency abolished and divided between Islwyn and Blaenau Gwent. I thought, "Serve them right" in the Abertillery constituency for rejecting me.
I appreciate the sensitivity of Labour Members to having by-elections at this time. That is surprising because at the mid-point of a Parliament Oppositions normally do well. At present, we seem to be in the extraordinary situation—perhaps not so extraordinary when one considers the huge success of the Government—that today the Conservatives are doing better in the opinion polls than they were at the time of the last general election. So we shall be looking to increasing the majority of the Conservative candidate in the Richmond by-election, and that will be the most eloquent testimony to the interest of the people of this country in the points that the hon. Member for Linlithgow has made today and in the policies of the Labour party.
While I, as a kind and compassionate individual, should be happy not to cause more hurt and harm to the Labour party—because we should always look upon the political down-and-outs with the same compassion as we should look to those who have difficulty in running their own lives—the interests of the people of Richmond, and of Britain generally, depend on moving the writ, not only for this by-election but for Pontypridd as well. I look forward to seeing another two representatives of the Conservative party on these Benches after those by-elections have taken place.
4.7 pm
Mr. David Curry: There is a melancholy ruin in Linlithgow. I recall that the Palace of Linlithgow is a red sandstone building. Queen Margaret, shortly after the battle of Flodden, took to one of the upper rooms and gazed across the horizon for her husband to return, and he did not. The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) reminds me of Queen Margaret gazing forlornly, hoping for something to turn up.
My constituency of Skipton and Ripon borders that of Richmond. I worked with Sir Leon Brittan when he was the Member for Richmond—one of those happy parts of the country which could be described as a Labour-free zone—and I am in a position to testify to the esteem in which he was held by his constituents.
The hon. Member for Linlithgow kept referring to what the people of Richmond were entitled to have and needed.

305
I can tell him about both of those. They are entitled to a Member of Parliament, and that we are now trying to give them. They are concerned with issues about which I could speak for some time, but I assure him that they are not concerned about the events of several years ago to which the hon. Gentleman frequently refers.
Mr. Dalyell: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves the subject of Queen Margaret, may I ask him to agree that we should receive an explanation of the Westland affair?
Mr. Curry: The Secretary of State for Education and Science has said that more British history should be taught in our schools. If it were, perhaps more people, including the hon. Gentleman, would be aware that the battle of Flodden pre-dates the Westland affair, having taken place in 1513.
The matters which concern the people of Richmond and which need the attention of a Member of Parliament are, for example, the future of the national parks, which was referred to in the recent planning document published by the Secretary of State for the Environment, farm incomes, matters affecting the uplands and less favoured areas and the whole question of planning permission. We are speaking of one of those happy areas where there is rapid growth and where unemployment is rarely over 4 per cent., thanks to the success of the Government's policies. While they are concerned about low-flying aircraft, they welcome the presence of our defence forces in the constituency which testify to the success of the policy of deterrence.
They wish Sir Leon well in his new responsibilities. They saw him go with regret because he was such a good Member. They know that he will have great enthusiasm in Brussels and that he will do an outstanding job for Britain, and I could easily enumerate his responsibilities there and their great importance.
Mr. Robert Adley: As Sir Leon Brittan's old constituency borders my hon. Friend's constituency, I presume that my hon. Friend will be including in his peroration comments about the Settle to Carlisle railway line.
Mr. Curry: My hon. Friend is right. I have received some letters about that matter from Richmond constituents, and I am dealing with that correspondence. They are most anxious to ensure that the line is maintained. My hon. Friend will recall that a report on the tourist implications of the closure of that line said that there could be a serious tourist loss. We support, therefore, the continued existence of a railway which is unique in the United Kingdom and which touches the Richmond constituency, mine and many other constituencies. We could go into the details of this matter this afternoon.
There are two essential points. First, the people of Richmond are concerned about their Member of Parliament getting their matters dealt with and supporting the Government in the House. For that they need a Member of Parliament—a Conservative Member of Parliament. The dismal battle for fifth place between the ecologists and the Labour party is of very little concern to the people in that constituency. Secondly, they wish Sir Leon the greatest luck in his important responsibility. They saw him go with regret and they wish him well. They applaud his excellent work, and they are confident that the next Conservative Member will do just as well.
4.21 pm
Mr. Tony Marlow: When I looked at my Order Paper this morning, I noticed that today was an important day, because it was an Opposition day. I noticed that the Opposition have set out two important—I presume they are to them—motions. The first was to have been on housing, and the second on wages councils. I said "was", but they still may be debated. I then asked myself why, when the Opposition have what they consider to be important motions on the Order Paper and have a few of their troops here—there are many Conservative Members here. but not many Opposition Members, which is the usual position—they have decided to initiate a debate about the Richmond by-election. They have initiated it, and they shall have it.
I believe that there are many points to be made about the Opposition's reasons for initiating this debate. I confess that I am not capable of making all the points myself. The Opposition may be having a debate on the moving of the writ for the by-election because they are concerned about their motions on the Order Paper. The Opposition may have had second thoughts. They may be deeply worried about the implications of those motions. They have a motion on housing. Why should they he worried about that one? Perhaps it is because they do not have a housing policy.
Mrs. Ann Clwyd: If the hon. Gentleman would sit down, he would find out.
Mr. Marlow: Does the hon. Lady wish to intervene?
Mrs. Clwyd: If the hon. Gentleman sat down, he would find out the answer to that question very rapidly.
Mr. Marlow: I will indeed, when I have addressed myself to this important debate, which her hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow initiated, I presume, with the full support of the Opposition. I shall sit down when I have dealt with this matter, but, of course, some of my hon. Friends may then have something to say.
Mr. Eric S. Heffer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. On three occasions the hon. Gentleman has said that my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) has made this point about the writ with the agreement of the official Opposition. The hon. Gentleman and the House know that that is untrue. Any individual Back Bencher can raise any subject he likes. I have done it many times, and certainly without the agreement of my Front Bench. Hon. Members must not say that the Opposition are doing something officially when, in fact, it is a Back Bencher using his rights in this House.
Mr. Speaker: It is an absolute right of an hon. Member. All Members are equal in this House.
Mr. Marlow: If I have made a wrong statement, I crave the indulgence of the House. However, I and my hon. Friends have a great deal of difficulty with this, because there are so many splits and crevices in the Opposition that it is difficult to know whether a motion or a measure such as this is proposed with the whole-hearted support of the entire Opposition Front Bench, part of the Opposition Front Bench, the Chief Whip on the Opposition Front Bench, the leader of the party or anybody else.
Mr. Adley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is a kind and compassionate man. In view of what the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heller) has said, I am concerned that it may be argued that the Opposition Chief Whip is not in control of the troops on his own Benches. That has serious implications for this House and the parliamentary procedures which we all follow. I wonder if my hon. Friend would like to turn his mind to that point.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that he will not do that. The hon. Member should get back to the reason why we should pass this motion. Is not that what the hon. Member is arguing?
Mr. Marlow: You are right, of course, Mr. Speaker. I am afraid that my hon. Friend was being a little uncharitable. I am sure that the Opposition Chief Whip has total control over his party. The difficulty is knowing what proportion and what part of the Labour party he has control over.
The hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) said that, if I were to sit down—my hon. Friends having made their points and Opposition Members having spoken on this important writ, because I am sure that many other Opposition Members wish to make a contribution——
Mr. Heffer: Sit down, you idiot.
Mr. Marlow: I am not sure that I heard that, but I am told that it takes one to know one.
Mr.Tony Fayell: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Marlow: Will my hon. Friend be patient? I shall give way in a moment.
The hon. Member for Cynon Valley said that she wanted me to sit down so that the Opposition could tell us about housing policy. We have now embarked upon an important debate, and it may take a significant amount of time. What will not take a significant amount of time is telling the House about the Labour party's housing policy.
Mr. Favell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, which I believe he has just done. Has it escaped his notice that the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), who is opposing this motion, is a Member of the Scottish Labour party? Does he welcome his intervention, as I do, in what is essentially English business, just as English Members try to participate in Scottish business?
Mr. Marlow: That is an important point. As you remind us—often quite rightly—Mr. Speaker, we all stand or sit here as Members of Parliament for the United Kingdom, and we are proud to do so. It is important that Members of Parliament for the United Kingdom are involved in debates on all subjects concerning the whole of the United Kingdom. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing that point to my attention.
My hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) stated in his all-too-brief intervention that the Labour party was concerned because of its defence policy. It was concerned about the date of the writ being moved, and the by-election coming forward, because the Labour party had not quite worked out its defence policy. Members of the Labour party have gone to Russia to sort out the party's defence policy; the party has received its orders from Russia; but it has not yet put its defence policy together.
Mr. Speaker: Order. the hon. Gentleman's comments must be related to the Richmond by-election.
Mr. Marlow: I am sure you will acknowledge, Mr. Speaker, that Catterick camp, one of the foremost military camps, is located right in the centre of the Richmond constituency. Defence, therefore, will be on everybody's tongue throughout the by-election campaign. It is an issue which is of the essence. I am sure that it will feature strongly and prominently throughout the whole campaign. If the writ is moved today to the date which my right hon. Friend the Patronage Secretary has suggested, it will be a relatively short campaign. One might almost say that defence is such an important issue in that constituency that one should be concerned that it is such a short campaign. Labour party's policy on defence is so obscure, convoluted and changing by the day that not only would it take a long time for the Labour party to sort out its approach to that policy, but it would take even longer to explain it.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: As defence is so important to the electorate of Richmond, I wonder whether they listened to the Labour spokesman on Sunday, who outlined a policy that bore no resemblance to Labour party policy. Which is the official policy?
Mr. Marlow: Normally my hon. Friend is extremely charitable—we all try to be charitable about people in difficulties and we particularly try to be charitable about the Labour party. This is an opportunity for the Labour party to clarify its policy on defence before the by-election takes place. As my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne cogently said earlier on, the time afforded for such clarification is not long enough.
Defence is one of the many policies which will be debated and discussed during the forthcoming by-election, if the motion is carried today. The constituents of Richmond will also need to know about education policy.
Mr. Alan Meale: Does the hon. Gentleman also agree that one of the issues that must be discussed before the by-election is our attitude to Europe, particularly prior to 1992? Bearing in mind the history of the ex-Member of Parliament for Richmond, Yorks who is now the Commissioner in Europe, does he believe that Europe will come to the fore during the by-election? The hon. Gentleman and I are members of the Select Committee on European Legislation, a sitting of which started 21 minutes ago. Does he not believe that he should wind up his contribution to get this matter out of the way so that we may both go upstairs to fulfil our duties?
Mr. Marlow: I second the hon. Gentleman about the importance of Europe and later in my speech I intend to develop my thoughts on that at greater length than I have done thus far. I understand that the hon. Gentleman is concerned about the sitting of the Select Committee on European Legislation, which was supposed to start 21 minutes ago. The hon. Gentleman would like to be there, as would many of us. It has been suggested that—[Interruption.] What is going on on the Opposition Benches, Mr. Speaker?
Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think it matters what is going on on the Opposition Benches. The hon. Gentleman should keep to the question about the Richmond writ being moved; that is what should be going on.
Mr. Marlow: Yes, but messages have been passed. I suppose that those messages were not from you, Mr. Speaker, but originated from some other power within the House. That is fine. There is a problem.
Mr. Richard Holtrose——
Mr. Marlow: I shall give way in a moment, if my hon. Friend would be patient.
Someone has suggested that it may be possible to suspend the sitting of the European Select Committee until such time as this particular issue has been debated. I do not know whether there is a procedure to do so. Is that possible, Mr. Speaker?
Mr. Speaker: I am not responsible for the sittings of Select Committees.
Mr. Marlow: I am grateful for your ruling.
Mr. Holt: I am grateful to my hon. Friend giving way, as the discussion of European elections gives me the opportunity to discuss the attitude of the Labour party in the neighbouring constituency to mine, which has a Conservative Member of Parliament. What will be the Labour party candidate's attitude at the forthcoming by-election given that in the north-east we fought the two previous general elections on the Labour party's desire to come out of Europe?
Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not believe that that is relevant to the Richmond by-election, to which we must return. There is a further writ to move before we get on to the business of the day.
Mr. Marlow: May I gently and mildly reprimand my hon. Friend for trying to lead me down a path other than that of righteousness? What he raised is certainly something to which I should not refer at this stage in the debate.
I have already told the House about the problems inherent in the Richmond by-election and in conducting it within a short period of time. One policy of particular importance to Richmond, as it is to my constituency, is education. The Labour party has no defence policy to put before the people of Richmond and I believe that it has no education policy to put before them. Perhaps that is why the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) was called upon to move the writ, so as possibly to delay the holding of the by-election. We do not know, but perhaps we should be told. If the Labour party has no proper policy on education, how can it face the electorate of Richmond?
I will take another example out of the hat. Yesterday, we had an extremely important statement from my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health. He set out a brilliant, new, exciting, stimulating and revolutionary policy for improving the Health Service of this country and, among the health services of this country, obviously the health service of Richmond figured prominently in his mind. He wants to improve the health services available to the people of Richmond. Various questions were put by Opposition Members, we had leaks by the Opposition, smothering tactics and misleading statements by the Opposition, but we have had no policy from the Opposition. That is the problem. Probably that is another reason why the hon. Member for Linlithgow was called upon to make his speech—because the Labour party does not want the by-election to take place until it
310
has a positive policy on health, education and defence. On that basis, it will he an extremely long time before it is ready to take a by-election in Richmond.
4.25 pm
Mr. Robert Adley: I was constrained to join briefly in this debate only by the confirmation by my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) that the Settle-Carlisle railway line runs along the boundary of the constituency.
Mr. Derek Foster rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall accept the closure when the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley) has completed his speech.
Mr. Adley: This is a serious matter, because the people of Richmond may believe that the Government's decision on whether to keep open the Settle-Carlisle railway line is determined by the timing of the by-election. Therefore, this is an appropriate opportunity to say a few words. I am sure that the hon. Members for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) and for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) recognise the relevance of that issue to the by-election and will join me in hoping that, somehow, the holding of the by-election will help to convince the Government of the absolute necessity of retaining that railway line. I am confident that my right hon. and learned Friend the Patronage Secretary, who never speaks, will be silently nodding his head as the River Ribble rises in his constituency.
Mr. Neil Hamilton rose——
Mr. Marlow rose——
Mr. Adley: I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton).
Mr. Marlow: My hon. Friend cannot give way during an intervention.
Mr. Speaker: Order. There is some confusion. I called the hon. Member for Christchurch. He has started his speech and I hope that he can get on with it.
Mr. Adley: My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) feels constrained to intervene in my speech, which he thought was an intervention in his speech, but which Mr. Speaker believes is a speech on its own account. I shall give way later to my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton, on the assumption that my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North does not wish to make an intervention in what he thought was an intervention in his speech.
I am waiting to decide how to vote on this motion by determinig whether it is better for the people of Richmond, who want to see the Settle-Carlisle line retained, to have a by-election or whether to allow the Government a pregnant pause for thought before that by-election. Perhaps we should restrain our enthusiasm for this by-election. The Government must reach a decision on the future of that railway line by May, and they might be further and better pressurised by not having the by-election and by not moving the writ today.
Mr. Neil Hamilton: I am sure that the House will have great sympathy with my hon. Friend about the possible closure of the Settle-Carlisle railway line. On the question of closures, did my hon. Friend note, a moment ago, that

311
the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster) shortly intends to move the closure of the debate? Considering that the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) instigated the debate in the first place because he believes that the Government have gagged discussion of Westland and so on, does my hon. Friend agree that it is rather extraordinary that his colleague, the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland, is pursuing the same tactics of which he falsely accuses the Government?
Mr. Adley: I agree with my hon. Friend. It shows, first, that Labour Members have a contempt for democracy, and, secondly, that they have no real interest in the outcome of the Richmond by-election. Perhaps that answers the point that my hon. Friend made so eloquently.
Mr. Conway: I am sure that my hon. Friend will accept that some hon. Members may believe that some off-the-wire filibuster has begun. That is not the case, because some of us have prepared speeches for the housing debate which we hope will follow, and if you, Mr. Speaker, were gracious enough to call me, I would wish to make that speech. Some of us did want, if an early closure motion was not moved, to contribute to the debate. Those of us who have a personal knowledge of Richmond, where my wife went to school and where I did some military training, wished to talk about the excellent constituents who live there. The filibuster was begun by Labour Members who spoke about everything but Richmond and has been continued by the Conservative Members who want to let the electors of Richmond know how concerned and aware we are of their life styles and their interests.
Mr. Adley: I share my hon. Friend's concern. I agree with everything he said except his split infinitive which I am sure Hansard will adjust properly.
Mr. Holt: I want to remind my hon. Friend about a recent occasion when an Opposition Member spoke on this writ for about three hours. One of the subjects that was vital to that debate was the weather in the area. As I represent the next-door constituency, and live there, I would be able to make a considerable contribution about the weather if the debate were allowed to continue. I remind the House that at that time Mr. Deputy Speaker ruled that, as long as sufficient hon. Members wanted to speak and stood up, the debate would not be curtailed except by the Chair. Therefore, I hope that, when my hon. Friend has sat down, I will have the opportunity to speak at great length on the weather in the area at the moment and the likely weather pattern over the next few weeks leading up to the by-election.
Mr. Adley: My hon. Friend will excuse me, but if I were to agree with him it would be taken as critical of Mr. Speaker of how long he allows the debate to continue.
Mr. Favell: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Adley: In a moment. I should like to comment on an eloquent and eminently acceptable speech made by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). I am sorry that the hon. Member for Bolsover is hiding his head in his hands at the thought of receiving compliments from me, but he is also a supporter of the Settle-Carlisle railway line, so I hope that he will not mind my mentioning his eloquent speech.
312
As I have a meeting with my hon. Friend the Minister for Public Transport at 5 o'clock to discuss the future of the Settle-Carlisle railway line, you, Mr. Speaker, my hon. Friends and Opposition Members will be pleased to know that I shall not continue my speech for much longer.
Mr. Favell: I understand my hon. Friend to be suggesting either that the writ should not be moved until he has received from the Government a decision satisfactory to him about the Settle-Carlisle railway line, or alternatively he intends to continue speaking until such a decision has been taken. Is he really suggesting what is now known in Labour party annals in Yorkshire as doing a Humber bridge?
Mr. Adley: Before I comment on the Humber bridge, my hon. Friend has in his constituency the famous Stockport viaduct which has been restored——
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should address his remarks to the motion. That viaduct is not in Richmond.
Mr. Adley: I was going to go straight from the Stockport viaduct to the Ribblehead viaduct, which is the main physical feature of the Settle-Carlisle railway line. Many people in the Richmond parliamentary constituency hope that the railway line stays open and are extremely concerned about that great listed structure immediately adjoining their constituency. I hope that the candidates in the by-election, when it is declared, will turn their minds to the importance of the retention of that line.
At the moment, British Rail is seeking permission to close the line, but the Government have put British Rail in charge of co-ordinating efforts to keep the line open. To my mind, that is rather like inviting Genghis Khan to become the general manager of a refugee camp. Therefore, I very much hope that candidates in the Richmond by-election will give the future of the Settle-Carlisle railway line their absolute priority. By a quirk of legislative fate, the Manpower Services Commission is unable to provide assistance to British Rail, as it is a nationalised industry.
One reason why the future of the Settle-Carlisle railway line is in jeopardy is the state of the Ribblehead viaduct. Over the years, British Rail has exaggerated the cost of repairing the viaduct and is unable to take advantage of the Manpower Services Commission funds because British Rail is a nationalised industry.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Is my hon. Friend aware that one of my constituents has been instrumental in trying to preserve one of the arches of that viaduct in which the people of Richmond have a legal interest?
Mr. Speaker: Order. These comments are interesting. I know about the railway line, but could the debate be related to why the writ should or should not be moved?
Mr. Adley: I entirely agree with you, Mr. Speaker; therefore, I shall conclude after my hon. Friend has intervened again.
Mr. Holt: I appreciate my hon. Friend's great interest in the railway line. He mentioned the Humber bridge. One of the matters which will be germane——
Mr. Speaker: Order. But that bridge is not in Richmond.
Mr. Holt: I was saying that one of the matters which will be germane in Richmond will be whether the A1 road which goes right through the constituency should be made into a motorway. That is of vital importance for the people of Richmond. My hon. Friend would do well to balance his remarks about the railway by considering the needs of road traffic, as the two matters are very much complementary.
Mr. Adley: I shall be brief, as I do not wish to abuse the House, and I do not wish to be late for my meeting with my hon. Friend the Minister for Public Transport.
My hon. Friend may have heard my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister respond to my question yesterday. I asked her to instruct the Department of Transport to reconsider the comparative criteria which that Department uses in assessing the costs of and benefits to the nation of road versus rail transport. I certainly hope that the candidates in the Richmond by-election will take my point. I do not know the budget of the north Yorkshire constabulary in whose area the Richmond constituency lies. The budget of the Dorset constabulary is £40 million a year. The chief constable does not know, because he has never been invited to find out, what proportion of his budget has to be spent on costs involving roads and road traffic offences.
An enormous proportion of any chief constable's budget involves not only policing accidents but dealing with offences, attending court and administration. I am quite sure that the situation in north Yorkshire is exactly the same as that in Dorset. How can any Government accurately assess road versus rail costs unless items such as the policing costs of road traffic and road transport are taken into account?
Mr. Marlow rose——
Mr. Roger King rose——
Mr. Adley: While I welcome my hon. Friends' views, in view of my appointment at the Department of Transport, I shall not give way. I would be abusing my position if I were to give way. You, Mr. Speaker, asked me to come to the point about the timing of the by-election.
I am not certain whether the future of the Settle-Carlisle railway line is best preserved by an early by-election or a later by-election. In view of the timing of the decision by the Department of Transport in May as to the future of the railway line, it may be better if the by-election is postponed and left hanging over the Government's head until they have made that decision. That is the purpose of my brief intervention in the debate.
Mr. Foster rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
Question put, That the Question be now put:—
The House divided: Ayes 344, Noes 6.

Division No. 69]

[4.39 pm

AYES

Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Adley, Robert

Ashby, David

Alexander, Richard

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Ashton, Joe

Allen, Graham

Aspinwall, Jack

Alton, David

Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

Anderson, Donald

Baldry, Tony

Arbuthnot, James

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Armstrong, Hilary

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

314

Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

Barron, Kevin

Durant, Tony

Batiste,Spencer

Dykes, Hugh

Beckett, Margaret

Eadie, Alexander

Beith, A. J.

Eastham, Ken

Benyon, W.

Emery, Sir Peter

Bermingham, Gerald

Evans, John (St Helens N)

Bevan, David Gilroy

Fallon, Michael

Bidwell, Sydney

Fatchett, Derek

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Favell, Tony

Blair, Tony

Fearn, Ronald

Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Blunkett, David

Flannery, Martin

Boateng, Paul

Flynn, Paul

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Fookes, Dame Janet

Boswell, Tim

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Bottomley, Peter

Forman, Nigel

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Forth, Eric

Boyes, Roland

Foster, Derek

Bradley, Keith

Fox, Sir Marcus

Brazier, Julian

Franks, Cecil

Browne, John (Winchester)

Fraser, John

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Freeman, Roger

Buchan, Norman

Fry, Peter

Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

Fyfe, Maria

Buck, Sir Antony

Galbraith, Sam

Buckley, George J.

Galloway, George

Budgen, Nicholas

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Burns, Simon

Garrett, John (Norwich South)

Burt, Alistair

Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

Butler, Chris

Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

Butterfill, John

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Caborn, Richard

Goodhart, Sir Philip

Callaghan, Jim

Gould, Bryan

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Gow, Ian

Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

Gower, Sir Raymond

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Graham, Thomas

Canavan, Dennis

Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Carrington, Matthew

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Cash, William

Gregory, Conal

Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Chapman, Sydney

Grist, Ian

Chope, Christopher

Grocott, Bruce

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

Ground, Patrick

Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

Hampson, Dr Keith

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Harris, David

Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

Haselhurst, Alan

Clay, Bob

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Clelland, David

Hayes, Jerry

Cohen, Harry

Haynes, Frank

Colvin, Michael

Hayward, Robert

Conway, Derek

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Cook, Robin (Livingston)

Heddle, John

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

Heffer, Eric S.

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

Cope, Rt Hon John

Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

Corbett, Robin

Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

Corbyn, Jeremy

Home Robertson, John

Cousins, Jim

Hood, Jimmy

Crowther, Stan

Howard, Michael

Cryer, Bob

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

Cummings, John

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Cunningham, Dr John

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

Currie, Mrs Edwina

Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

Curry, David

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Dalyell, Tam

Hunt, David (Wirral W)

Darling, Alistair

Hunter, Andrew

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

Irvine, Michael

Day, Stephen

Irving, Charles

Dewar, Donald

Jack, Michael

Dicks, Terry

Janman, Tim

Dixon, Don

Janner, Greville

Dobson, Frank

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Doran, Frank

Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

Dorrell, Stephen

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Dover, Den

Kennedy, Charles

Duffy, A. E. P.

Key, Robert

Dunnachie, Jimmy

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

315

Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

Powell, William (Corby)

Kirkhope, Timothy

Prescott, John

Knight, Greg (Derby North)

Price, Sir David

Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

Primarolo, Dawn

Knowles, Michael

Quin, Ms Joyce

Knox, David

Radice, Giles

Lamond, James

Raffan, Keith

Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

Lawrence, Ivan

Redwood, John

Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

Reid, Dr John

Leighton, Ron

Rhodes James, Robert

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

Lightbown, David

Robertson, George

Livingstone, Ken

Robinson, Geoffrey

Livsey, Richard

Roe, Mrs Marion

Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

Rooker, Jeff

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Rossi, Sir Hugh

Luce, Rt Hon Richard

Ryder, Richard

Lyell, Sir Nicholas

Sackville, Hon Tom

McAllion, John

Salmond, Alex

McAvoy, Thomas

Scott, Nicholas

McCrindle, Robert

Sedgemore, Brian

Macfarlane, Sir Neil

Shaw, David (Dover)

McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Maclean, David

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Maclennan, Robert

Sheerman, Barry

McLoughlin, Patrick

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

McTaggart, Bob

Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

Madden, Max

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

Madel, David

Shersby, Michael

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Short, Clare

Marek, Dr John

Skinner, Dennis

Marland, Paul

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

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

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

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

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Maude, Hon Francis

Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

Maxton, John

Soley, Clive

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Spearing, Nigel

Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

Speller, Tony

Meale, Alan

Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Michael, Alun

Squire, Robin

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Stanbrook, Ivor

Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Miller, Sir Hal

Steel, Rt Hon David

Mills, Iain

Steinberg, Gerry

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Stern, Michael

Monro, Sir Hector

Stevens, Lewis

Moore, Rt Hon John

Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

Morgan, Rhodri

Stradling Thomas, Sir John

Morley, Elliott

Sumberg, David

Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Morrison, Sir Charles

Temple-Morris, Peter

Mudd, David

Thurnham, Peter

Mullin, Chris

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Murphy, Paul

Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

Neale, Gerrard

Trippier, David

Neubert, Michael

Turner, Dennis

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Nicholls, Patrick

Vaz, Keith

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Waddington, Rt Hon David

Norris, Steve

Wakeham, Rt Hon John

Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

Walker, Bill (T'side North)

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Wall, Pat

Paice, James

Walters, Sir Dennis

Patchett, Terry

Ward, John

Pawsey, James

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

Pike, Peter L.

Wareing, Robert N.

Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

Warren, Kenneth

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

316

Wheeler, John

Wood, Timothy

Widdecombe, Ann

Woodcock, Mike

Wiggin, Jerry

Worthington, Tony

Williams, Rt Hon Alan

Wray, Jimmy

Winnick, David

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Winterton, Mrs Ann

Winterton, Nicholas

Tellers for the Ayes:

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Mrs. Ann Clwyd and

Wolfson, Mark

Mr. Ted Rowlands.

NOES

Blackburn, Dr John G.

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

Carttiss, Michael

Tellers for the Noes:

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Mr. Neil Hamilton and

Marlow, Tony

Mr. Michael Brown.

Question agreed to.
Question put accordingly and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Mr. Speaker do issue his Warrant to the Clerk of the Crown to make out a new Writ for the electing of a Member to serve in this present Parliament for the county constituency of Richmond, Yorks in the room of the right hon. Sir Leon Brittan, QC, who, since his election for the said county constituency, hath accepted the Office of Steward or Bailiff of Her Majesty's Manor of Northstead in the County of York.
4.52 pm
Mr. Nicholas Bennett: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The closure of the previous debate was moved after one hour and nine minutes which is an extremely short period after which a closure motion is accepted. May I take it that, in accepting the closure, you were taking into account our five-hour debate on this subject the Friday before last? If that is so, may I take it that, when we debate the Pontypridd writ, which has not previously been debated, you will bear in mind the wishes of hon. Members who want to speak on the subject?
Mr. Speaker: I take account of all kinds of matters in accepting a closure motion to be put to the House. Thereafter, I am bound to abide by the House's decision.
Mr. Holt: With respect, Mr. Speaker, I must draw your attention to Madam Deputy Speaker's ruling on this subject a week last Friday. She said—I believe that I quote her almost exactly—that she would not allow a closure motion to be put until there were fewer Members rising in their places to speak. I made a challenge on a point of order at that time and she told me that, in her opinion, as too many Members were still rising to speak, a closure motion could not be allowed. In other words, the Chair's decision was based on the number of Members rising to speak.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is correct to say that it is the Chair's decision whether to accept the closure, but it is then up to the House to decide whether it wishes the debate to continue.
Mr. Holt: With respect, I must point out that we were not allowed to vote on whether the House wanted a closure on that occasion. Surely that precedent could have been followed today.
Mr. Speaker: No. No occupant of the Chair gives his reasons for accepting the closure.

New Writ (Pontypridd)
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That Mr. Speaker do issue his Warrant to the Clerk of the Crown to make out a new Writ for the electing of a Member to serve in this present Parliament for the county constituency of Pontypridd in the room of Brynmor Thomas John, Esquire, deceased.—[Mr. Foster.]
4.55 pm
Dr. Dafydd Elis Thomas: I wish to speak not as a procedural way of delaying a debate or to refer to the impeccable tradition and service of Brynmor John, whom we still mourn in this House, but to refer to the technical issue of the nature of the electorate and the rights of potential electors to be registered and able to vote. I have made this technical objection to raise the issue and to request the official Opposition Chief Whip to delay the moving of the writ so that all the potential voters will have an opportunity to register and vote.
At the beginning of this year, it became clear to the electoral registration officers of the Taff Ely borough council which is the district authority for the parliamentary constituency of Pontypridd, that there were at that time some 4,000 houses in the Pontypridd constituency without an entry in the electoral register. Under the legislation, those who are not registered are of course entitled to be placed on supplementary lists, but, because of the changes in electoral law passed by the House last year, many electors are not yet aware of the way in which the registration rules operate. The Taff Ely borough council officers have contacted those electors and we understand that the rate of response is improving, but, if the election is to be held on 23 February, many electors—hundreds, possibly thousands—including a high proportion of younger people, may not by then have registered their right to vote.
The names of those wishing to vote in any election held before 28 February will have to have been received by electoral registration officers before 19 January because supplementary lists normally come into effect on the first day of the month. By calling the election one or two weeks later, in March, there would be a greater opportunity for unregistered electors to have their names entered on supplementary lists and, therefore, to be able to vote.
I raise this issue because I am anxious that all electors entitled to vote should be registered to do so. We in Wales and elsewhere in the United Kingdom do not want to slip into American-style electoral practices where non-registration can have as much effect on election results as the votes cast. For those reasons, I object technically to the moving of the writ and request the Labour Opposition to defer moving the writ in the interests of democracy.
4.57 pm
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): I should first like to pay tribute to Brynmor John, who died so sadly on 13 December. He had been a Member of this House for more than 18 years and was extremely well liked and respected on both sides of the Chamber. He will be greatly missed. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]
It is the convention not only that the writ should be moved within three months of the vacancy occurring but also that it should he moved by the party whose Member formerly occupied the seat, and that party should have priority in choosing the day for the by-election. That is
318
what the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster) is now seeking to do, and I do not think that there can be much objection to it.
The comments of the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Dr. Thomas) about the electoral register will have been heard in the appropriate quarters. The new register comes into force on 16 February, in time for the by-election, as he said. Any possible omissions are a matter for the local registration officer. About 4,000 homes were missing from the first draft roll, but the local registration officer recanvassed and the 1989 register now has about 1,250 more electors than the 1988 register. The claims of the Plaid Cymru candidate do not bear much inspection. The House should support the motion.
4.59 pm
Mr. Frank Dobson: I join the Leader of the House in paying tribute to the late Brynmor John, who was popular not only in the House but with the electors of Pontypridd—rightly so, because he represented them well for many years. They will miss him, and so shall we.
I also join the Leader of the House in responding to the point raised by the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Dr. Thomas). The electoral registration officer for the district council of Taff Ely said that during the preparation of the 1989 register of electors it became apparent that there would be a parliamentary by-election in 1989. At that time, 89 per cent. of the householders in the constituency had responded to the original canvass. A further canvass was undertaken and 4,000 householders were identified as not having responded. They were then re-canvassed. One thousand six hundred people immediately responded, increasing the percentage response to 94·5 per cent. However, the remainder of those who had not responded but were on the 1988 register have been carried forward to be included in the 1989 register, which will therefore include 1,260 more electors than appeared on last year's register.
Any concern that the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy may have felt is rendered irrelevant by the electoral registration officer's information. The hon. Gentleman may be more concerned about the limited number who will register votes for his candidate than about those who will register for the election.
5.2 pm
Mr. Nicholas Bennett: I should like to link my name to the remarks already made by other hon. Members about the late Brynmor John. I recall his last speech in the Welsh Grand Committee. We crossed swords there, but generally he had a gentle and polite way of treating his political opponents.
The Pontypridd by-election should go ahead as soon as possible, if only to spare the Opposition the trauma of deciding where they stand on Welsh devolution. That will be a major issue in the by-election—so major that the Leader of the Opposition was reported in last Friday's Western Mail, the national newspaper of Wales, as having come "off the fence on devolution". The Western Mail said that the Leader of the Opposition
"gave his clearest commitment so far to the principle of establishing an elected assembly in Cardiff…he told a press conference at Westminster, 'I am in favour of devolution throughout Britain'".
It said that the conversion came

319
"only weeks before the 10th anniversary of the ill-fated devolution referendum, which the then left-wing back bencher"—
I think that is a reference to the Leader of the Opposition—
"did much to sink as a leader of the `No' campaign."
By Saturday, 28 January, a Western Mail headline read:
"Off-the-fence report gets short shrift".
The article said:
"Labour leader Mr. Neil Kinnock yesterday waded into the Western Mail report saying that he had come off the fence over devolution.
He said it was a 'mischievous misrepresentation or gross ignorance of what I have said and stood for over the last 15 years'.
The Western Mail report he referred to as 'palpable nonsense'. He told a Cardiff press conference, 'Wales will get devolution (under a Labour Government), but what is not yet determined is the form of devolution.'"
The article continued:
"While Mr. Kinnock said he supported devolution, he refused to say what form it should take, and whether Wales would remain one unit or be divided into two or three."
Presumably the Leader of the Opposition is working on the basis that, if Wales and the United Kingdom are divided into small enough bits, one bit will eventually return a Labour majority. I do not know how small those bits would have to be.
It will be of great importance to the people of Pontypridd when they vote to know that the Western Mail continued:
"After the press conference, Mr. Jones"—the Welsh chairman of the Labour party—
"admitted he personally had not seen any replies from the 2,500 organisations approached in Wales which favoured the possible division of Wales spoken of by Mr. Kinnock."
The article said that the deputy leader of the Labour party, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), as chairman of the central review group, took
"a stronger line on a Welsh assembly than Mr. Kinnock. In late December, he published his own views involving a Welsh assembly possessing powers to make its own laws and to raise the necessary revenue.
The article quoted the Opposition Leader as saying: 'In the North-East, the predominant demand is for an economic planning council'."
I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) has heard much demand from people in the north-east for an economic planning council. I am sure that is all they talk about.
The article quoted the Labour leader as saying that in London the demand was for a strategic authority, and
"'in Wales the demand is for a different form to Scotland'"—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will bear in mind that it is in order to quote from an article, but not to read at length.
Mr. Bennett: I am trying to be fair to the Leader of the Opposition. It is important for the electors in the Pontypridd by-election to be aware of what the Leader of the Opposition said and that he should not be misrepresented.
Mr. Gwilym Jones: I know that my hon. Friend is trying to be fair to the Leader of the Opposition. He is right to raise the Opposition Leader's
320
conflicting and confusing stance on devolution during our debate on the writ for the Pontypridd by-election. However, perhaps this is not merely the Leader of the Opposition shooting himself in the foot again, but a desperate tactic on the part of the Labour party to talk up the Plaid Cymru campaign, which until last week was a nonentity, because it is afraid of the rapid advance of the Conservative candidate, Mr. Nigel Evans.
Mr. Bennett: My hon. Friend makes a telling point. There may be a second reason why the Opposition want the by-election to take place quickly. Perhaps they have an attack of Govanitis. They saw what happened in that Scottish constituency, where there was a larger Labour majority than the Labour candidate enjoyed at the last Pontypridd election and were worried that, if the debate was allowed to continue, and Plaid Cymru and other candidates were allowed to question the stance of the Leader of the Opposition from day to day, they might find themselves in even more of a mess on devolution.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Perhaps the Opposition wish to move the by-election writ as quickly as possible because, during the past 10 years, they have changed their view on defence—an important issue for everyone in this country—and no doubt there is concern that they may change their mind on devolution.
Mr. Bennett: That is a good point. As we discovered when we discussed Richmond, the Labour party would not like the electors to consider a range of issues, including education and defence. We can add Welsh devolution to that list, and before polling day arrives, I am sure that several other isues—for example, rates—will arise which the Labour party will not wish to discuss.
Mr. Greg Knight: My hon. Friend was good enough to say that he had reached the conclusion that the by-election should be held straight away. Will he consider another matter, which may lead him to a different conclusion? There have been reports in the press that the Labour candidate for Pontypridd is a Communist or has Communist sympathies. My hon. Friend talked about setting up democratic institutions for Wales. Perhaps the Labour candidate does not believe in democracy.
Mr. Bennett: My hon. Friend is right. The Labour candidate for Pontypridd, according to the Leader of the Opposition, was a member of the Communist party for a short time. The Western Mail of 27 January said that the Opposition Leader said that
"it was a Euro-communist party at the time he was in it, and the issue has never had particular resonance in the South Wales Valleys".
When the Labour candidate fell out with the leader of the National Union of Mineworkers during the 1984-85 strike, he resigned from the Communist party.
Mr. Tony Marlow: I know that my hon. Friend is in a hurry to finish his contribution, but lest he be in too much of a hurry, I wonder if he could take note of the fact that the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), who is very concerned about not moving writs for by-elections, is not here—perhaps it is a call of nature or he is having a cup of tea—so can my hon. Friend go slowly through his notes? Of course, he will want to accelerate afterwards. If the hon. Gentleman is detained longer,

321
perhaps my hon. Friend, being a kind gentleman, will send him a copy of Hansard so that he can get the full benefit of my hon. Friend's remarks.
Mr. Bennett: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's contribution. I am sure that it will be noted by my secretary, who will send a copy of Hansard to the hon. Gentleman.
The views of the Leader of the Opposition are of great interest. In the Western Mail, the Leader of the Opposition reportedly came off the fence on Friday and back-tracked a bit on Saturday. When we look at his record—because the Leader of the Opposition has challenged the Western Mail as being inaccurate—we find that when he was a Back Bencher, he said on Second Reading of the Wales Bill on 15 November 1977, which was introduced by a Labour Government:
"I certainly hope and confidently believe"
that the referendum will
"crush this nonsense once and for all and, with it, the architects of it and the profiteers from it, the Welsh nationalists … But we shall have some difficulty in explaining to the people of Wales the incredible waste of time and the incredible insensitivity of the Government to what they must surely know—because members of the Government are people who represent seats which are no different in any important respect from ours, in a country beset by the most enormous social and economic difficulties—is the most nominal support among the people for this constitutional change."—[Official Report, 15 November 1977; Vol. 939, c. 465-6.]
So the Leader of the Opposition was attacking his own Government in 1977 and opposing in principle the whole concept of devolution.
That was not the first time that the Leader of the Opposition had changed his mind. In 1974, in an election address for the constituency of Bedwellty, as the Labour candidate he put in a line saying that he was in favour of meaningful devolution and an assembly. By 1977, he was against it; he had changed his mind again—and now he has back-tracked yet again. Is it any wonder that on Monday the Western Mail was moved to write in an editorial on the subject that there was a
"whiff of déjà vu around. It is better known as devolution, although some would have us believe it is the slippery slope to Home Rule. Many of the players are the same as in the great debate which preceded the 1979 referendum. Only the costumes have changed. Remember Neil Kinnock, the voluble backbencher, and Leo Abse, the flamboyant member for Pontypool, whose cut and threat despatched the then proposed devolution package (with its Welsh Assembly) into a political black hole? Ten years later Mr. Kinnock leads a Labour Party struggling to escape from its own black hole."
Mr. Speaker: Order. Remarks must be related to why the writ should or should not be moved, but not to the views and opinions of the leader of the Labour party.
Mr. Bennett: One of the major issues in the by-election will be where the Government and the Opposition parties stand on the crucial issues of Welsh devolution and separatism. We thought we knew where the Leader of the Opposition stood in 1974 and 1977, and where he stood until last Friday. We are not sure where he stood on Saturday, and even less sure where he stood on Monday or today. it is clearly important for the electors of Pontypridd to know that, but it is clearly also important for the Labour party that a by-election should take place as quickly as possible before it changes its policies and its mind again.
322
On 23 February, the electors will at least have the opportunity to make a decision on what they believe to he the policies of the various parties. They will find a Conservative candidate, Nigel Evans, who will stand clearly and firmly against Welsh separatism, devolution and a Mickey Mouse assembly in Cardiff, for retaining the unity of the United Kingdom and for the people of Wales having a proper voice in the House.
5.16 pm
Mr. Richard Livsey: I should first like to pay tribute to the late Member for Pontypridd, Brynmor John. He was a sincere and kindly man and expressed the character of the valley from which he came. He was the epitome of the people whence he came, and it is with great regret that we have lost that Member of Parliament.
It is not for us in the House to be lectured by Nicholas-come-latelys to the Welsh political scene. I have been fighting on the issue of devolution for many years and, like many of my fellow countrymen, I have been forced to leave the country to find work.
Mr. Keith Raffan: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Livsey: I shall not give way.
Since I have compaigned consistently on the issue of devolution for Wales, the House knows exactly where stand on that issue. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about Scotland?"] If the writ is moved, the by-election in Pontypridd will be held on 23 February. It is regrettable that many electors in Pontypridd have not been registered at an earlier stage, but we have heard sufficient here this afternoon to know that many more people are now on the register and it is important that the people of Pontypridd have the earliest opportunity to go to the poll. They are greatly afflicted by problems of' housing and employment, in particular, and are in great need. I do not see any reason why the people of Pontypridd should have to wait any longer to be represented here, and I trust that the writ will be approved by the House this afternoon so that democracy can prevail.
5.18 pm
Mr. Roger King: I rise in something of a quandary. On the one hand, I should be pleased to see the electorate of Pontypridd return a Member of Parliament—and a Conservative one—as soon as possible. On the other hand, I am concerned about the effect that that might have on my constituency and my region. At this very important time in our industrial redevelopment, there arises for the people of Pontypridd the unique opportunity to place their achievements on the map of the world's industrial achievements.
Much of what has happened in south Wales has been a transformation industrially, especially with the arrival of the Ford engine plant at Bridgend with an enormous investment in jobs and money, which the electorate of Pontypridd will fully appreciate and realise to be a direct consequence of this country—I mean the United Kingdom—embracing the disciplines of a Conservative economic policy which has encouraged enormous investment in this country. There has, especially, been enormous investment in Japanese factories here and Japanese job opportunities.

323
The electorate of Pontypridd can put something over on the electorate in Birmingham and elsewhere by presenting themselves as an electorate ready to embrace those economic achievements and new disciplines in the workplace and the new productivity and jobs available and by advocating that theirs is the place for the Japanese Toyota company to come to invest in this country.
That places me in an embarrassing position. I know that the Conservative candidate in Pontypridd will advocate such a policy and point out the new economic vitality of the province, the new opportunities that have arisen and the economic growth and achievements that are taking place and that is the area where companies such as Toyota should come to invest. I shall read about that and see it on television and I shall be saying that I should like those jobs in the midlands as well. But we do not have a by-election, so we do not have that unique opportunity.
Mr. McLoughlin: Is my hon. Friend aware that, the other day, the Leader of the Opposition said that 1992 would steal 1 million jobs? Is that not strange bearing in mind that that was the very week that Toyota said that it wanted to come to this country to take advantage of the Community? Does my hon. Friend agree that the only way that 1992 will lead to the loss of 1 million jobs is if a Labour Government are elected?
Mr. King: My hon. Friend is right. I must point out that Toyota has not committed itself to this country just yet, but I have absolute confidence that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales will leave no stone unturned to ensure that Toyota comes to this country—and, in particular, to the province of south Wales, which would be a highly acceptable place for Toyota to set up business.
My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. McLoughlin) is absolutely right. On the one hand, the Labour leader and the Labour party advocate decline, dereliction and no hope, while on the other hand the Conservative Government are bringing jobs to the province. I hope that they will continue to bring jobs, especially to Pontypridd. However, there is a price or a cost for the electorate of Pontypridd—to endorse wholly the philosophies that the Government hold so dear.
Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Will my hon. Friend recognise the great work done by people who move around Wales to help the Welsh economy and Welsh political life, and pay a special tribute to "Richard Move-around-the countryside", who represents Brecon and Radnor, who went to Reading university and Bedales school in Hampshire, was a farm manager in Scotland, fought the seats of Perth and East Perthshire in 1970 and of Pembroke in 1979, before ending up with Brecon and Radnor?
Mr. King: As my hon. Friend knows, each and every member of that party has a global responsibility, so it is necessary that they adopt the maxim, "Have bag, will travel", and that is what they have done.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke said, many people have come to Wales and helped the Welsh economy. It is because they have come, and because it is an area that has turned its attention to restructuring and redeveloping itself satisfactorily, that jobs and investments come to that area not only from the United Kingdom and
324
Europe, but from the rest of the world. I am sure that the electorate of Pontypridd cannot wait to get the election over, to prove to everybody that they are determined to continue to attract inward investment, but I am also sure that they will recognise that, for people like me, trying to attract that inward investment to our areas, the election comes as something of a setback. May the best constituency and the province win, for the sake of all those new jobs.
5.22 pm
Mr. Keith Raffan: I should like to join the tributes that have been paid to the late hon. Member for Pontypridd, Mr. Brynmor John. He commanded great affection among hon. Members of all parties and great respect from all hon. Members representing Welsh constituencies. He was a marvellous constituency Member and everybody is right to pay tribute to him.
Before turning to the writ, I should like to comment on the speech made by the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey), who told the House that he had supported devolution for many years. Perhaps that is why his majority fell so dramatically between his by-election victory and the last election and why, with his slender majority of 56, we shall win the seat from him at the next election. I advise the hon. Gentleman to keep up the fight for devolution because then he will disappear from this place.
I turn now to the reasons for moving the writ for Pontypridd today. My hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) was absolutely right about the extraordinary conversion of the Leader of the Opposition on devolution. He was the man who played such a significant and major role in bringing down the last Labour Government. He was the Labour leader of the "Wales say No" campaign in Wales, and, apart from Conservative Members, he did more than anybody else to bring down his party and defeat his own Government in 1979.
However, in his accurate remarks about devolution, my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke missed one nuance, one slight contradiction in Labour's argument. Although the Labour party proposes devolution for the people of Wales, it chose its Pontrypridd candidate in London. At the very moment that it is saying that the people of Wales should have far greater say, in Cardiff, in debating their own political future, the Labour party is saying that the Welsh Labour party is not fit to choose its own candidate for Pontypridd and that that candidate must be approved by the London-based national executive, and chosen, not because of his ability to represent constituents in this place, but because of his televisual ability to try to avoid another Govan.
That is what is at the heart of the Labour party's sudden and dramatic conversion on devolution and why, with every day that passes, the promises become more committed and more detailed. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) is now going into great detail, promising that there will be a Welsh assembly—this is even before his party's official policy review and before his party has agreed to it. Conservative Members had been under the distinct impression that such things had to be approved by the Labour party conference but, to avoid another Govan, that has gone out of the

325
window and the Labour party is making policy on its feet. It will do anything, however desperate, to try to hold on to this seat.
The political antecedents of the Labour candidate are important. No doubt we shall be able to judge him on the hustings and that is why I am also in favour of the writ being moved as soon as possible. The Labour candidate has been a member of another political party in the relatively recent past—as recent as 1981. The Leader of the Opposition told us that the candidate was a Eurocommunist. That is fair enough and, in a sense, it is fairly flattering because a Eurocommunist is probably greatly to the Right of the Labour party in this House. I realise that that is a helpful point to make on behalf of Dr. Howells.
However, I wonder what would happen if we in the Conservative party put up a candidate in a by-election who had National Front antecedents. Think of the howls we would hear from the Labour party and how Labour Members would lambast us in press conferences day after day. I have been a candidate's aide in by-elections. I am pleased to see my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Sir H. Miller), a former vice-chairman of our party, in his place. He joined me in those by-elections and we know what happens at those press conferences. Each day as the by-election continued the Labour party would concentrate on hammering home the political antecedents of our candidate, so Labour Members should realise that we are justified in inquiring into, and making points about, the recent political antecedents of the Labour candidate at Pontypridd.
The campaign will also revolve around the tremendous achievements of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales since he took office after the last general election. That is what the Labour party cannot stand. Last summer my right hon. Friend introduced the valleys initiative. He has done more for the Opposition's safe Labour seats than they ever did. What they cannot stand is that they had the opportunity, when they were in government, to act for the valleys—the hard core of their party support—their safest seats in the entire country and seats that they have consistently represented for many years. The Opposition had the opportunity to bring jobs to those valleys and to improve the housing there, but they did not do so. It is this Government, with the valleys initiative, who are doing that.
I am glad that the former shadow Secretary of State for Wales, the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams), is in his place. We in Wales get rather dizzy because the Opposition change their chief shadow spokesmen so frequently. When I was with the Daily Express and someone asked me at lunch who the editor was, I used to say, "I'll check when I get back to the office and give you a ring." The position is the same with the Opposition—they change their shadow Secretaries of State for Wales with the same frequency. The right hon. Gentleman criticised the valleys initiative when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales announced it in the House, while at the same time the leaders of Labour-controlled local authorities in the valleys were welcoming it sincerely, and with open arms, knowing that they would never have had it from their own party.
In the by-election we shall see a campaign that is not only about devolution but about the economic good fortune, industrial regeneration and the housing improvements that this Conservative Government have brought to
326
the valleys—not because we had a vested interest in doing so, and not because we shall necessarily benefit politically or electorally from them, but because we thought them right. The fact that the Opposition never introduced such an initiative will be one of the main planks of our campaign, and that is why I believe that we shall see a significant improvement in the fortunes of our party in that constituency, with our young, able, energetic and eloquent candidate, Nigel Evans.
Unemployment is falling faster in Wales, in the valleys, than almost anywhere else. In my constituency it has fallen by 46 per cent. in two years—because of the Government's policies. Under the previous and the present Secretaries of State, housing in Pontypridd that had never been improved has now been improved. The Opposition did not do it when in government—we did. It is for those reasons—the decrease in unemployment, the improved housing, the creation of jobs the clearance of derelict land, the improvement of the environment—that the Conservative party stands such a good chance of achieving a good result in this by-election. Let us get to it. Let us move the writ now so that we can begin the campaign. We have nothing to fear.
5.29 pm
Mr. Richard Holt: The House is a little ambivalent about whether the writ should be moved, hut there is no division between us in our sincere remarks about the late Brynmor John. I am sure that the people of Pontypridd will find it extremely difficult to find a candidate, from any party, who could command so much respect in the House.
When we had a debate in the House just 10 days ago on moving another writ, one of the subjects that came very much to the fore was the weather. It was said by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner)—and he was supported by many of his colleagues—that there should not be a motion for a writ which would force a by-election at a time when the weather was so likely to be intemperate. This was said by people who had never ever been to north Yorkshire.
Mr. Ian Gow: Would my hon. Friend care to reflect on the decision by his right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) to have a general election—my hon. Friend will remember it—on 28 February 1974? My right hon. Friend—no, his right hon. Friend—is not, alas, in his place. Would we not be wise to proceed with a vote on this matter without listening to the advice of his right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup?
Mr. Holt: I have to say to my hon. Friend that that was a most timely interjection—timely because he draws out of me the fact that on that bitter, cold February day I celebrated my 24th wedding anniversary with one of the biggest hidings of my life when I lost in Brent, South. and it is impressed on me that the right hon. Member for Old "somewhere or other"—I would not wish to be described as other than a candidate colleague of his in 1974—suffered from the bitter extremes.
I know that my hon. Friend followed my campaign in Brent, South very closely, but Ile probably was not fully aware that the paid-up membership of the Conservative party in that region was not overwhelming. But I did have a supporter. He was a coalman, and we used to go out day

327
after day on a flat lorry after he had delivered his coal. We stood on the back of the lorry doing our campaigning, finishing up at the end of the day covered in snow and coal dust. It was most atrocious, but I remember it well. Perhaps everyone ought to remember that that was the sort of weather that was enjoyed in the London borough of Brent, whereas at present people up in the north-east of England, and perhaps in Pontypridd, are enjoying a magnificant sunny period.
Dr. Thomas: I can give the hon. Member a weather report for Pontypridd as of yesterday. It was fair and dry, and I expect that it will be the same tomorrow and from now until polling day.
Mr. Holt: I am very grateful for that up-to-date information. That is exactly what I was seeking to do in comparing the weather of 10 days ago, which played such a vital and germane part, with what it might be likely to be in Pontypridd. As I recall from my schoolboy knowledge of Wales, it is very wet down there in the month of February.
Mr. Gow: My hon. Friend talks about wetness. Does he recall that when we had a general election in February 1974 my—no, his—right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup was Prime Minister? Does he recall that that Government had asked the approval of Parliament to a measure that asserted that by passing an Act of Parliament the evil of inflation could be abated, and that we had a compulsory prices and incomes policy? Will my hon. Friend address his attention to that matter?
Mr. Speaker: Order. Only if it is relevant to the by-election.
Mr. Holt: Would I ever stray from the path of righteousness, Mr. Speaker?
I recall very well what my hon. Friend says because, as I have just said, it was my wedding anniversary. I think that I might have misled the House over the number of years, but I will work it out, or my wife will tell me when I get home.
The important thing, in relating that to the people of Pontypridd, is that many young people in Pontypridd may be casting their vote for the first time when this election comes round.
Mr. Marlow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This is a very important motion that we are debating. It is about moving a writ for a constituency in Wales. It is obviously a matter of great importance for the Labour party. I believe that at the moment, for some reason or other, there is no Labour Back Bencher from Wales in the House. I wonder if it would be possible to adjourn the debate.
Mr. Speaker: Patently that is not a matter of order.
Mr. Holt: As I was saying, these young people will be casting their votes for the first time, and they will be paying for the same possible faults of inflation and the runaway loss of their savings, and wondering how they are going to bring up their children.
I was always taught that if the Jesuits got you they had you for ever. I feel the same about Communists, and I find it very difficult to refer to anybody who has ever been a member of the Communist party as being a member of any
328
other party. So if I slip up it will not be with any malice; it is just that it is a habit of mine always to work in that way.
I was talking about the weather in Pontypridd, and I was brought up to date on that matter. The hon. Gentleman who did so may well have checked on the weather at the moment, but has he done as my hon. Friends have and checked on the weather in Pontypridd during that crucial week in February over the last 20 years, and is he satisfied that the weather would be satisfactory and would allow all the elderly and all the other people that we heard about from the hon. Member for Bolsover to vote? One of his hon. Friends kept saying, "and the women".Might he reflect on that and say that the weather may not be right?
Mr. Robert Hayward: When debating current issues in respect of Pontypridd, will my hon. Friend please recall also that trade and industry will be major subjects? No doubt the sacking by the leader of the Labour party within the last two hours of the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) as trade and industry spokesman will be an issue in the Pontypridd election. If they have to sack a spokesman no doubt there is uncertainty about their policy.
Mr. Holt: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, but I believe that it is possible that one of my other hon. Friends will be making that point during the speech that I know he wishes desperately to make. But perhaps I will be excused from talking about that very embarrassing matter at this moment because I think I have enough to keep me going for the next five or six minutes.
I want to refer briefly to the question of Toyota. Everyone has seen what a magnificent success Nissan has been under a Conservative Government in going to the Labour heartlands where the Conservative Members supported the project all the way, as did all Conservatives in that area. Only today, at lunch time, I was at the launch of a new Wearside campaign led by Tyne-Tees Television, the industrialists and the people of the area. We are encouraging Toyota to go there to stand side by side with the Nissan factory.
We are not going to adopt a dog in the manger attitude just because this is not exactly a Conservative constituency at the moment. It is only a matter of time. As the people in the north of England see the benefits of this Government, gradually more and more Conservatives at all levels are being returned. And that will happen in Wales. So I imagine that there is a certain ambiguity among Welsh Members as to whether they want Toyota to go there. The last thing that the Labour party ever wants is success. Our policy is never to have poor people; we want to have only rich people. We want everyone to be in a job; we do not want to keep the people subjugated.
Mr. Gwilym Jones: I shall try to correct my hon. Friend. He is using the generic term "Welsh Members" as though Welsh Members resisted Nissan or Toyota. That is certainly not the case with Welsh Conservative Members, who are steadily increasing in number. It was inexplicable that Nissan did not go to south Wales. I am sure that Toyota will go to south Wales. The green light for Toyota to go to south Wales would be for Nigel Evans, the Conservative candidate, to be elected to Pontypridd.
Mr. Holt: I bow to my hon. Friend. He is absolutely right. One thing that would guarantee Toyota going to south Wales is the return of Nigel Evans at the by-election.
I do not wish to tax the House unnecessarily, but I shall raise another matter before I resume my seat. It is of vital interest not only to the people of Pontypridd but to my constituents in the north-east of England.
We can never get a clear-cut policy statement from any Opposition Member. The House has heard a brilliant speech about the somersaulting methods of the leader of the Labour party. I am concerned about the deputy leader of the Labour party. I wonder what he will say in Pontypridd. He has stated publicly in the north-east of England that he would have regional councils with their own tax-raising rights. Never before has that been the case.
Mr. Marlow: My hon. Friend has asked what the right hon. Gentleman the Lunchtime O'Sparkbrook would have to say if he went to the constituency of Pontypridd. I ask my hon. Friend if he knows whether there are any decent restaurants there. [Laughter.]
Mr. Holt: I confess that, because of the laughter of other hon. Members, I did not hear my hon. Friend, but I take it that it was a germane point, and perhaps almost as relevant—[Interruption.] I must defer to my hon. Friend. He would know better than I whether there are any decent restaurants there.
Dr. Thomas: I assure the hon. Gentleman that there is an excellent Italian restaurant there called John and Maria's. I am sure that he will want to dine there, because he will have nothing else to do if he is to canvass for the Conservative candidate.
Mr. Holt: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Perhaps we can share a celebration lunch after Nigel Evans is elected.
It is important for the people of Pontypridd to have a clear statement on the Labour party's policies. Although hon. Members are discussing a writ for one constituency, we all know that, by their definition, by-elections tend to have an impact on the rest of the country. Therefore, the rest of the country will focus on how the Labour party's policies would reflect on the rest of the country, and my constituents would be frightened.
We shall have a resounding victory in Richmond. There is no doubt about that. It will shake the Opposition even more when two new Conservative Members are elected to the House.
5.42 pm
Mr. Gwilym Jones: I start by associating myself with all that has been said about the late Brynmor John, and I do so as a neighbouring Member of Parliament, because my constituency abuts the Pontypridd constituency. Hon. Members know that I do not demur from anything that has been said about Brynmor John—a man of great kindness and gentleness, who would listen to all arguments and would steadfastly put forward his own point of view in an entirely reasonable manner. I cannot but feel that it must be at least a contradiction or, worse, an insult for the Labour party to advance its present candidate for the Pontypridd constituency. Surely all hon. Members will recollect——
Mr. Marlow: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Jones: I shall develop my point and then I will give way to my hon. Friend.
All hon. Members will recollect that Brynmor John stood for all that was best in the traditions of the Labour party—a fast-disappearing animal in the party today. Instead, the Labour party has adopted a Communist candidate for the Pontypridd constituency. Surely he is still a Communist candidate. As my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Knight) mentioned, we have certainly not heard of any recantation or that there has been a blinding light conversion on the road to Damascus by the Labour candidate in Pontypridd. He is merely a Communist who has changed label.
Mr. Marlow: My hon. Friend will remember that, during an earlier intervention. I drew the attention of our hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) to the situation of the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), about whom we are all deeply concerned. My hon. Friend said that he would see that he got a copy of his speech. I understand that the hon. Gentleman is now fast asleep in the Tea Room. Perhaps my hon. Friend could also undertake——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think that that has anything to do with this writ.
Mr. Jones: I will not digress down that road or raise my voice so that the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) can hear me.
My hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) is temporarily absent from his place. I suggest that the Labour candidate in Pontypridd does not look like a dud candidate, or at least not in the obvious definitions of the word. He might instead be defined as a sleeper or some form of time bomb.
Mr. David Winnick: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Jones: I shall finish this point and then I will give way to the hon. Gentleman.
The Labour candidate for Pontypridd might be some form of time bomb. His true colours will later be revealed for all to see, whatever protestations I am now to get from Opposition Members.
Mr. Winnick: The hon. Gentleman referred to the past background—I emphasise the word "past"—of a certain person who will be a Member of this House in the near future. Will the hon. Gentleman be good enough to tell us about his own background?
Mr. Jones: If I did that, you would rather quickly rule me out of order, Mr. Speaker, for speaking about something that was not necessarily relevant to the writ for the Pontypridd by-election. The hon. Gentleman referred to the past. I recall that, as recently as the last general election—we know how far past that was—the Labour candidate for Pontypridd admitted that he had recently joined the Labour party. He admitted also that he had so recently left the Communist party that, by the Labour party's own rules, he was not allowed to stand for Parliament. Presumably that short period has elapsed and he can stand.
I offer these comments as they are entirely relevant to the Pontypridd by-election, particularly in view of the character of the former incumbent for that constituency

331
—a man who was greatly liked throughout the House. Indeed, I should think he was greatly liked by Opposition Members.
Mr. Neil Hamilton: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the most pressing reasons why the writ should be successfully moved this afternoon is that with the forthcoming by-election in Pontypridd we will have an opportunity to debate the outbreak of authoritarianism in the Labour party? My hon. Friend will be aware that the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) recently went into partnership with my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit).
Mr. Speaker: Order. In what way is that relevant to the by-election?
Mr. Hamilton: It will be relevant to the by-election because it is an issue that will certainly loom large in the minds of the constituents of Pontypridd. The hon. Member for Great Grimsby is going to work for Mr. Rupert Murdoch on Sky television. As a result, the Leader of the Opposition has sacked the hon. Gentleman for Great Grimsby. That is a most appalling denial of free speech, restraint of trade, and so on. The hon. Member——
Mr. Speaker: This is supposed to be an intervention, not a speech.
Mr. Hamilton: It is an intervention and I am trying to make my point as succinctly as possible. The hon. Member for Great Grimsby is held in great affection by us all. Conservative Members are frequently accused——
Mr. Speaker: Order. This is an abuse. The hon. Gentleman is intervening in the speech of another hon. Member. He has made his point.
Mr. Jones: I accept my hon. Friend's point, that there is yet another example of the rise of authoritarianism. It was said that the rise of authoritarianism was noticeable in the recent decison of the Labour party's national executive committee conveniently to be able to ignore party conference decisions whenever it suited it to do so.
Mr. John Redwood: Does my hon. Friend consider that a crucial issue in the timing of this writ is the possibility of the return of the Labour group from Russia? Maybe it is planning to bring multilateralism in our time—from Russia with love. Perhaps the idea is to leave the SLDP cruelly exposed as the only party without some kind of a defence policy and the only party with a totally idiotic policy of unilateral disarmament, or whatever it was when it last stated it. Does my hon. Friend think that that is the key to Labour's strategy in moving the writ today?
Mr. Jones: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. It is highly questionable whether there is enough time between now and 23 February for the Labour party's representatives to return from Russia and make sense of a policy which they can package up in a cohesive form. Perhaps the Labour party's Chief Whip has made a great mistake.
During the deliberations of the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs this morning I learnt why the writ was to be
332
moved today. Some hon. Members might find it difficult to appreciate how supremely important and crucial that Committee is. It has a vacancy for a Labour Member. Far from the massed ranks of Labour Members eager to fill that place, the Labour party is so desperate to find somebody to fill it that it is hoping that its candidate for the Pontypridd constituency will be successful because, on the basis of Buggin's turn and the last in principle, he will have to do duty on that Committee.
Mr. Robert Adley: The late Brynmor John was my first pair when I entered the House, and I want to put it on record that he was held in deep affection by hon. Members on both sides of the House. He was also helpful when I occasionally raised with him railway matters that were relevant to his constituency. My hon. Friend will know that the Wales Railway Centre in Cardiff, which was my brainchild, is connected by rail through the Pontypridd constituency with Big Pit at Blaenavon. Does my hon. Friend agree that all the candidates in the by-election should do everything that they can to keep open all the railway lines that presently pass through the Pontypridd constituency?
Mr. Jones: I go along with my hon. Friend's sentiments. He touches on some aspects that are important to the people of south Wales. The Wales Railway Centre in Cardiff will be important. I was pleased to hear of his support for Big Pit. When British Rail last appeared before the Select Committee, I asked it to reconsider improving and expanding rail links in south Wales, particularly the rail link for the new garden festival in Ebbw Vale. I am glad that it has recently announced that it hopes to have some service running up to Ebbw Vale for that festival.
My hon. Friend may also know that the Wales Railway Centre is linked with my constituency and the neighbouring constituency of Pontypridd by the old Taff Vale railway line. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend on the importance of our local railway lines, which the former Secretary of State for Wales, Lord Crickhowell, and the present Secretary of State for Wales have done so much to encourage.
On this occasion it would not be inappropriate for me to pay tribute to Mid Glamorgan and South Glamorgan county councils. They do not get much right, but they have followed the urgings and advice of my right hon. Friend and his predecessor in the exciting plans for south Wales railways.
Mr. Nicholas Bennett: My hon. Friend mentioned the defence issue, which is so important to the people of Pontypridd. My hon. Friend will know that the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) is a native of the Pontypridd area. No doubt, as a newly appointed junior Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, the hon. Lady will be making a visit to Pontypridd to discuss defence. Does my hon. Friend think that when she does so she might explain what she means by reciprocal unilateralism?
Mr. Jones: I hesitate to mention it, but I think that my hon. Friend means Pontypool, not Pontypridd. It is close to Pontypridd in geographical terms. However, I suggest that that question is not best answered now, certainly not at the time of the Pontypridd by-election, because the last thing that the Labour party wants to do in the interests of

333
hanging on to the marginal seat of Pontypridd is to allow the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) to run riot there.
Mr. Marlow: The writ was moved in good spirit and good heart by the Labour party at a time of peace in its ranks. But since the writ has been moved, an unholy row has broken out. An Opposition Front-Bench spokesman has been sacked, and sacked by a Welsh Member of Parliament—the Leader of the Opposition. The Opposition might want to change their mind about the writ, and one reason for that is that the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) is in such a fury with the Leader of the Opposition that he may well wish to resign his seat and fight that of Pontypridd instead. If my hon. Friend were to allow the Opposition a little more time, they might be able to come to a mature decision about whether to move the writ.
Mr. Jones: My hon. Friend returns to a significant point. My hon. Friend seems to be having a destructive effect on the Opposition Front Bench, as he always does. He will have noticed that his previous point of order had the effect of physically forcing the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) to move from the Opposition Front Bench to the Back Benches just when she was thinking that she had served her penance and might now be brought back to the Front Bench. My hon. Friend's point of order seems to have downed her for another two years or so.
The writ for the Pontypridd by-election should be moved today. That by-election needs to be fought on most important issues, not least the need to reduce the number of people unemployed. The fall in unemployment in Wales began earlier, and has continued longer, than the fall in unemployment in the rest of the United Kingdom. Wales has been successful in developing new industries and in helping new employment and attracting investment. For a number of years now Wales has been able to attract one fifth of all investment coming into the United Kingdom. The massive investment in the engine plant at Bridgend has been mentioned, as have Nissan and Toyota. I stand by what I said about Toyota's excellent prospects of coming to south Wales. I look forward to that.
There has also been significant growth in indigenous industries. I mention just one. AB Electronics in my constituency, which also fortunately happens to be in practically every valley constituency in south Wales, is going from strengh to strength.
Mrs. Ann Clwyd rose——
Mr. Jones: I give way to the hon. Lady because I know that AB Electronics' headquarters are in her constituency.
Mr. Derek Foster rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
Question put, That the Question be now put:—
The House divided: Ayes 365, Noes 3.

Division No. 70]

[5.58 pm

AYES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

Armstrong, Hilary

Adley, Robert

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Alexander, Richard

Ashby, David

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

Allen, Graham

Ashton, Joe

Alton, David

Aspinwall, Jack

Anderson, Donald

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Arbuthnot, James

Baldry, Tony

334

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Doran, Frank

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Dorrell, Stephen

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

Dover, Den

Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

Duffy, A. E. P.

Barron, Kevin

Dunn, Bob

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Dunnachie, Jimmy

Beckett, Margaret

Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

Beggs, Roy

Durant, Tony

Beith, A. J.

Dykes, Hugh

Bellingham, Henry

Eadie, Alexander

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Eastham, Ken

Bermingham, Gerald

Emery, Sir Peter

Bevan, David Gilroy

Evans, John (St Helens N)

Bidwell, Sydney

Fallon, Michael

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Fearn, Ronald

Blackburn, Dr John G.

Fishburn, John Dudley

Blair, Tony

Fisher, Mark

Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Flannery, Martin

Blunkett, David

Flynn, Paul

Boateng, Paul

Fookes, Dame Janet

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Foster, Derek

Boswell, Tim

Franks, Cecil

Bottomley, Peter

Freeman, Roger

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

French, Douglas

Boyes, Roland

Fry, Peter

Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

Fyfe, Maria

Bradley, Keith

Galloway, George

Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Garrett, John (Norwich South)

Brazier, Julian

Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

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

Gill, Christopher

Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Buck, Sir Antony

Goodhart, Sir Philip

Buckley, George J.

Goodlad, Alastair

Burns, Simon

Gould, Bryan

Burt, Alistair

Gow, Ian

Butler, Chris

Gower, Sir Raymond

Caborn, Richard

Graham, Thomas

Callaghan, Jim

Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Greenway, Harry (Eating N)

Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

Greenway, John (Ftyedale)

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Gregory, Conal

Canavan, Dennis

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Carrington, Matthew

Grist, Ian

Cash, William

Grocott, Bruce

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Chapman, Sydney

Hanley, Jeremy

Chope, Christopher

Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

Harris, David

Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

Haselhurst, Alan

Clay, Bob

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Hayes, Jerry

Cohen, Harry

Hayward, Robert

Colvin, Michael

Healey, Rt Hon Denis

Conway, Derek

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Cook, Robin (Livingston)

Heddle, John

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

Heffer, Eric S.

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Henderson, Doug

Cope, Rt Hon John

Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

Corbett, Robin

Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

Corbyn, Jeremy

Hind, Kenneth

Cormack, Patrick

Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

Cousins, Jim

Holt, Richard

Cran, James

Home Robertson, John

Crowther, Stan

Hood, Jimmy

Cryer, Bob

Howard, Michael

Cunningham, Dr John

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

Curry, David

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Dalyell, Tam

Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

Darling, Alistair

Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

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

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Devlin, Tim

Hunt, David (Wirral W)

Dewar, Donald

Hunter, Andrew

Dicks, Terry

Illsley, Eric

Dixon, Don

Ingram, Adam

Dobson, Frank

Irvine, Michael

335

Irving, Charles

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Jack, Michael

Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

Janman, Tim

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Janner, Greville

Paice, James

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Patchett, Terry

Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

Pawsey, James

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Pendry, Tom

Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

Pike, Peter L.

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Key, Robert

Powell, William (Corby)

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

Primarolo, Dawn

Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

Quin, Ms Joyce

Knapman, Roger

Radice, Giles

Knight, Greg (Derby North)

Raffan, Keith

Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

Redwood, John

Knox, David

Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

Lamond, James

Reid, Dr John

Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

Rhodes James, Robert

Lawrence, Ivan

Richardson, Jo

Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

Leighton, Ron

Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Robertson, George

Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

Robinson, Geoffrey

Lightbown, David

Roe, Mrs Marion

Livingstone, Ken

Rooker, Jeff

Livsey, Richard

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

Rossi, Sir Hugh

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Rost, Peter

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Rowlands, Ted

Loyden, Eddie

Ruddock, Joan

Lyell, Sir Nicholas

Sackville, Hon Tom

McAllion, John

Salmond, Alex

McAvoy, Thomas

Scott, Nicholas

McCrindle, Robert

Sedgemore, Brian

Macdonald, Calum A.

Shaw, David (Dover)

Macfarlane, Sir Neil

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

Sheerman, Barry

McKelvey, William

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Maclean, David

Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

Maclennan, Robert

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

McLoughlin, Patrick

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

Shersby, Michael

Madden, Max

Short, Clare

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Sillars, Jim

Malins, Humfrey

Sims, Roger

Marek, Dr John

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Skinner, Dennis

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

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

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

Soames, Hon Nicholas

Maxton, John

Soley, Clive

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Spearing, Nigel

Meacher, Michael

Speller, Tony

Meale, Alan

Squire, Robin

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Stanbrook, Ivor

Michael, Alun

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Steel, Rt Hon David

Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

Steinberg, Gerry

Miller, Sir Hal

Stern, Michael

Mills, Iain

Stevens, Lewis

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

Stradling Thomas, Sir John

Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

Strang, Gavin

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Straw, Jack

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Sumberg, David

Morgan, Rhodri

Summerson, Hugo

Morley, Elliott

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

Morrison, Sir Charles

Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

Moss, Malcolm

Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis

Mudd, David

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Mullin, Chris

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Murphy, Paul

Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

Neale, Gerrard

Tredinnick, David

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Trippier, David

Nicholls, Patrick

Turner, Dennis

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Twinn, Dr Ian

Norris, Steve

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

336

Vaz, Keith

Wiggin, Jerry

Waddington, Rt Hon David

Williams, Rt Hon Alan

Wakeham, Rt Hon John

Winnick, David

Wall, Pat

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Wallace, James

Wolfson, Mark

Waller, Gary

Wood, Timothy

Walley, Joan

Woodcock, Mike

Walters, Sir Dennis

Worthington, Tony

Ward, John

Wray, Jimmy

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

Yeo, Tim

Wareing, Robert N.

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Warren, Kenneth

Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

Mr. Frank Haynes and

Wheeler, John

Mr. Frank Cook.

Whitney, Ray

NOES

Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

Tellers for the Noes:

Carttiss, Michael

Mr. Nicholas Bennett and

Porter, David (Waveney)

Mr. Tony Marlow.

Question agreed to.
Question put accordingly and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Mr. Speaker do issue his Warrant to the Clerk of the Crown to make out a new Writ for the electing of a Member to serve in this present Parliament for the county constituency of Pontypridd in the room of Brynmor Thomas John, Esquire, deceased.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The House will have noted that you accepted a closure motion of a debate on a by-election writ within 60 minutes. I am sure that you will understand that that has implications for proceedings on other legislation that comes before the House.
Mr. Speaker: As I said earlier in answer to a point of order, the Chair does not give reasons at the moment a closure is taken.
Mr. Neil Hamilton: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. As you will recall, when the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster) moved the closure, the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) was on her feet. As the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) has pointed out, grave constitutional questions are raised by what has just happened. The action of the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland could be regarded as sexist. As the hon. Lady is from Wales, it could also be regarded as racist. I believe that those are two of the greatest crimes in the statute book of the Labour party. Most important, the authoritarianism shown by the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland in cutting off the debate after such a short time should be noted for the future and censured.
Mr. Speaker: The House will take a charitable view. It is possible that the Opposition Chief Whip did not see what was happening behind him.
Mr. Marlow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is proper, if one makes a mistake in the House, to apologise. I may have to crave the indulgence of the House. I suggested earlier that the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), who had taken a great interest earlier in our proceedings on writs for by-elections, might be asleep in the Tea Room. That has certain implications. I understand that it is possible that on his way to the Tea Room he was gathered into the torture chamber on the right hand side——
Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order.

BILL PRESENTED
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND HOUSING
  Mr. Secretary Ridley, supported by Mr. Secretary Walker, Mr. Secretary Baker, Mr. Secretary Rifkind, Mr. Secretary Clarke, Mr. John Major, Mr. Richard Luce, Mr. John Gummer, Mr. David Trippier and Mrs. Virginia Bottomley, presented a Bill to make provision with respect to the members, officers and other staff and the procedure of local authorities; to amend Part III of the Local Government Act 1974 and Part II of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1975 and to provide for a national code of local government conduct; to make further provision about the finances and expenditure of local authorities (including provision with respect to housing subsidies) and about companies in which local authorities have interests; to make provision for and in connection with renewal areas, grants towards the cost of improvement and repair of housing accommodation and the carrying out of works of maintenance, repair and improvement; to amend the Housing Act 1985 and Part III of the Local Government Finance Act 1982; to amend the Local Government Finance Act 1988 and the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987 and certain enactments relating, as respects Scotland, to rating and valuation, and to provide for the making of grants in respect of certain expenditure incurred before 1st April 1990; to make provision with respect to the imposition of charges by local authorities; to make further provision about certain existing grants and about financial assistance to local authorities in respect of emergencies; to enable local authorities in Wales to be known solely by Welsh language names; to provide for the transfer of new town housing stock; to amend section 47 of the Race Relations Act 1976; to make provision about security of tenure for certain tenants under long tenancies; to provide for the making of grants and giving of guarantees in respect of certain activities carried on in relation to the construction industry; to provide for the repeal of certain enactments relating to improvement notices, town development and education support grants; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 58.]

Planning (Notification of Development Proposals)
6.14 pm
Mrs. Gillian Shephard: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to secure fuller, more effective and more consistent public involvement in the development control process.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House will agree that there is mounting concern about all aspects of planning and development control, whether it is about the green belt, so-called bad neighbour development, including dumping, misunderstandings about private property owners' rights, perceived inconsistencies in . planning decisions and the appeal process. In the words of the District Planning Officers Society:
"Third party interest is here to stay and understandably so."
The third party interest and concern are shared by those responsible for taking planning decisions. Planners feel besieged by critics, including the ombudsman, described by one planning officer as having
"crucified every small fault and failing of the authorities, who set out with best of intentions."
There is no lack of legislation to guide planning authorities in England and Wales on consultation and notification in certain spheres. Their duties to consult and notify are clearly defined for certain kinds of development, with certain public bodies and in certain kinds of location. Developments defined as bad neighbours include scrapyards, refuse dumps, mineral workings and cemeteries. In such cases the applicant is required to advertise his proposal, usually by site notice, and the planning authority has to advertise by press or site notice, or both, under section 26 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971. The same Act, in section 25, lists public bodies such as highway authorities and the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England, which have to be consulted in certain circumstances.
Planning authorities also have to advertise applications for developments in conservation areas for listed buildings, and in other prescribed areas set out in the Act. They must notify parish councils if those councils so wish. In all these areas, therefore, planning authorities—in the main, district councils—know what is required of them by law and the public are protected, by recourse either to the law or to the ombudsman.
But there is another area where the public of England and Wales are not protected by planning law, although their Scottish and Irish counterparts are. Moreover, it is precisely in this area that there is the greatest public concern, according to the ombudsman and the District Planning Officers Society, which says:
"Next-door neighbour complaints are easily the largest planning postbag of the Ombudsman. Most complaints look to the planning authority to inform them of neighbour proposals to build, say, an extension."
It is the issue of neighbour notice, already grasped by Government action for the people of Scotland and Northern Ireland, that I wish to address in the Bill by proposing that planning authorities are required by law to have a code of practice for neighbour notification, drawn up by themselves in accordance with local needs.
Many people are astonished to find that, in England and Wales, planning authorities are not required to notify

339
or inform neighbours of proposed developments affecting their properties. In practice, many district councils have a code of practice for neighbour notification, which may be a site notice, a letter, an advertisement in the local press or simply a list of proposed plans in the local free sheet. Others, because of difficulties with the ombudsman, have no code of practice on the ground that, as one of them put it, he would expect them to observe it. Either way, there is no consistency of practice. Such practice as there is may not be understood by the public; indeed, they may be unaware of its existence. All hon. Members will be familiar with complaints from constituents that the first they knew of a neighbouring development was when the bulldozers arrived next door.
The Government have clearly accepted in principle that there is a problem, since they have acted in Scotland and Northern Ireland. In Scotland, the principle of neighbour notification was first introduced under the General Development Order 1981, amended by the General Development Order 1984.
The applicant is required to notify owners, occupiers and lessees on neighbouring land, which is defined in guidelines, and to accompany his application with a certificate listing the names and addresses of those parties having a notifiable interest. The list is scrutinised by the authority, and if the applicant has been unable to identify all the neighbours, the authority must advertise the proposal in a local newspaper, the applicant paying the cost.
In Northern Ireland, the same principle of neighbour notification is being applied, although on a non-statutory trial basis. The Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland has laid upon itself the task of notifying in writing occupiers of buildings on land adjoining the application site. Surveys in Scotland and Northern Ireland reveal support for neighbour notification in principle, which planners consider has increased the public's awareness of the planning system; but the systems in force in those parts of the British Isles are costly in personnel and time, and because the public believe that the purpose of planning is to protect individual property interests, they do not always give satisfaction.
In England and Wales, the Association of District Councils, which has discussed this issue many times, is opposed to an extension, for example, of the Scottish system to England and Wales. Some of its members oppose entirely the direct notification of neighbours by any means on grounds of cost and raising false hopes. Others favour some notification, to be undertaken by the applicant, on a non-statutory basis.
This diversity of approach is confusing for the public, as within one county or even one constituency, such as mine, adjoining councils may have widely differing practices. The borough council of Kings Lynn and West
340
Norfolk has a good code of practice, clearly expressed, while Breckland district council prefers to consult only at the discretion of the officer involved.
The District Planning Officers Society is rightly concerned on two counts—because of the volume of complaints received by the ombudsman on neighbour notification, and because it feels that such complaints damage its relationship with the public. It has identified the best practice, while emphasising that local circumstances must be taken into account. It stresses also that renotification of material amendments to submitted plans is an important issue which must be addressed.
The view of the Department of the Environment as expressed in a letter from the then Under-Secretary of State, in May 1987, is:
"There is no substitute for a properly thought out strategy by each local planning authority in accordance with local needs."
I agree, but unless this strategy is made a statutory requirement, it will remain meaningless.
We must remember that public interest in planning matters can only increase, that members of the public have no right of appeal against planning conditions which may intimately affect them and their families and that the least people in England and Wales can expect is a consistently applied code of practice which will give them protection, wherever they live, even if not so elaborate and costly as Government legislation has already provided for people in Scotland and Northern Ireland.
The Bill seeks to require planning authorities to have a code of practice for neighbour notification, to be drawn up by themselves in accordance with local circumstances, widely publicised and subject to scrutiny by the Secretary of State. It is a modest measure designed to be consonant with Government aims of local autonomy and containing public expenditure. It would be a step towards bringing the same rights of information to people in England and Wales as are already enjoyed by their Scottish and Northern Irish counterparts, and I hope that it will gain the support of the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mrs. Gillian Shephard, Sir Rhodes Boyson, Mr. Peter Thurnham, Mr. Tim Boswell, Mr. Robert G. Hughes, Miss Ann Widdecombe, Mr. Malcolm Moss, Mr. David Evans, Mr. Simon Burns, Mr. Timothy Kirkhope, Mr. Ian Taylor and Sir Geoffrey Finsberg.

Planning (Notification of Development Proposals)
  PLANNING (NOTIFICATION OF DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS)
  Mrs. Gillian Shephard accordingly presented a Bill to secure fuller, more effective and more consistent public involvement in the development control process: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 17 February and to be printed. [Bill 59.]
  Orders of the Day

    Opposition Day
    [3RD ALLOTTED DAY]
    Mr. Speaker: I understand that the first Opposition Day motion is not to be moved. We move to the second motion.

    Low Pay
    6.25 pm
    Mr. Michael Meacher: I beg to move,
    That this House, noting that the number of low-paid workers paid below the European decency threshold has increased by two million since 1979 and that the lowest paid are now relatively poorer than at any time for a century, strongly condemns the Government's proposal to abolish the Wages Councils, which will depress the living standards of millions of families and will encourage employers to compete by wage cutting rather than by improved efficiency.
    Mr. Speaker: I must announce to the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
    Mr. Meacher: In two days' time the consultation period ends for the Government's consultative document on wages councils. Since the Government have made clear their intention to abolish wages councils, whatever the facade of consultation concludes, the Secretary of State for Employment will leave Britain alone in Europe and almost alone in the world in having no legally enforceable minimum wage provisions.
    The right hon. Gentleman will be acting in defiance of the CBI, the employers and other management organisations; he will be breaking a number of international agreements; he will be disregarding the almost unanimous view of the Tory-dominated Select Committee on Employment: and, worst of all, he will be the architect of the wrong economic policy for Britain, encouraging inefficient employers who cut wages at the expense of good employers who compete by innovation, new investment and new technologies.
    One can appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's embarrassment at the consultative document. It is as thin in substance—it is three and half pages if one excludes the appendices—as it is vapid in fact and in argument. Much of the document, I understand, was written in Downing street rather than in the Department of Employment, no doubt by the same young Turks who wrote the National Health Service review. It was sneaked out separately from the White Paper—and several hours later—on 5 December, although it is not clear whether that was because of its economic illiteracy or so as not to harm too much the right hon. Gentleman's reputation in the coming Cabinet reshuffle.
    The document refers to
    "evidence that Council minima continue to be above the levels required to fill jobs."
    In other words, the objective of abolition is wage cuts. Yet a few paragraphs later the document states that since the abolition of wages councils' protection for young people,
    "their earnings continued to rise."
    342
    Given the Government's belief that the main cause of rising unemployment is high wages, one would expect the rise in earnings of young people to be followed by job losses, but, on the contrary, the document tells us that "the rate of youth unemployment has declined dramatically." The Secretary of State cannot have his cake and eat it. At one and the same time he wants to argue that wages councils are holding wages too high and thereby destroying jobs, but also that abolition of the wages councils will not lead to wage reductions which might cause hardship. Or perhaps the right hon. Gentleman wishes to dissociate himself from the document because it is riddled with internal inconsistencies.
    As hon. Members in all parts of the House know, the truth is that the Government want to lower minimum wages but do not want to be seen doing it because they judge it would be unpopular. The document says, without a shred of evidence:
    "the facts do not suggest that cases of extremely low wages, imposed against workers' wishes, will become endemic or widespread."
    Yet the document reports that current minimum rates of pay for adult workers range from as little as £76 a week to £92 for a full week's work, before tax and other deductions.
    We want to know from the right hon. Gentleman—with his £1,000 a week salary and his £100,000 minimum fee membership of Lloyd's—whether he regards those levels as extremely low wages. The right hon. Gentleman is obviously embarrassed when the facts are revealed. Would a member of Lloyd's regard those as extremely low wages? If the right hon. Gentleman does not, perhaps he will tell the House what he does regard as extremely low wages. If he does regard them as extremely low wages, how could he not accept that the abolition of the wages councils will increase the number of workers paid at these, or even lower, levels?
    Mrs. Ann Clwyd: Will my hon. Friend give way?
    Mr. Meacher: I shall be glad to give way to my hon. Friend, but the right hon. Gentleman keeps murmuring and I am sure the House would like an answer to those questions from him.
    Mrs. Clwyd: Does my hon. Friend agree that the major issues in the Pontypridd by-election are not the extravagant claims which have been made by Conservative Members during the last hour and a half, but those of high unemployment in areas such as Pontypridd, and, especially, low pay? Is my hon. Friend aware that 40 per cent, of the people working in the Pontypridd constituency earn £4,000 a year or less? Is that not disgraceful?
    Mr. Meacher: My hon. Friend makes a significant point, which undoubtedly will feature strongly in the by-election. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) will comment in more detail on that matter when he replies.
    As my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) said, more than 40 per cent, of people in Wales—that certainly includes Pontypridd—are now earning less than the European decency threshold. That figure is nearly 10 per cent, higher than it was 10 years ago. That fact is far more important than all the ridiculous filibustering on the by-election which has occurred in the past one and a half hours.

    343
    We are entitled to know the Secretary of State's attitude to low pay, because his Parliamentary Private Secretary, the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham), was the sole member of the all-party Select Committee on Employment to vote last time round for the abolition of the wages councils. At that time he said:
    "People have said they do not want to go back to Victorian sweatshops. Would we not be better off if the country was one sweatshop, hard at work instead of having 3 million unemployed?"
    We should like to know whether the right hon. Gentleman also holds those views, or whether he repudiates his own Parliamentary Private Secretary? I notice that the right hon. Gentleman is keeping extremely quiet.
    In one sense we already know the right hon. Gentleman's attitude to low pay—he is in favour of it. He has pursued criminal underpayment of wages below minimum rates with all the enthusiasm of the Prime Minister canvassing at election time for the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath). Out of 88,000 establishments caught paying illegally low wages in the past 10 years, he has prosecuted only 56—less than one in 1,000.
    The right hon. Gentleman has doubled the number of his fraud investigators, while at the same time he has halved the number of his wages inspectors. The low paid might be excused for thinking that the right hon. Gentleman will certainly use the law against them when they are unemployed, but he will refuse to use it to assist them when they are in work.
    Ministers like to refer to the Government as a law and order Government, but it is law and order in a kid glove when it comes to tracking down employers who break the law. The consultation document even admits that, to cope with the reduced inspectorate, routine visits to small firms have now been replaced by postal questionnaires asking the employer whether he is committing the criminal offence of illegal underpayment of his workers. I suppose, on that precedent, the Government might as well abolish the police force, and send regular letters to known criminals asking them whether they have committed any crimes recently. In this case, the right hon. Gentleman is abolishing the wages police force, and he is abandoning any follow up, even letters.
    Not one reputable organisation is in favour of the Government's destruction of the wages councils. Just as the Botha Government in South Africa is much more hardline Right than the business community, so the Thatcher Government are much more rigid and intransigent than all the employer organisations. I shall not mention, of course, the Low Pay Unit, the TUC and the Labour party, because their views are well known, but the Confederation of British Industry has made it clear that it sees no reason to change its policy from that which emerged from its consultation in 1985 which showed overwhelming support in the CBI for the retention of reformed wages councils.
    In a letter of 17 June last year, the director-general of the CBI reported to the right hon. Gentleman—I hope that he will refer to it later:
    "it would be wrong to suggest that abolition of Wages Councils is as yet favoured by employers in every sector covered."
    344
    A stronger view is taken by the British Institute of Management. Its director-general wrote to the right hon. Gentleman on 19 January. He said:
    "We remain unconvinced that the time is right for the abolition of Wages Councils. We do not see the structures as being inflationary, nor harming job creation to a significant extent, and they continue to provide some necessary protection for low-paid workers."
    I do not believe that the right hon. Gentleman could expect a more majestic put down.
    Not even the right hon. Gentleman's favourite, the Institute of Directors, is a lot of help to him. It may come out later in the debate, but the Institute of Directors claimed that its call for abolition was supported by three quarters of its members. However, on closer examination it emerged that the survey on which that conclusion was based had a non-response rate of 93·5 per cent. The Institute of Directors admitted, too, that most of its membership had no direct experience of wages councils. Of course, that did not stop Sir John Hoskyns, the director-general—never one to be put off by lack of knowledge or facts—saying two days later that anyone whose pay dropped because of abolition could rely on family credit. What he did not say, or perhaps he did not know, was that there are 2·5 million workers covered by wages councils, of which 400,000 are entitled to family credit, but only half that number claim it.
    Mr. Dave Nellist: Is my hon. Friend aware that, in a previous incarnation, John Hoskyns worked for the No. 10 policy unit, where he wrote the paper which set up the YTS scheme in 1983? In that paper he said that the aim of the YTS should be to bring in
    "a scheme that increases the differential between youth and adult wages."
    John Hoskyns' experience is all about driving down wages, especially those of young people.
    Mr. Meacher: That is why John Hoskyns has always been a great favourite of this Government, whose aim has always been to drive the maximum wedge between all sections of the population, whether it be between the north and the south, manual and non-manual workers, young and elderly people or ethnic minorities. It would be helpful if we could have that point answered by the curiously quiet and subdued Secretary of State.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Meacher: No, I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman, but I will give way to the Secretary of State.
    Mr. Bruce rose——
    Mr. Meacher: No, I shall not give way. The right hon. Gentleman can look after himself.
    A large part of low pay is in retailing, and significantly the Retail Consortium—which employs a large number of low-paid workers—has reported to Ministers:
    "the overwhelming majority of the retail trade favour the continuation of the wages council system, subject to reforms."
    Even among small firms—they must always be the Government's last hope—the Government's fanaticism for abolition is not shared. This is the second time in three years that they have come back with exactly the same proposals. In a Department of Trade and Industry survey of 200 small firms, only 4 per cent, agreed—in answer to a prompted question-that wages councils were a

    345
    "burden" on their business. Only 1 per cent, mentioned wages councils in any context and of the 19 listed so-called burdens, wages councils ranked third from the bottom. If the right hon. Gentleman is really interested in lifting the burden on businesses he should concentrate on what is crippling them now—the soaring interest rates.
    Mr. Chris Mullin: Has my hon. Friend noticed that only five Conservative Back Benchers—four if one omits the Minister's bag carrier—are present? Does he agree that that no doubt will be widely remarked upon in our free press tomorrow?
    Mr. Meacher: I certainly hope that my hon. Friend's observation will be carried in the papers where we hope to read about it tomorrow. From a quick glance at our Benches, I would say that about 60 of my hon. Friends are present, which is 10 times greater than the attendance on the Tory Benches.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: I am grateful that the hon. Gentleman has given way and is at last demonstrating that he is willing to take part in a debate.
    I am having some difficulty following his argument because he has said clearly—I thought that he was trying to recant what he had said in previous debates—that we had taken young people out of wages councils and that their wages had gone up. I have always argued that wages councils keep wages down. If the hon. Gentleman has admitted that, how can he continue with his argument that people's wages will go down if the protection of the wages councils is removed? Surely logic and experience tell us that their wages will go up in a free market.
    Mr. Meacher: The hon. Gentleman is a little too eager. He is the victim of Government propaganda because it is the Government's document that states that the wages of young people have gone up. I do not believe that that document is worth the paper it is written on. There is not a shred of evidence behind it and I am sure that every allegation it makes is completely unsupported by evidence.
    The Secretary of State has no support in this country or abroad. He is ditching Britain's international obligations. One of the articles of the treaty of Rome—we hear a lot about that treaty when it is convenient to the Government —aims:
    "To promote improved working conditions and an improved standard of living for workers".
    Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will tell us how the abolition of wages councils will achieve that. Article 4 of the European social charter—it would never surprise me if the Government disavowed that charter—enshrines the right of people to receive
    "fair remuneration sufficient for a decent standard of living".
    How does paying people less than one third of the national average wage do anything but prohibit a decent standard of living? The International Labour Organisation has stated:
    "almost all countries in the world have some form of minimum wage protection".
    All European Community countries, without exception, either have a statutory minimum wage or national agreements reached within individual industries, which are binding at law and provide a statutory minimum rate.
    National minimum wages also exist in the United States. That is rather surprising, as the Government are anxious to emulate the capitalist leaders of the western world—Canada, Australia and Japan. When top-rate
    346
    taxes were much higher in Britain, the Tories insisted that for market reasons they must be brought into line with our competitors. Now when it comes to minimum wage rates, about which the rest of Europe is in step, the Tories say that for market reasons we must move out of line with our competitors. There is not a shred of logic behind that argument; it is just Tory self-interest.
    Ms. Clare Short: At the time of the removal of wages councils' protection of young people, Ministers, time and again, gave undertakings that the remaining wages council system would be in place indefinitely. A couple of years later they are now breaking their promises. Those Ministers are dishonourable and their word is worth nothing.
    Mr. Meacher: I am sure that my hon. Friend is not one of those people who still believe that there is any credibility in Government promises. I doubt whether there are many people left in the country who still believe that. The abolition of the wages councils is not in the Tory manifesto, but, of course, they have done so many things that were not in that manifesto. Their abolition is not supported, of course, by the low paid, but nor is it supported by the overwhelming majority of our people. The right hon. Gentleman is not only going back on his promises, but is acting in the teeth of the views of the great majority of people.
    The Government may not realise that their strategy may be blocked by the EEC. There is clear evidence that other member states will not be prepared to tolerate Britain using low wages as a form of hidden subsidy or tariff to give British firms an unfair competitive advantage. I know that the Germans in particular are strongly opposed to what they call "social dumping" by firms illegally paying low wages.
    The Government in the lead-up to 1992 are trying to have it both ways. Of course they are behind the single market initiative because they believe passionately in removing obstacles to competition in the international market place. They have not faced up to the fact that, although in some areas that requires the removal of regulations, tariffs, protection and import restrictions, in other areas it requires a standardisation of such things as product standards, health and safety and environmental regulations. That is why the harmonisation of employment rights throughout Europe is also necessary to ensure fair competition. It is extraordinarily myopic for the Government, alone in Europe, to be so fanatical about competitive markets and yet to be so blind to the logic of their own position, which will undermine them.
    Not for the first time, what is good for the Thatcherites is bad for Britain. If the Government ideologues succeed in deregulating the labour market, they will be launching diametrically the wrong economic policy for Britain.
    Mr. Julian Brazier: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Meacher: In a moment. I am glad to welcome the hon. Gentleman to the debate. The Government Benches are beginning to fill up—there must be six Conservative Members present out of 350. That shows their interest in this issue.
    An unregulated market is based not on efficiency, productivity, quality or design—all the things that the Government talk about—but on wage cutting. In such a

    347
    market no individual firm dare risk investing in training or re-equipment for fear that a competitor will steal a march by offering a lower price base on low wages. The Government's policy is a recipe for stagnation, low morale, low productivity and technological backwardness. That is precisely what the Government's and the Chancellor's low-tech no-tech economy is headed for. Forcing down wage rates is not improving efficiency, but escaping from it. On that point I shall quote the words of a former Minister with responsibility for labour affairs who said in this Chamber:
    "It was formerly supposed that the working of the laws of supply and demand would naturally regulate or eliminate that evil…
    payment below a living wage—
    "But where…you have no organisation, no parity of bargaining, the good employer is undercut by the bad and the bad employer is undercut by the worst"—[Official Report, 28 April 1909; Vol. IV, c. 388.]
    Those are not the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) nor the words of Frank Cousins or Ernie Bevin; they are the words of the Prime Minister's exemplar, Winston Churchill. I might say that there are many people who would welcome him back in exchange for the Government.
    Mr. Brazier: I am glad that there is one more hon. Member on our Back Benches than there were on the Opposition Back Benches when we were debating cold weather payments. However, the hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. He asks what is the logic of the Government's policy of deregulation in regard to the economy as a whole. Surely the logic of deregulation is that it has led to unemployment in this country falling over the past five years, while it is still rising in other parts of the EEC, when our average wages are rising rapidly.
    Mr. Meacher: The trouble with Government Back Benchers is that they are victims of the Government's propaganda. They do not seem to realise that unemployment is still twice as high as it was on the last day of the Labour Government. The Government's low-pay policy is completely inconsistent with the objectives that they like to profess. The Secretary of State continually talks about getting people off benefit, but a policy of wage cutting pushes more people into dependence on benefit, whether it is housing benefit or family credit.
    This year, according to the public expenditure White Paper, the Government are proposing to budget £409 million for family credit. That is a substantial subsidy, by any standards, at the taxpayers' expense for the lowest-paying firms. I hope that the Secretary of State will touch on some of those matters when he replies to the debate. Is he not ashamed that the Government are subsidising inefficiency in that way?
    The Secretary of State is always preening himself on reducing unemployment. That is what misled the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier). However he is increasing unemployment by actively encouraging wage cutting. Workers are also customers. By cutting their pay and their capacity to buy goods and services, he is undermining employment. It is time that the Government and the Secretary of State took it on board that one man's pay cut is another man's job loss.
    The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Norman Fowler): Now that the hon. Gentleman is talking about employment which is a central part of the debate, will he confirm that the work force—people in employment in this country—is at an all-time record high and is far in excess of anything achieved in 1979 by the last Labour Government?
    Mr. Meacher: The right hon. Gentleman is saying that the numbers of people in work as a proportion of the total number who want work is higher than it was in 1979. That is a most extraordinarily illiterate statement. The percentage in work is still substantially lower than it was in 1979. If the right hon. Gentleman is also a victim of his own propaganda, God help this country.
    Mr. Fowler: The hon. Gentleman clearly does not understand the point, or if he understands the point, in his typical way he is evading it. There are more people—almost 26 million people—in jobs in this country. Does he accept that that is an all-time record in this country? For once let the hon. Gentleman be frank.
    Mr. Meacher: The right hon. Gentleman is ignoring the real issue which is the proportion of people who want work who are able to get it. That is what counts. If the number of people in the country grows, it is not surprising that the number of people in work grows. The question is whether it is as high as it was in 1979 in proportion to the total number of people wanting work. It is not. It is substantially lower. As several of my hon. Friends have said, a very high proportion of the extra 1 million jobs that have been created, about which we hear so much, are part-time, low-paid and insecure jobs. In the coming recession later this year those will be the jobs that go first.
    Mr. Thomas Graham: Is my hon. Friend aware that Strathclyde in Scotland has lost 40 per cent.—146,000—of its manufacturing jobs since 1979? What a record for the Government to be proud of.
    Mr. Meacher: My hon. Friend is quite right. It is extraordinary that the Secretary of State should seek to defend his position when the Government are so vulnerable on this matter.
    The Chancellor likes to tell the House that people need incentives and that is why he gives tax breaks to the affluent and the well-heeled. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House why the rich need to be paid more to work harder while the poor need a pay cut to make them work harder? I shall be happy to give way to him.
    The latest news is that the Government are targeting the low paid for the Budget. One might have been forgiven for thinking that they had been targeting them for the past 10 years. There are now 9·9 million adult workers in Britain paid below the European decency threshold—an increase of 2 million under the Tories. Pay rises for the highest paid one fifth of men in the work force have been 50 per cent, greater than those for the lowest paid one fifth. The poorest paid one fifth of male manual workers now earns less, relative to the average, than in 1886 when the figures were first collected. Relatively, they have never been poorer than they are today. Things have not improved since Lord Gowrie resigned as Minister of State four years ago because his £33,000 a year salary could not provide a decent civilised existence against the cost of living in London. Presumably he is the most celebrated victim yet of the Government' pay policy

    349
    At least Ministers are now conceding that the Tory trickle-down theory of economic growth is not working. That reminds me of the line of the Beatitudes which says: "It's the rich that get the prunes and the poor that get the shits."
    Mrs. Teresa Gorman: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I take offence at the language being used by the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) and I should like you to bring him to order for using such language in the Chamber.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): There is so much background noise in the Chamber that it is very difficult for the Chair to hear hon. Members' comments.
    Mr. Meacher: I know that the hon. Lady is a very sensitive and dainty person. Therefore, I shall make the same point about the Tory theory of trickle-down economic growth by saying that it is the rich that get the prunes and the poor that get the runs.
    It is hypocritical for the Secretary of State and the Chancellor to talk about raising tax allowances as a Budget for the low paid when at the same time the Government have frozen child benefit for the second year running and are now proposing further cuts for the low paid by threatening wages councils. Nor does the Chancellor, whose concern for the low paid has been about as touching as Marie Antoinette's for the starving masses, seem to be aware that tax cuts will do almost nothing for the low paid because they trigger an automatic reduction of family credit and housing benefit leaving them no better off. I am sure that the Secretary of State does not know about that, because it is a social security matter and he has very little interest in social security.
    The Prime Minister stated in memorable words on the steps of Downing street in 1979,
    "Where there is discord, may we bring harmony. Where there is error may we bring truth"—
    although in the event that turned out to be written by Bernard Ingham—
    "Where there is doubt, may we bring faith, where there is despair, may we bring hope."
    With the exception of the unemployed, there must be few sections of the population for whom discord, doubt and despair has been doubled and redoubled more than for Britain's army of low-paid workers. Privatisation, endless social security cuts, market-rigging subsidies for lower wages, the abolition of the fair wages resolution, renunciation of international treaty obligations underpinning minimum wages and now the abolition of the wages councils have all been used ruthlessly by the Government to drive low wages even lower. It is a one-sided meanness and vindictiveness in our increasingly two nations country and that is why we shall be repudiating it strongly in the Lobby.
    6.59 pm
    The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Norman Fowler): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and add instead thereof:
    'noting that since this Government came to power personal disposable income has increased at every level in society and that the lowest paid have had proportionately higher increases than many other groups, considers that the best way in which the Government can help the low paid is by creating the conditions for more jobs by breaking down the barriers to
    350
    employment and encouraging labour market flexibility; and welcomes the Government's decision to consult about the abolition of Wages Councils.'.
    As the debate is about low pay, I shall be dealing with the issue of wages councils, but first let me pick up two points made by the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher).
    The hon. Gentleman mentioned international comparisons of minimum wages. It is, of course, true that a number of other countries have minimum pay arrangements; it is equally true that minimum rates in countries such as the Netherlands have not been raised since 1983. In the United States they have not been raised since 1981. Various Common Market and OECD reports have drawn attention to the need for Government to consider the impact of minimum wages on jobs.
    The number of prosecutions carried out by the wages council inspectors has seldom reached double figures in any year under any Government. For the record, however, the ratio of prosecutions to establishments underpaying has been higher since 1979 than during the last Labour Government. That is another fact that the hon. Gentleman got wrong.
    If the hon. Gentleman wishes to quote Winston Churchill, the best and most revealing quotation that he could give is Churchill's observation that the false doctrines of Socialism, if ever seriously put into practice here, would reduce this island to chaos and starvation.
    I draw little comfort from the hon. Gentleman's speech, but its most extraordinary feature was not what it contained but what it almost omitted but then glossed over. The hon. Gentleman rambled on about the Council of Europe measure on low pay, which has one distinction: it is not accepted by any European Government that I know of. As my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) pointed out, the hon. Gentleman paid no serious attention to the reduction in unemployment in this country; yet the most effective contribution that any Government can make to improving incomes is surely the creation of conditions for more jobs.
    If a Government are serious about tackling low income, they must be serious about creating jobs. Achieving more jobs means removing the barriers and obstacles to employment. That has led the present Government to tackle, for example, the industrial relations problem left by the Labour Government of which the hon. Member for Oldham, West was a member, who exported British job after British job overseas and left the country in chaos.
    Mr. Win Griffiths: Does the Minister realise that, according to figures provided by the Library, by the end of last year in Wales, Scotland, the north-west, the north and the west midlands there were more than 800,000 fewer jobs than in 1979, and that the extra jobs created in Britain are mainly part-time jobs in the south-east?
    Mr. Fowler: I do not accept that, but I was about to deal with precisely that point.
    If the hon. Member for Oldham, West wants European comparisons, surely European comparisons on employment are the most relevant. If he was serious about low incomes, he would welcome the reduction in unemployment. He would welcome the fact that the unemployment rate has fallen faster here in the past two years than in any other major industrialised country. According to standardised figures, it is below both the European Community average and the rate in countries such as

    351
    France, Belgium, Italy, the Netherlands and Spain—and that in, for instance, Canada. He would also welcome the fact that as many new jobs have been created in this country over the past four years as have been created in the rest of the European Community countries combined, and the fact that more people are now in employment in this country than at any time in history. That includes 1979, and takes no account of those undergoing training. The work force now totals nearly 26 million.
    Anyone who is seriously concerned about low incomes will see the importance of those dramatic improvements. Unemployment is clearly the chief factor in low incomes, and more employment is the best and surest path out of lower incomes. Our number one aim must surely be to produce the pay cheque rather than the dole slip.
    Mr. Tony Banks: It is difficult to believe what the right hon. Gentleman is saying, given that since 1979 there have been 19 or 20 changes in the way in which unemployment figures are calculated. [HON. MEMBERS: "24."] I am told that there have been 24. It is going up all the time.
    Despite that, the right hon. Gentleman must accept that unemployment is still twice as high now as it was in 1979 when his Government were elected. So that we can proceed objectively and rationally, is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to allow the International Labour Organisation to conduct an independent inquiry into the various changes so that we know once and for all whether the Government are telling the truth or giving us a pack of lies?
    Mr. Fowler: The hon. Gentleman knows that there are two ways of counting unemployment. The first is to count those drawing unemployment benefit, which is the way in which not only the present Government but their Labour predecessor did it. Another way is by means of the labour force survey, in which 60,000 households are surveyed.
    The latest labour force survey will, I hope, be published in a month or two, and I ask the House to wait for its publication. Past labour force surveys, certainly the one last year, have shown that the figures that we have published as the unemployment count, far from overstating the improvement, have, if anything, understated it. It would be wise for the House to wait for the survey's publication before jumping to any conclusions and to see whether it confirms a real and dramatic fall in unemployment, as has been the case in previous years.
    The hon. Gentleman and his party lose a good deal of credibility up and down the country when they try to challenge what everyone else recognises as a real improvement. It is entirely legitimate for the hon. Gentleman to argue that the improvement should be greater and should continue, and I shall come to that point, but to deny that there has been an improvement at all is simply to make his position untenable.
    Mr. Meacher: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he is directly misleading the House? The facts are completely contrary to what he has said. The labour force survey for the latest year for which information is available—1986–87—shows a fall of 80,000 in unemployment, while the fall in the unemployment benefit count for exactly the same period, given monthly by the Government, was 240,000. In other words, the Government's unemployment
    352
    benefit count exaggerates three times the much better and, indeed, standardised international definition of the fall in unemployment. Rather than a fall of 1 million over the past two and a half years, there has been a fall of about 300,000.
    Mr. Fowler: The hon. Gentleman, in his hysterical way, has got it wrong again. We have tried to point this out to him, but he never listens. The unemployment total in the labour force survey is below that in the count of unemployed claimants.
    I urge the hon. Gentleman, in his own interests, to wait until the new labour force survey is published and then to come back if he believes that the figures that we are publishing exaggerate the position. I do not believe that they do or that any serious commentator or politician in this country will consider that to be the position.
    Ms. Short rose——
    Mr. Fowler: That is why it is of such fundamental importance that the unemployment rate in this country is now down to just over 7 per cent—a fall of almost 2 per cent, over the past 12 months—that the reduction has benefited all regions and that the steepest falls have been in areas where the problem has hitherto been worst, such as the west midlands, the north-west and Wales.
    Mr. Allen McKay rose——
    Mr. Graham rose——
    Mr. Fowler: If Opposition Members are concerned about low pay and poor people, surely they are concerned about the position of unemployed people, particularly the long-term unemployed. Do they have no conscience? Are they not concerned? [Interruption.]
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. I am finding it exceedingly difficult to hear what the Minister is saying.
    Ms. Short: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will know that Opposition days are precious to us. We put down a motion to debate low pay. The Secretary of State is filibustering and making all sorts of pretentious claims about the unemployment figures, but he is not talking about low pay. Is he in order?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: This is a very short debate, and I know that the hon. Lady is hoping to catch my eye. Bogus points of order only waste time.
    Mr. Fowler: The reaction of some Opposition Members reveals their stance on unemployment and their embarrassment that unemployment is coming down. That is what I find so disturbing.
    Mrs. Alice Mahon rose——
    Mr. Fowler: The number of long-term unemployed has come down by about 450,000. That must be good news for anyone who is concerned about people on low incomes, and there is every reason to believe that unemployment can come down further. There are 700,000 vacancies, so the opportunity exists for a further fall in unemployment. It was precisely for that reason that we introduced the employment training programme to train long-term unemployed people so that they could take the jobs which, fortunately, are now available. In spite of opposition,

    353
    employment training has got off to a good start and, after 20 weeks, there are now 125,000 people under training on the scheme.
    The hon. Member for Oldham, West did not support the programme for long-term unemployed people. He did not even support the position of the leader of his party on a programme for the long-term unemployed. If he has to choose between party politics and the position of the poor and unemployed, he chooses party politics every time.
    Mr. Nellist rose——
    Mr. Fowler: The hon. Member for Oldham, West is not only a weak man; he is a weak politician.
    Great progress is being made both in reducing unemployment and in training unemployed people.
    Mr. Nellist rose——
    Mr. Fowler: There is no evidence that the standard of living of people in this country has dropped over the past 10 years; quite the contrary. The evidence is that it has increased at an appreciably faster rate than was achieved by the last Labour Government.
    The hon. Member for Oldham, West has quoted some surveys. Let me take two surveys which have infinitely more weight than anything that he put forward. The first in an analysis of households with below average incomes carried out by the Government's statistical service and published last summer. It shows that households of all income levels have had increased living standards under this Government. It shows that there was a 6·4 per cent, increase in the real net income of the average household between 1981 and 1985 and that, for the poorest 10 per cent., the increase was 8·3 per cent.; in other words, it was above the average. The survey goes up only to 1985, but it is clear that, as unemployment has fallen, so the position has improved.
    The evidence of the new earnings survey is even more significant. Between 1979 and 1988, the real earnings of male workers increased by an average of 2·6 per cent, a year. That compares with an increase of only 1 per cent, a year under the last Labour Government up to 1979. There was a 32·9 per cent, increase in female earnings between 1979 and 1988 compared with only 16 per cent, between 1974 and 1979. Again, that is a higher annual average.
    In addition, a survey carried out by my Department and published in the Employment Gazette shows that, between 1973 and 1979, a third of all male occupations in this country had not a rise but a fall in real earnings. That is the record of the Labour Government of which the hon. Gentleman was a member. Since 1979, the real earnings in almost every male occupation have increased. I am not, therefore, inclined to take lectures from the hon. Gentleman on ways to improve the position of lower paid workers.
    When the hon. Gentleman was in government, he served in an Administration that made many of the lower paid even more lower paid. That is the record. In opposition, he has tried to sabotage a training programme whose aim is to find solutions for thousands of people living on what we would all agree are low incomes.
    Ms. Short: I am sure that the Secretary of State knows the difference between an average and a distribution of that average and that he is capable of disaggregating the figures. He will know that we have had some economic growth in Britain every year since 1945, so to claim an
    354
    annual rise in living standards is not significant. However, if he disaggregates the growth in average earnings, he will see that the lowest paid 20 per cent, are relatively worse off and that there is a growing divide in our country. That is the issue that we wish to discuss tonight.
    Mr. Fowler: The figures that I have quoted show that the position has improved unquestionably over the past nine or 10 years and has improved much faster than under the last Labour Government. The hon. Lady may not like that evidence. She was not a member of that Government and no doubt does not take a great deal of responsibility for their actions, but that is the position.
    Mr. Nellist: Will the Minister give way?
    Mr. Fowler: I must make progress.
    I am not prepared to take lectures on wages councils from the hon. Member for Oldham, West. The House will understand that we are in the final stages of consulting about the future of the wages councils. Opposition Members might have rather more to complain about if, before the consultation period was over, I came to the House and announced a decision. Let me explain why we believe that consultation was necessary.
    By any analysis, the wages council system has changed fundamentally since its inception in 1909. Two thirds of the workers whom it now covers are paid above the minimum rate. Wages councils cover only one tenth of the work force. It is essentially a system for retailing, catering and, to a lesser extent, clothing manufacturing. Retailing and catering together account for about 90 per cent, of the workers who are covered.
    The system is not comprehensive and it is also-by common consent—full of anomalies. It covers laundries but not laundrettes, the selling of cooked meat, but not that of raw meat. Not only have circumstances changed since 1909, but there have been developments since legislation was introduced in 1986 to exclude young people under the age of 21.
    There is no evidence that the removal of the right of those under 21 to take their cases to wages councils has led to lower pay for them. There is every reason to believe that it has encouraged their employment. [Interruption.] I shall give the hon. Member for Oldham, West evidence on employment in a minute. Since young people were excluded from wages councils regulation in 1986, employers have been more willing to employ them. They have also enjoyed greater freedom to fix pay levels and that has contributed to the dramatic decrease in youth unemployment. Unemployment among those aged under 20 has fallen during the past two years from 21 per cent, to just above 12 per cent. Some young people have enjoyed opportunities which would not have existed had regulation continued, and their earnings in general have not fallen away.
    In hotels and catering the weekly earnings of full-time male workers under 21 have risen from £96 in 1986 to £105 in 1988—an increase of 9 per cent. Females in the same industry aged under 21 have enjoyed a pay rise during the same period from £87 to £97—an increase of 15 per cent.
    In retailing, the earnings of full-time sales assistants have risen from £90 to £107—an increase of 19 per cent. There is no evidence of a reduction in the earnings of under-21s since the wages council system was introduced.
    Economic and social conditions have been transformed since the wages council system was introduced. Average

    355
    pay is higher and average hours worked each week have fallen by between 10 and 15 hours. The great majority of people who are covered by the wages councils work part time and many contribute a second income to the family.
    The greatest difference since the introduction of wages councils is that there is now a comprehensive framework of social security benefits—not only out-of-work benefits, but in-work benefits. The system of in-work benefits provides direct help for people on low incomes. Family credit——
    Mr. Nellist: Will the Secretary of State give way?
    Mr. Fowler: No, I shall not give way again.
    Family credit is a generous replacement of the old family income supplement. It is a viable and worthwhile benefit that makes a substantial difference to the income of working families. Expenditure on family credit in its first year of operation is estimated at £420 million. That compares—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) waits, he will hear some answers. That compares with an expenditure of £180 million in the final year in which the family income supplement system was in operation.
    The amount of money devoted to low income families who are in work has more than doubled since the family credit system was introduced. A quarter of a million families now receive family credit—25 per cent, more than received family income supplement.
    Mr. Nellist: Will the Secretary of State give way?
    Mr. Fowler: No, I shall not.
    The average weekly award under the family credit system is more than £25—nearly double the £13 of the average family income supplement award. That is evidence that families most in need are claiming benefit.
    We continue to encourage the take-up of this new benefit. It has been in operation for only 12 months. Last summer I issued a leaflet which was distributed amongst jobcentres to explain family credit and other in-work benefits. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Oldham, West wants to argue against in-work benefits—it will be a new stance for his party—will he explain why the last Labour Government did nothing about them? Family income supplement continued throughout that Government's period in office.
    Circumstances have changed not only since the inception of the wages councils system but since the last consultation period in 1985. For those reasons, it is right to review the role of the councils and to consult on the proposal that they should be abolished. Decisions will be taken after the consultation period.
    The Opposition's attempts to link the proposed abolition of the wages councils with an increase in poverty founder on the facts. Most employees covered by wages councils are part-time workers, and about two thirds contribute a second income to the home. The size of that second income affects the standard of living of the household, but such families are not normally defined as living in poverty. Families without opportunity of employment encounter the greatest difficulty in achieving an acceptable standard of living. That is why the
    356
    Government are concentrating on creating conditions in which employment can grow and unemployment be reduced.
    Mr. Nellist: Will the Secretary of State give way?
    Mr. Fowler: I shall not. I have given way on many occasions.
    Mr. Nellist: Not to me.
    Mr. Fowler: The hon. Gentleman may be right.
    The Government can best help by creating conditions in which more jobs are generated and removing unnecessary barriers to employment. One that is still to be overcome is the shortage of skills in the labour market. Those goals form the background to our training proposals.
    The Government have tackled income barriers that stand in the way of people taking jobs in the first place. The Government have made a serious start on raising the tax threshold by increasing personal allowances by more than 25 per cent. They have restructured national insurance contributions to make lower paid jobs more attractive to employers and employees. Since 1985, national insurance contributions have been levied at the two lower rates of 5 per cent, and 7 per cent. By raising income tax allowances and by cutting the standard rate of income tax the Government have ensured that the average liability to income tax and national insurance of the bottom 10 per cent, of taxpayers has fallen by 19 per cent, in real terms during the 1980s.
    Another effect of having to finance Government expenditure by high taxes was that, after paying tax, people became better off when claiming social security than they were when employed. That is why the Government are determined to control spending and cut taxes. We are determined to ensure that people are better off in work, and that is why we have introduced family credit.
    Mr. Nellist: Will the Secretary of State give way?
    Mr. Fowler: I am close to finishing.
    Opposition Members have expressed concern about a widening of the distribution of income. They should remember that the standard of living of every part of the income distribution has increased absolutely. Real personal disposable income, both in total and per head, is higher than at any time under the last Labour Government. The test is whether the incomes of the poorest have increased. They have. That is more important than changes in relative distribution of income. The Labour party's lurid caricatures do not square with the facts. The truth is that the majority of families are better off than they were in 1979. The incomes of couples with children have increased in real terms and the incomes of single parents have also increased. A strong growth in real earnings is important because it represents real and quantifiable increases in the material welfare of people.
    Over the past 29 months or so, unemployment in this country has come down month by month. We have seen the biggest reduction in unemployment since the war. We have also seen the creation of a record number of new jobs. That is the Government's record, and it is a record that brings undoubted benefit to everyone in this country.
    7.31 pm
    Mr. Martyn Jones: Despite the protestations of the Secretary of State, in the past 10 years, the divide between rich and poor has widened hugely. Methinks the Secretary of State doth protest too much. My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) has told us that, since 1979, the number of adult workers falling below the Council of Europe's decency threshold as specified by the European social charter has increased from just under 8 million to 9·9 million. Over the same period, pay rises for the highest paid fifth of men have been 50 per cent. greater than those for the poorest fifth. The poorest fifth of manual workers earned only 64 per cent. of the average in 1987, compared to 69 per cent. of the average in 1886. Meanwhile, the highest paid now earn more, relative to the average, than at any time since 1906. I do not remember the Secretary of State challenging those figures. Perhaps he will when he winds up, but I doubt it.
    The problem of low pay has worsened, and progress towards equal pay for women has stopped. The average earnings of women full-time workers is two thirds that of men, and the gap between the earnings of young people and adults has continued to widen. People between 18 and 20 years of age earned just 60 per cent. of average adult pay in 1979. There is also growing regional inequality, which the Secretary of State did not tackle. Even in the south-east, nearly one in four adults earn low wages despite working full time. In the rest of Britain, the figure is about one in three and that applies to regions such as Wales.
    We can blame deliberate Government policy, including the 1983 abolition of the fair wages resolution and the 1986 weakening of the wages councils' minimum wages system. As a result, some groups of workers have experienced actual cuts in weekly wages. The Secretary of State says that unemployment is the key to low pay. I would say that the Government have created the conditions for unemployment precisely for that reason. The number of people claiming benefit—to use a euphemism—may have come down, but there are still large numbers of people chasing jobs, which is good for low wages and profits, but bad for Britain in the long term. The Government seek to justify the encouragement of low-wage employment as a means of creating jobs, but the increase of 1·6 million in the number of people affected by low pay since 1979 is exactly matched by an increase in the numbers who are unemployed.
    My reason for speaking today is to give one example of an area that is neglected entirely by Government policy. I shall describe an effect slightly different from that of the abolition of the wages councils. My point is that we have a shortage of many skills, such as those of hospital technicians. I apologise for giving a list, but it is necessary. Areas affected by a shortage of skills are microbiologists—of which I am one—haematologists, health physicists, audiology and radiology technicians, pharmacy technicians, pharmacists and ECG technicians. All those workers are low-paid, yet they are desperately needed. Senior pharmacy technicians' pay starts at £5,500—one third of the average wage in this country. Pharmacy technicians at the top of the scale receive £8,500. That is a pittance in anybody's book. How can one recruit people to those highly technical jobs with such pay? Their responsibilities are increasing. Microbiologists have been
    358
    much in the news with salmonella, listeria and legionnaire's disease and without such technicians we should not be able to run the National Health Service—be it private or public.
    I shall give one more example of the specific problem of recruitment. In the hospital that serves my area, ECG technicians are impossible to recruit. There should be five staff in the department, but there is only one full-time technician. She cannot even take a holiday because of low pay. People have come off the dole who are unable to survive on that pay. If pay is forced down in a professional sector such as that, how can we as a nation hope to compete in an increasingly technical world?
    Mr. Barry Jones: She works at Ysbyty Maelor Wrescam
    Mr. Jones: Yes, that is the hospital. Employment training is hardly the answer to that problem; genuine pay scales are. That is the blight of low pay in one specific area.
    7.36 pm
    Mr. Tim Janman: At the heart of the speech of the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) was the Opposition's desire to eradicate differentials completely from the labour market and to have us all start the race at the same point in life and to end up at the same point. That is at the heart of their philosophy. If it is not their objective to achieve complete equality of income across the labour market, it is certainly their desire, through bureaucratic intervention and regulation, to prevent the correct differentials occurring between different sections of the labour market. Those differentials are, of course, directly proportional to the different skills, abilities and experiences that different individuals have to offer.
    It is ridiculous for the hon. Gentleman to start making comparisons between the income of a Secretary of State and somebody on low pay. It is a ridiculous, emotive and nonsensical point to make.
    Ms. Short: Why?
    Mr. Janman: If the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) thinks that in the real world a person doing an unskilled job should be paid the same as a carpenter or a fitter, or somebody in the professions, she is clearly living in a world of her own.
    Ms. Short: We hear so many speeches from Conservative Members in which they talk about people's wages as though those people were not real human beings. It is important to ask Conservative Members whether they could live on £100 a week. Could they keep their families on that money? Imagine what it would be like, and just think what they spend. They should think about the pay of many people working in public services in our country; that is the point to try to make Conservative Members understand. We are talking about real family budgets and family needs, not some abstract economic theory.
    Mr. Janman: I do not need any lectures from the likes of the hon. Lady about what it is like to live on a low income, given my own family background. I come from a low-paid, one-parent family, and I can assure the hon. Lady that I continually visit constituents who have to live on low incomes.
    Ms. Short: Do something about it, then.
    Mr. Janman: The hon. Lady is taking a flight into fantasy, as her party continually does, if she thinks that there is a broad-brush, simplistic answer to the problems that people on low incomes face in coping day by day.
    If the hon. Lady considers the track record, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, of the results of this Government's policies and compares them with those of the previous Socialist Administration—and with all the previous Socialist Administrations in this country—she will see that this Government have a much better record of increasing the real living standards of people on low pay, people on average earnings and those with above-average earnings. The hon. Member for Ladywood and her hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West can make up the facts if they wish, but what I am saying is the truth.
    We must ask what we mean by "low pay" and "poverty" because they are moving targets and always relative. If one raises the purchasing power of people on the bottom rung, the people on the next rung will want theirs raised to maintain the differential, and that mechanism will continue throughout the labour market.
    As I said a moment ago to the hon. Member for Ladywood, I regularly visit many of my constituents. I operate a mobile surgery and take myself to my constituents instead of expecting them to come to see me. Because, inevitably, most of the people I visit tend to have problems—often derived from low incomes—I see what is happening at grass-roots level in my constituency. However, my observation, which proves that poverty is relative, is that sometimes when I go into a household which, on paper, has a low income, and look around, I see items that five or 10 years ago would have been considered luxuries.
    Although I am not denying that there are genuinely people on low incomes in my constituency, as there are in many, if not all, constituencies in this country, there are cases in which people who are supposedly on low incomes or who are "poor" according to the figures of the Low Pay Unit have television sets, videos and hi-fis. That proves that the definition of poverty given by the Low Pay Unit is ridiculous.
    Two centuries ago Adam Smith was much more accurate when he stated:
    "By necessaries I understand, not only the commodities which are indispensably necessary for the support of life, but whatever the custom of the country renders it indecent for creditable people even of the lowest order to be without."
    In other words, people always want to keep up with the Joneses. As people of a certain level in society have their income and standard of living raised, so everybody below that level will want to keep up with them.
    Our record of expenditure on the social and welfare system is far better than that of the previous Labour Administration, but due to the definition of low pay, each successive expansion of the benefit system results in more people being defined as "poor" if one takes the ridiculous definition that the Low Pay Unit and other bodies want us to accept. On that definition, it is argued that 15·4 million people now live in or on the margins of poverty in this country. I am confident that, if the vast majority of our people were told that on those figures 29 per cent. of the population were living in or near poverty, their reaction would be that the figures were utter tripe—and utter tripe is exactly what they are.
    The Low Pay Unit, the Labour party and other professional do-gooders, few of whom contribute to the
    360
    wealth creation process in this country, do the genuinely needy a great disservice by blurring the real problems that exist and by carping on in their naive and unrealistic way about the genuine problems of poverty that have always existed under Labour, Conservative and Liberal Governments. It is ridiculous and naive to suggest that with one simplistic policy decision one could remove at a stroke the problems that will inevitably continue to exist in any economy and in any society. Indeed, around the world, far more people are living on the breadline in collectivist, totalitarian, Socialist societies than in fluid, free-market capitalist societies such as ours.
    It is worth considering the change in purchasing power in this country. Although my figures relate to average earnings, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said earlier, as average earnings rise the real incomes of people on low wages also increase. I shall compare 1971 with 1987 in terms of how many minutes or hours somebody would have to work to buy certain key items that are important to ordinary family life.
    In 1971, to buy one large loaf of bread one had to work for nine minutes; by 1987 it had fallen to six minutes. The 55 minutes worked in 1971 to buy 1 lb of rump steak had fallen to 41 minutes by 1987. Although there was perhaps a slightly different attitude to buying eggs in 1971, to buy 12 eggs in 1971 a male on average earnings would have had to work for 22 minutes; but by 1987 that had fallen to 15 minutes. It took 40 hours 30 minutes of labour to buy a car licence in 1971; which had fallen by 1987 to 23 hours 35 minutes. It would have taken 19 hours 55 minutes to earn the money to buy a colour television licence in 1971 but only 13 hours 41 minutes in 1987. The relevant figure for an average telephone bill fell from 50 minutes in 1971 to 35 minutes in 1987. That is clear evidence of a real increase in the standard of living of our people, both for people on average earnings and for those on lower pay.
    There has been some talk about different countries and about people's relative incomes across the world. A couple of weeks ago, I was lucky enough to visit the Socialist shangri-la of Sweden—a country that is often held up as a model of Socialist perfection and as able to deliver higher living standards and good incomes on, from the Opposition's point of view, an impressive egalitarian stance. However, the wages in Sweden are so low that it is impossible——
    Ms. Short: The hon. Gentleman must be joking.
    Mr. Janman: Well, I am sorry to have to tell the hon. Lady that, on the figures quoted to me when I visited two Saab locations in Sweden, I was surprised, given Sweden's reputation, at just how low the wages of people working in the motor industry are. Given that taxation is so high, a husband has to have his wife going out to work in almost every instance in Sweden for the family unit to be able to have any income on which to live.
    Mr. Ken Eastham: Only a few weeks ago the Select Committee on Employment visited Sweden for informative in-depth discussions. The hon. Gentleman talked about so-called poverty pay and drew inferences about Sweden, but I advise him that average wages there were quoted as £1,000 per month in our terms.
    Mr. Janman: I remind the hon. Gentleman that we are not talking about average wages, but about low pay. The example that I was giving was for manual——
    Mr. Harry Barnes rose——
    Mr. Janman: I have already given way to the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Eastham); perhaps I may be allowed to answer his point.
    The example that I was quoting was related not to average earnings but to the earnings of people in the lower income bracket doing unskilled assembly work in the motor industry. As I understand it, this debate is about low pay. I have to say to the hon. Gentleman that the gross income of those people was no more, in terms of purchasing value and taking into account exchange rates, than that of workers in a similar industry in this country.
    When the punitive taxation, the high marginal rates of tax, that Swedish workers have to pay in order to provide for the over-bureaucratic Socialist system that Sweden has to support is taken into account, I can say to the hon. Gentleman that, from what I saw, the standard of living of a person doing an ordinary manual job there is far worse than in this country—and it is far worse because of the punitive taxation and excessive employment protection legislation that effectively leads to fuller employment than is commensurate with labour market conditions at the time and that works through to very high prices.
    So in Sweden, at the lower end of the labour market, wages are no more, in real terms, than they are here, yet the person is paying much higher taxation and much higher prices in the shops. When the hon. Member for Blackley goes back to Sweden he may like to take a look at the difficulties that employers have in paying any considerable differential between skilled and unskilled workers where there is very little difference at all. If they provide for any differential, because of the very high marginal rates of taxation it is all taken by the state, and the net income of the skilled worker is no more than that of the unskilled worker. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the skilled worker in Sweden is hit very hard by that punitive taxation system.
    The best protection for the low-paid, and the best way of providing maximum employment opportunity, is not regulation, intervention and wage councils; it is low taxation. I should like to take this opportunity to ask my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to look hard at the possibility, in the next Budget, of making huge increases in the tax threshold. Already, 1·7 million fewer people pay tax than would be the case if there were still the same tax regime that we inherited from the Socialists in 1979. There is much more scope for reducing the tax burden on the low-paid in this country by making changes that would take millions more out of the tax system.
    The other main matter of importance to the low-paid is also a matter for the Treasury, and that is a firm monetary policy to protect the low-paid from inflation. Inevitably, when we have high inflation rates—and from 1974 to 1979 they averaged 15·5 per cent.—it is the low-paid on fixed incomes who are worst hit, not the rich.
    Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Does the hon. Member not agree that, until we tackle the level at which people start to pay national insurance stamps, we will not actually lift them out of the low-pay group? We need to look at that in conjunction with the income tax system.
    Mr. Janman: I am very grateful for that point. It supports the general direction of my argument, and
    362
    would certainly include national insurance in the definition of "tax". National insurance, which is there for a specific purpose, is, of course, an element of taxation.
    Let me mention now the need to abolish wages councils. This topic was one of the core parts of the speech of the hon. Member for Oldham, West. Before drawing some conclusions, I should like to quote from a letter I received from a small business woman, a constituent of mine, on this matter. I am afraid that this constituent was a victim of the Waffen SS wing of the Department of Employment, the wages councils inspectorate.
    She writes:
    "Dear Mr. Janman,
    We are a small retail shop selling all types of fabrics and trimmings.
    We recently had a visit from 'The Wages Council' and unfortunately we're not paying quite the full amount per hour to the part-time workers. The ladies who work here were quite happy with the arrangements we had with them, but that didn't count, because according to the inspector, 'We were breaking the law'. Whose law? In the end I felt like a criminal and that I didn't like."
    [Laughter.] Hon. Members opposite may laugh, but the fact of the matter is that the existence of this legislation and the existence of these wages councils is jeopardizing not only that business and the employment that my constituent is providing, but similar small businesses up and down the country. I do not know exactly how many there are, but I am sure it must be tens of thousands.
    The hon. Member for Oldham, West may like to quote the CBI, but the CBI is essentially the representative of large corporate concerns, or big business, and I do not believe that it is going to be totally in tune with the sort of problems that many small businesses, particularly in the retail sector, are going to have. It is that type of business which, I am afraid, has to bear the brunt of the totalitarian instrument of the wages councils. My constituent's only crime was to pay a wage that her business could afford and that her employees found acceptable, and the alternative is no business for her and no work for the people she currently employs.
    Mrs. Maria Fyfe: Could the hon. Member tell us how much this constituent of his was paying herself and exactly how much she was giving her under-paid workers, who, for all I know, may also have been constituents of his?
    Mr. Janman: The hon. Lady misses the point completely. My constituent's exact payment to herself, which I suspect was not that large, and her exact payment to the people working for her, is not the point. The point is whether wages councils destroy job opportunities or enhance them. The fact of the matter, so ably illustrated by my constituent, is that they destroy jobs very successfully. The abolition of wages councils could free the labour market of this totalitarian and egalitarian distortion, and create up to 300,000 new jobs. I hope that this Government, who believe in the free market, will act and abolish these out-dated institutions.
    Finally, I want to come to some conclusions on what the real issue in this debate is. The real issue, on which this Government have such a good record, is how, within the benefit system, we can genuinely make sure that people in this country, given their circumstances, are provided with a minimum income. The correct way of doing that is not to put a burden on businesses by way of wages councils, distort the labour market and destroy jobs; the correct way

    363
    of doing it—as we have been doing through family credit, which is now much more extensive, and far more generous, than anything we have seen from any Socialist Administration—is to target benefits on those on the lowest incomes and to take as many people as possible out of the tax net altogether, allowing them to keep their earnings and spend them as they wish, instead of people on low incomes still having to pay some of the highest marginal tax rates in the world. Those are the real issues, and I hope that on wages councils my right hon. Friend will act soon.
    7.59 pm
    Mr. James Wallace: The point that grieved me most about the speech of the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Janman) was the patronising way in which he treated people in relative poverty who—surprise, surprise—have a television set. It comes ill from a party that tries to preach choice to say that some people should have no choice in life, that they must make do with the basic necessities and that they cannot try to get something better or at least try to ensure that such small mechanisms as are available through the state to help them get something better should not be made available.
    To some extent, I agree with the Secretary of State—Labour Front Bench Members would probably agree, too —that those in poverty from low pay are not all the people who are in poverty, although there is undoubtedly a strong correlation and a large overlap.
    In his evidence to the Royal Commission on the distribution of income and wealth Professor Layard noted that:
    "Of workers in the lowest 10 per cent. of wages, only one in five was in the lowest 10 per cent. of relative incomes."
    There are undoubtedly some reasons for that. As has been said, many of the lowest paid are in second jobs, and their earnings help to raise a family income above the poverty line.
    Ms Short: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Wallace: I shall not give way. I wish to deal with this point.
    On the other side of the coin, there are many families in poverty, particularly large families in which a working parent is on a reasonable wage, yet it is insufficient to meet family needs. However, that should not blind the House to the fact that the most recent figures of the Low Pay Unit demonstrate that about 4 million people live in poverty or on its margins as a result of low wages.
    Poverty may exist for reasons other than low pay, and in the long term, measures such as the integration of the tax and benefit system can do more than a national minimum wage to tackle the problem of poverty. I am becoming increasingly sceptical about the national minimum wage. Research in the United States, where there is a national minimum wage, suggests that it is not as helpful as it might seem on the surface in trying to take people out of poverty. A study by Carolyn Shaw Bell concludes:
    "no money sum of wages can be calculated to be a minimum wage that will provide an income above poverty."
    Other surveys tend to suggest that job losses, which undoubtedly push more people into poverty, can result from the introduction of a national minimum wage. But it
    364
    does not follow that such negative effects would flow from a targeted minimum wage of the type being administered by the wages councils. Pending the implementation of an integrated tax and benefit system, my colleagues and I believe that a reformed wages council system would be and should be an effective tool in tackling low pay while minimising any negative effects of a full-blown minimum wage policy.
    My party opposed the 1986 reforms and queried how it could make sense, for example, to set a single overtime rate regardless of whether overtime was worked for an extra half hour at the end of a working day or for six hours on a Saturday. We were highly sceptical of the job creation potential arising from young people being excluded from the scope of wages council legislation. There is claim in the consultative document that
    "the rate of youth unemployment has declined dramatically"
    since 1986. No evidence was presented to show that that decline has anything to do with sectors covered by wages councils. Also, there is no claim that the rate of youth employment has gone up. That might have been a far more relevant claim if taking young people out of the scope of wages councils had the effect that the Government are claiming. That is the hallmark of the consultative document. It is full of bold and bald statements. For example, the very first paragraph refers to the White Paper "Employment for the 1990s." It states:
    "Job growth in the 1990s will depend on pay arrangements which reflect a great deal of responsiveness to local labour market conditions; changes in product markets and technology; differences in performance, merit, and skills; the continuing profitability of the enterprise; and international competitiveness."
    The White Paper suggests that wages councils are incompatible with such concepts and practices.
    Speaking on the subject of low pay in a debate on 15 February 1984, the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) drew attention to conclusions that had been arrived at by a group of Cambridge economists who had been asked by the Government to look at the effects of wages councils on the economy. That group of economists found
    "no evidence of direct benefit from the abolition of wages councils. We found no evidence of any increase in economic efficiency, of any increase in total numbers of jobs in the industry and yet, at the same time, there was significant evidence of an extension of low pay".
    Such quantitative research is more significant in a debate such as this—I do not doubt that one of his constituents went to the hon. Member for Thurrock—but it is more likely that there will be no real impact on job creation by the abolition of wages councils.
    Mr. Janman rose——
    Mr. Wallace: The hon. Gentleman spoke for well over 20 minutes.
    There is some evidence that the volume of trade is far more important than pay in determining employment levels. Eighty six per cent. of workers in sectors that operate under wages councils are in markets in which there is no international competition. That is significant. It means that, therefore, all companies are operating within the same rules. It is not as though they have been disadvantaged by foreign competition.
    It is difficult for me to try to find 10 or 15 minutes to have a haircut. I do not believe, therefore, that, after 1992, and the completion of the Channel tunnel, hairdressers or barbers in London or in Cornwall or Shetland will be in

    365
    competition with barbers in Calais, or even barbers in Seville. The argument that companies affected by wages councils would be competitively disadvantaged does not stand up.
    Hon. Members must examine the Government's own admissions in the consultative document. They tell us that the 1986 legislation required councils determining minimum rates to consider the employment effects of their decisions in areas where workers are generally paid below the national average for their trade or occupation. In other words, since that became law, wages councils have been obliged to consider the employment effects. Yet the same consultative document complained that the 1986 changes had not had the desired effect because in the first year the average increase in wages council settlements was 8·6 per cent. and in the second year it was 6·3 per cent. The Government are not complaining because the figures are too low. Surely, having given regard to employment effects, the wages councils have decided that they have no effect on unemployment; or the wages councils have not been fulfilling their statutory duty. If that is the Government's allegation, they should have the guts to make it in a more forthright manner.
    The Government have a blinkered approach, in spite of everything that has been set up to keep up the charade of consultation. The whole document has one conclusion—that the Government are intent on abolishing wages councils. Paragraph 16 refers to anomalies. There are anomalies in respect of people who work in laundries. They are covered if washing is done manually, but not if it is done by machine. The Government's attitude is to abolish the wages councils to resolve the anomaly. No Conservative Member has thought to say, "There is something wrong with the pay of those who work in launderettes. Should not the argument be to extend the scope of wages councils?"
    The one statement with which I agree is that:
    "The world of the 1990s will be very different from that of 1909."
    Although I agree with that statement, I draw some different conclusions.
    The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) has already quoted Winston Churchill on the introduction of wages councils. The Secretary of State's response was pretty feeble. He could at least have tried to explain that away by saying that at that time Churchill was a Liberal. Nevertheless, ever since then, Conservative Administrations have followed the policies that the 1909 Bill introduced.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: Can the hon. Gentleman name a single wages council whose minimum wage is generous or even average? Surely all wages councils have helped to ensure that low wages are perpetuated and institutionalised.
    Mr. WallaceThe hon. Gentleman misses the point. Obviously one would wish to see even higher wages, but if we abolish wages councils the chances are that wages will be driven even lower. Even the CBI, responding to the 1985 proposals, expressed fears about the abolition of wages councils because it foresaw companies undercutting companies and small businesses undercutting small businesses, leading to job losses rather than job creation, and implicit in that was the driving down of wages.
    In 1909 Churchill saw wages councils as being a means of protecting those whom we believe to be the most vulnerable and most likely to receive low pay. The work
    366
    patterns of the 1990s will undoubtedly produce employees who fall into that category, not least the young, those in part-time employment, home-based workers and the new army of low-paid cleaners employed by private companies to clean our hospitals and local authority premises. Rather than considering the abolition of wages councils, we should be considering their strengthening and extension.
    Any hon. Member, particularly any Conservative Member, who doubts whether we still have vulnerable and low-paid people as we approach 1990 should read an article in the Financial Times on 14 October 1988 by Mr. Jimmy Burns. It describes the plight of a woman whom he cannot even name for fear that her employer would find out. That woman works at home in Birmingham as a seamstress for about 56 hours per week and receives £20 to £25. She was unsure of her employment rights and even who her employer was.
    Mrs. Mahon: I can top that example. I am involved with a group of home workers who have been receiving as little as 24p an hour for packing Christmas cards for Woolworths. To date, Woolworths is refusing to see them, even though those workers have been trying to arrange a meeting for three months.
    Mr. Wallace: The hon. Lady underlines the point that we still have in our midst vulnerable people who, because of their position, can be exploited by means of low pay.
    Just before the passage quoted by the hon. Member for Oldham, West, Winston Churchill said:
    "It is a serious national evil that any class of His Majesty's subjects should receive less than a living wage in return for their utmost exertions." —[Official Report, 28 April 1909; Vol. 1V, c. 388]
    All Opposition Members would endorse that sentiment.
    If one were to ask, as I think the hon. Member for Dorset, South (Mr. Bruce) tried to do, whether the abolition of wages councils would help improve the circumstances of those people to whom I and the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) referred, I could not agree that they would be helped in any way. The economic case for abolition has been asserted by the Government, but as a Scots lawyer I would not even be generous enough to give them the verdict of not proven. They have come nowhere near to backing up their assertions with any well-argued economic case.
    The existence, even in 1989, of vulnerable low-paid workers is argument enough not only for the retention of reformed wages councils but for their extension, backed up by a well-resourced inspectorate so that their orders can be guaranteed. In that way we can try, albeit in a small way, to raise the level of expectations of pay of many people in Britain who are still paid a ridiculously low amount and who, if the economy is succeeding as well as the Government claim, deserve to share that much more in the benefits of it.
    8.14 pm
    Mr. John Redwood: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State rightly concentrated on the progress that has been made thanks to the economy's vitality under the Government's enterprise policy. The 30 per cent. real increase in earnings at the lower level is in stark contrast to the 1 per cent. or 2 per cent. real decline recorded in the Labour years in the 1970s. But what matters most is whether people believe their take-home pay is fair and, most especially, whether they believe the

    367
    stoppages out of their gross pay are fair, taking into account the need for public services and relative income levels within society.
    One reason why there has been such progress in improving the take-home pay of people in the lower pay bands is that the Government have been prepared to cut taxes across the board and, in certain Budgets, to concentrate on cutting them in ways which help those at the lowest end of the income scale.
    Ms. Short: We all know that the hon. Gentleman prides himself on being a great intellectual. Therefore, I am sure that he will confirm that the Government's tax take since they came to power in 1979 has increased. It has simply moved from income tax to VAT and national insurance. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows that that is true and will confirm it.
    Mr. Redwood: The hon. Lady is missing the point. I am talking about incentives to work and the level of stoppages from pay. I am about to illustrate that there has been substantial progress, as she should know. The standard rate of income tax has been cut from 33p in the pound to 25p in the pound. A new level of national insurance contribution has been brought in at only 5 per cent. on lower earnings—a big improvement on the position when the Labour Government left office. There has also been a substantial increase in the real value of thresholds before people start to have to pay income tax.
    Those three elements create incentives to work. They create more jobs and enterprise in the economy. That is why there is so much growth in the economy which has enlarged the prosperity of everyone and has produced startling increases in real take-home pay after allowing for all kinds of taxation in the economy and its impact upon purchasing patterns.
    I want to urge the Government to continue in two directions. First, I agree that we should not give up on deregulation. That is an important part of the enterprise policy. It is the way to create jobs or to avoid the destruction of more jobs—jobs that were destroyed by the policies pursued by the Labour Government.
    Secondly, I want to see the Government pursue the policy, between the Department of Employment, the Department of Social Security and the Treasury, of cutting taxation, especially for those on lower pay, in the next Budget.
    I want to illustrate my point by showing the current system and then sketching out some ideas for improving it still further. I preface my statement about the current position with the overriding comment that at every level of income, especially those affecting the lower paid, the position is so much better today than it was in 1979.
    Mrs. Mahon: May I challenge the hon. Gentleman on that by citing an example of one group of 250 workers in my constituency who, because of the Government's privatisation policies in the NHS, lost one quarter of their pay when they were taken over by a private company and they also lost out on holiday pay, pension rights and sickness benefit. They had a reduction in pay of 25 per cent. and the work force was halved. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that they are not better off than they were in 1979?
    Mr. Redwood: I would need more information on their rates of pay in 1979, their agreements, the nature of the incentive and bonus arrangements, and so on. However, the hon. Lady is straying from my point. I am talking about the tax system and the marginal rates of tax that hit people with different levels of income.
    Under today's system, people earning up to £43 a week are not taxed. At £43 a week people start to pay a 5 per cent. national insurance contribution over the full range of their earnings. At £53.37 a week a single person starts to pay 30 per cent.—25 per cent. income tax and 5 per cent. national insurance. At £75 per week, the national insurance rate increases by two points, producing a new overall rate of 32 per cent. At £115 per week, one reaches the full rate, before reaching the higher rate of tax, of 34 per cent.
    While those rates reflect an improvement on 1979, this year's Budget will give scope for more progress along the road of reducing the level of stoppages for the lowest paid. The best way of doing that, targeted most accurately at the lowest paid, is to raise the threshold at which national insurance is payable. The answer I received from the Treasury is most illuminating. I asked what would be the revenue costs of raising class 1 contributions from £43 to £55 per week. I was told that, given the way in which the rebate system worked, there would be no loss to the Treasury.
    Another way of helping the lower paid that is often urged upon the House is raising thresholds and the level at which one begins paying income tax. That approach is not as well targeted because increasing the threshold helps people on high salaries more as they benefit from a reduction linked to the 40 per cent. tax rate rather than the 25 per cent. rate.
    Another way of helping everyone, including the low paid, is to reduce the standard rate of tax. My own estimates and Treasury costings indicate that, this year, we could have £4,000 million to give back to taxpayers and still run a very prudent budget—by which I mean repaying more than £10,000 million of public debt, which is what we ought to do for other economic reasons.
    Such an approach would give us scope to raise thresholds by between 7 and 10 per cent. If we raised tax thresholds by 10 per cent., it would cost only £2,000 million in 1989–90. It would enable us to cut the standard rate of tax by another 1p on the road to a rate of 20p in the pound, which I hope we shall reach in 1991. It would also leave us free to make a substantial increase in the national insurance threshold. Why not increase it to £70 or £75 per week? We could certainly raise it to £55 or £60 without creating any great revenue problems.
    As for income tax, it is important to continue stressing that lower income tax is good for the economy as a whole, is good for incentives, and means that people at all but the lowest income levels can keep more of the money that they earn. Lower tax rates affect the pattern of part-time employment, and attitudes towards bonuses, promotion, and seeking better job opportunities. We wish to continue fostering an enterprising and prosperous economy in which people will take the opportunities that are now so visible across the width and breadth of the country, in the north as well as the south, the east as well as the west.
    The type of scheme I have outlined would mean that people earning up to £50 or £60 per week would pay no tax or national insurance. Above that level, they would begin falling into the income tax net at a rate of 24p in the

    369
    pound. At a higher level still, they would begin paying national insurance at the rate of 5 per cent.—a combined rate of 29 per cent. The maximum rate, until they achieve the highest income levels, would be 33p in the pound—but that point would not be hit until they were earning well over £100 per week.
    Such an arrangement would give people more incentive and have an impact on the labour market. It would encourage more people to enter part-time work. That is particularly relevant at a time when many women wish to return to work. They do not necessarily wish to be employed full time, particularly if their children are still at school, but are deterred from working for as many hours as they would like, or from working at all, by the impact of national insurance contributions and taxation on their take-home pay.
    The changes I suggest would have pleasant consequences for the problems of the National Health Service. As many right hon. and hon. Members know, over the next 10 to 15 years, the Health Service will have to confront the problem of an insufficient number of male and female school leavers to enter nursing. Recent figures show that the Health Service will have to attract an unrealistically high proportion of school or college leavers. The nursing work force will have to expand by drawing on part-time labour among married women wishing to return to the profession, or who may wish to train for it for the first time. They should be welcomed, and that necessary process of adjustment could be helped by suitable changes in the tax regime.
    The message is: so far, very good. There has been progress for the lower paid of a kind not seen in the 1970s. There has been progress for the enterprise economy as a result of our sticking to our guns and going for deregulation, freeing of the labour market, and lower taxation. Now that the economy has such enormous strength, as measured by the large public sector surplus, let us by all means have a prudent Budget—but one that serves the lower paid by taking more of them out of the tax net altogether and continues the progress made towards a still lower rate of taxation.
    8.25 pm
    Mr. Ron Leighton: The House must be struck by the growing disparity and the widening extremes between wealth and poverty that disfigure our society, and by the growing divide between those at the top who have too much and cannot possibly justify what they take out of society, and those at the bottom, who suffer deprivation to an extent that disgraces a modern economy.
    I approach this matter not just in economic terms but as a question of morality. There is no economic justification for such contrasts of income, which do not reflect how hard a person works. I shall give an example that might appeal to the Secretary of State. Ex-Cabinet Minister Sir John Nott received—I shall not say earned—more than £870,000 in 1987. Presumably, this year the figure will be about £1 million. What contribution has he made to society to deserve that income? Are we to assume that he worked 20 times as hard as a Cabinet Minister? Does Sir John work 20 times as hard as the Secretary of State? If not, why is he paid 20 times as much?
    It seems that what people take out of society bears little relation to what they put into it. Nowhere is that more glaringly obvious than in the case of the low paid. They
    370
    live in poverty, yet often they are among the hardest working of all. They are fellow citizens who earn their poverty, and it is wicked that deliberate divisions of society are being deliberately exacerbated.
    We have already seen the abolition of the fair wages resolution and of schedule 11 to the Employment Protection Act 1975. We have seen the low level of YTS allowances and the young workers' scheme, which actually subsidises employers to pay low wages—putting the young generation in a straitjacket of low pay. To all of that is added the attack on wages councils. The Government's official policy is to force down wages, to price the poor into jobs. It is no wonder that social divisions are growing wider. The poorest one fifth of wage earners earn less, relative to the average wage, than they did 100 years ago, whereas the better off enjoy a continued improvement.
    Since 1979, income increases for the highest paid fifth of men have been 50 per cent. higher than those for the lowest fifth. The better off—and this will appeal to the hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood)—have seen tax cuts lavished on them. Last year saw tax cuts for the rich and benefit cuts for the poor. Last year also, Hay Management Consultants, which is a division of Saatchi and Saatchi, reported that, on average, executives earning an average of £87,000 per year saw their salaries increase by more than 31 per cent. These ugly divisions disfigure our society. They create poverty amidst plenty.
    The rewards of society are increasingly being unequally divided—and that has been particularly true since 1979. The low-paid need large increases if they are to return to the relative standing, in relation to the better off, that they had when the Government took office. But what will they get? The abolition of wages councils, which is bound to depress the wage levels of the low paid even more. That is a scandal and a disgrace. I suppose that the people who dream up such ideas go to church on Sunday.
    The Opposition have had to give up their Supply day and valuable debating time to defend the weak and vulnerable at the bottom of the pile, who at present are afforded a measure of protection by wages councils.
    From the consultative document, it is clear that the Government propose scrapping wages councils. We have been round this course before. The Government did exactly the same in 1985. Because of opposition from the Select Committee which examined the matter, from many employers, from many Conservative Members and from others, the Government backed off. They made changes instead. In the Wages Act 1986 they excluded young people and they restricted the wages councils to setting a single minimum rate and a single overtime rate.
    Now, three years later, they are back with a second attempt to abolish wages councils. Why? It is for the express purpose of forcing down some of the lowest wages. What are these rates? They are set out in the consultative document. The lowest rate is £1.88 an hour, which I worked out as £75·20 for a 40-hour week; the top rate is £2·38 an hour. Is it not nauseating for Cabinet Ministers earning £1,000 a week to suggest that these poverty wages are too high? Yet the only purpose of abolition is to make it legal to push these pitiful rates down further. The consultation paper makes it clear in paragraph 14:
    "Moreover, a substantial proportion of workers covered by the councils—probably as many as one third—continue to be paid on the minimum rate. Such clustering of pay levels around a particular figure is evidence that council minima continue to be above the levels required to fill jobs."

    371
    That is the reproach and criticism of the consultative document. That is the Government's reason for scrapping wages councils. It is deliberate Government policy to depress these pitiful poverty wages even further. It is wicked and immoral.
    The crude, loony Right, ideological argument against wages councils is that they are an institutional intervention in the labour market, raising wages above the clearing rate. But nearly all pay is determined by institutional intervention setting minimum rates. For most people it is called collective bargaining. Why should only the lowest paid, those in wages council industries, be singled out for such treatment? For example, the pay of admirals, generals and judges is set not by the law of supply and demand but by institutional intervention, no doubt with regard to fairness and equity. What of Members of Parliament? There is a huge supply queuing up which greatly exceeds the demand for 650 jobs. What would be the market clearing rate? It would probably be nil. Instead, the pay of hon. Members, like that of most other people, is decided by institutional intervention. How hypocritical it would be to single out only the lowest paid for this grotesque ideological extremism.
    In 1985 a Select Committee investigated the matter thoroughly and recommended against abolition. There is no evidence that wages councils have caused unemployment or inflation. No one can say that the pay of workers in the wages council sector has risen relative to the pay of others. The reverse is true. I am sure the Secretary of State knows that the CBI said, in its recent review of the working of the Wages Act 1986:
    "For the most part, the minimum rates set by wages councils and wages boards rose no faster, and in many cases slower, than average basic earnings…across the economy as a whole…statutory minimum rates declined from 58·9 per cent. to 57·5 per cent. of the average basic earnings for manual men across the economy as a whole between 1980·81 and 1987·88."
    When the Select Committee examined the position, it could not find any clear or unambiguous evidence that scrapping wages councils would create more jobs. Wages are lowest in those parts of the United Kingdom where unemployment is highest, and vice versa. Wages are higher in successful industries. If low wage rates create jobs and economic success, why do our most successful competitors pay higher wages than we do? I studied all the evidence in 1985 and it is clear that there is no intellectual case for abolition. It would be a triumph of dogma and ideology over evidence, facts and common sense.
    All this has to be seen as part of a package of measures to depress the pay of the poorest, including a requirement on local government to put contracts for services out to tender to private firms. The abolition of the fair wages resolution, schedule 11 and now wages councils will prevent local authorities from insisting that firms observe fair wages and decent employment practices. This will permit a spiral of wage cutting, with firms competing to see which can pay the lowest wages. We want competition right across the economy but on efficiency and levels of service, not on which firms can pay the lowest wages.
    What happens if wages are forced down so low that workers feel that they can no longer tolerate their jobs? The Government have legislated for that. If a worker leaves, it will be considered as a voluntary action and he ·or more probably she·wll be disqualified from
    372
    unemployment benefit for long periods. Therefore, the less-scrupulous employer can force down wages, knowing that many workers dare not leave. All the cards are being stacked against the poor, the low paid and those at the bottom of the pile. Instead of giving them a helping hand, the Government will push them down even lower.
    Those on low pay are not the people who are causing problems for the economy. Instead, they need and deserve the protection of Parliament. In pre-Thatcherite times Parliament sought to give protection to those who could not protect themselves, such as people in wages council trades. Those people are overwhelmingly women, so this is a major women's issue. Often they are part-time workers; often they are from ethnic minorities; often they are in scattered small units, weak and vulnerable, with no union or collective agreements.
    For a long time, under legislation brought in by Winston Churchill, Parliament sought a level beyond which the poor would not be exploited. The object was to safeguard weak employees, and equally important responsible employers who sought to maintain decent business standards from unfair competition based on wage undercutting. Everyone who works for a living has the right to a wage which safeguards health and human dignity. To carry out the destruction of wages councils the Government have had to denounce convention 26 of the International Labour Organisation. We are now virtually alone in the industrialised world. We are the only country in Europe without minimum wage protection.
    It is sometimes said that wages councils are old fashioned and an anachronism, established to deal with the sweated trades, and that they are unnecessary in modern times. Alas, that is not so. The sweatshops of the east end of London employed successive flows of immigrants, at one time Jewish. We have had immigration more recently. Coming from the east end of London, I can assure the House that there are sweatshops there now. We are not talking about distant history.
    Recently, we had the report of the Auld committee which was set up by the Government to study shops legislation. It strongly recommended the retention of protection for shop workers because
    "of the strong likelihood of exploitation of some shop workers in the form of lower wages, particularly for unsocial hours, and possibly in the longer working week."
    Although it was not asked to look at wages councils, the Committee volunteered some information. I remind the House that this was recently, and not when Winston Churchill brought in the legislation. The Auld committee, appointed by the Government,
    "set great store by the preservation of the role of wages councils in fixing…holidays and holiday pay for the retail trade."
    So there can be no doubt about the need for wages councils in modern Thatcherite Britain, especially for women, for part-timers, for home workers, or for those working in hotels, catering, retailing, clothing or hairdressing.
    When we last considered the matter, the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry), who is not in the Chamber, produced a pamphlet for the Bow Group which made a recommendation against the abolition of wages councils. He argued, among other things, that if the Government abolished wages councils, that would be construed as an excuse for the next Labour Government to introduce a statutory minimum wage. He made a good point, for one of the main duties of a new Labour Government will be to

    373
    bring in a proper statutory minimum wage and employment protection for this badly exploited section of the work force.
    8.40
    Mr. Ian Bruce: I was interested to hear the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) say that Labour Members were passionately interested in the problems of the low paid and were willing to give up their time to debate the subject. It is nice to see eight Members on the Labour Back Benches. At least they feel the need to be in the Chamber to debate a subject chosen by their party for debate today.
    Ms. Short: There are more of us than there are on the Government Benches.
    Mr. Bruce: I have always believed—even when I thought I was a Socialist—in a high wage, high productivity economy. [Interruption.] When I thought I was a Socialist I was very young; some of us grow out of such feelings. As a lad of 12 or 13 years working in the sweat shops, I thought that possibly the way forward would be via the wonderful mechanisms to which the unreformed Socialists on the Opposition Benches still cling, as though, like children playing with baubles, such mechanisms will achieve their aims. We are told by Labour Members that the present state of affairs facing the low paid has been in existence for years. Not one Labour Member is able to say that a wages council negotiated rate of pay is even an average rate of pay. They are all low rates of pay.
    Ms. Short: Very low.
    Mr. Bruce: Very well, very low rates of pay. I have to agree with Labour Members, and that is why, when I believe in a free enterprise, high wage, high productivity economy, I must consider what sort of mechanisms work and how we should go forward. How do businesses in a free enterprise economy start and develop?
    Mr. Wallace: The hon. Gentleman will have heard the hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) quote from paragraph 14 of the consultative document,which said:
    "Such clustering of pay levels around a particular figure is evidence that council minima continue to be above the levels required to fill jobs."
    That means that, without wages councils, wages would be even lower. Is that the outcome the hon. Gentleman wishes to see?
    Mr. Bruce: I speak as a wet-behind-the-ears new Member. But for a dozen years I ran an employment agency and dealt with staff, some of whom had the so-called protection of wages councils and some of whom had not, and I can best answer the hon. Gentleman's question by considering which of those groups was better off.
    Hopefully, all hon. Members believe that people in receipt of low pay need to be helped— [Interruption.] I dare say that many Labour Members believe that passionately, even if at present they are in the Tea Room.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) spoke about helping the low paid, and we must consider how to improve their situation. I am surprised that Opposition Members do not spring to their feet to declare that the 30 per cent. real increase in the wages of
    374
    the low paid is good but that we need to do better. I could go down that road with them. But they constantly criticise a Government who, while they may not have done brilliantly for low-paid people., have achieved 30 per cent. more for them than the policies of the unreformed Socialists were able to achieve. Having achieved a 30 per cent. improvement, let us consider how we can further improve matters for this group of workers.
    Hon. Members have quoted from documents prepared by employers' organisations. Who will now say, "We don't worry too much about the existence of wages councils because they do not make much of a problem for the wages market or artificially inflate wages"? I agree that they do not artificially inflate wages; one need only look at the rates of pay that they achieve.
    Mr. Robert N. Wareing: The wages are depressed.
    Mr. Bruce: Yes, they depress them. I have got through to the hon. Gentleman, who is occupying a position on the Labour Front Bench. He agrees that wages councils depress wages.
    Mr. Wareing: Not at all.
    Mr. Bruce: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman. I thought he was agreeing with me.
    We must consider what wages councils have achieved and why employers think that they are not worth doing away with by the Government. The Government have not announced that they are abolishing wages councils, despite many of my hon. Friends and I urging them to do so. They have decided not to do away with them at this stage because they do not believe, from a philosophical point of view, that there is much to be gained from taking that step. They do not feel that the actions of wages councils are distorting the economy enormously.
    I believe that wages councils are depressing wages and are institutionalising people in low-paid groups. That must be true because of the way in which wages are low under wages councils. [Interruption.] Labour Members have been saying all day that wages are low under wages councils, and then they defend wages councils for defending the low paid.
    I had the good fortune of running an employment agency in Yorkshire for 12 years during a time when many people were being put out of work. Many of those with whom I was dealing worked in the aerated water industry—fizzy pop to us—and they were "protected" by wages councils. I know from practical experience about the way in which wages were negotiated for the temporary staff I was putting into those companies compared with temporary and permanent staff who were going into other companies.
    Unfortunately, employers sometimes wear blinkers. They consider negotiations for a minimum wage that go on year after year knowing that all such negotiations tend to work on the basis of seeing what can be paid by an employer who is not making much profit. People get together in wages councils and say, "We cannot go too high because this company is not doing too well, so it cannot afford this or that." Accordingly, they allow a small increase, perhaps just ahead of inflation—but never much ahead of it—to reward and keep the work force.
    An employer would come to me, aware of young workers' terms and conditions, and say, "We would like

    375
    you to recruit people of a lower age because we can pay them a lower rate and you can quote a lower rate to us." That was an employer talking to an agency, negotiating freely on the basis of an institutionalised form of wage negotiation.
    I contrast that state of affairs with one of my other large groups of workers, secretarial staff who worked for me in Huddersfield. When I first opened my employment agency in that town I had to pay my staff unacceptably low rates of pay; to be competitive, I had to go against others in the same town, though I was able to pay my staff perhaps 10p an hour more than my rivals down the road. By slashing my margins and being efficient and working hard, I was able to put these people out into the market place at approximately the same rates that employers were paying previously. I was successful in putting my rivals out of business.
    What did I do then? Did I screw down the wages of my staff? No, I could go to my staff and say, "We can increase your wages that much more this year." As an agency, over two or three years, we increased our rates every three or six months. We moved the market place upwards. We could go to employers and tell them the going rates. We made more profit and our employees received more money. Those companies did not have as a reference point the rate specified by that nice wages council. They could not say, "Hang on a minute, the wages council says you should give them £1·50 an hour. How dare you give them £1·70?"
    Mrs. Fyfe: While the hon. Gentleman was overwhelming his secretarial staff with a whole 10p an hour more than their low-paid colleagues, what was he paying himself?
    Mr. Bruce: In my first year of self-employment, I paid myself nothing and my company lost £9,000. That figure comes from audited accounts. Although after 10 to 12 years I made a reasonable return, in the first year—which is what the hon. Lady was asking about—I lost money.
    Mrs. Fyfe: On the assumption that the hon. Gentleman is not a philanthropist and had calculated that he would make a good profit eventually, what did he earn in the remaining years?
    Mr. Bruce: In the remaining years, I made a substantial profit and sold out at an extremely good price to somebody who continued the business. I was, therefore, able to come to this place and manage on a modest salary for which I work extremely hard. I enjoy doing my job, however, and enjoy debating with the hon. Lady.
    As a young person, I remember one of my first full-time jobs was working in the laundry industry. I also recall harshly having to negotiate my wages with my father, who was the manager of that business but not the owner. I was told that the rate that I was receiving was the right rate for a young person and that I should look at the rates published by the wages council. However, there were other people doing not such a good job as me. I was more productive than they were, but I was constantly being told, "Look, there is the rate on the wall. That is what you will get. Although you may be worth a great deal more, we are not going to deviate from the rates of the wages council." I do not believe that the wages council does anything other than institutionalise and give a lower norm for wages.
    376
    I believe that it is important how businesses start and how they go on. Again, I shall speak from my experience, because that is perhaps more valuable than all the theoretical arguments that we have heard.
    Ms. Short: Other hon. Members wish to speak.
    Mr. Bruce: I know that the hon. Lady wants to speak. I certainly do not want to detain the House for too long.
    I remember starting my business and having only a small amount of money. I was made redundant under the Labour party.
    Mr. Nellist: We got something right then, did we?
    Mr. Bruce: Absolutely.
    I started my own business and I needed to recruit people. I had a limited amount of money with which I could recruit people and found that the best people available who were willing to work for the low wages I was able to offer tended to be graduate women who had been pushed by history into secretarial jobs and were interested in achieving a more executive role.
    I do not believe that an employer, working with his employees and doing the best for his business, puts on blinkers—which the Socialists tell us they do—and tries to force down wages. As my company succeeded, so did my staff. I took people on at low wages—if there was a wages council for executive or secretarial recruitment staff, possibly they would have been illegally low wages—but within two years, when the company became profitable, the wages of those staff were doubled.
    After five years the salaries which I was paying my people in Huddersfield were second to none, as were the incentives. We could recruit the best people for the job. I am glad to say that the vast majority of the people we recruited were still graduate women who had never had the opportunity of working and developing their abilities in a good business.
    If we want to ensure that everybody has the chance of a job, it is essential that companies should be able to pay what they can afford and thereby develop their businesses. When one looks at the way wages have developed, one sees that, when low pay becomes institutionalised and formulated, as it is by the wages councils, that is the time when people get stuck with low wages, and there is not a high wage and high productivity economy.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) has the amazing knack of getting Opposition Members to listen to his speeches. He made an excellent speech. He gave hon. Members a carefully researched list of how we can help precisely—through our taxation system and especially our national insurance system—to improve the lot of low-paid people. The threshold of national insurance contributions can be an effective method of helping the low paid without improving enormously the lot of those people who are on higher rates of taxation. I believe that his speech should be wrapped in glossy paper and sent immediately to the Chancellor for his consideration.
    When the Labour Government put a national insurance surcharge on employers, that was a tax on jobs. It has been reduced slowly but surely during the Conservative Government. We have demonstrated that employers can create additional jobs. I believe firmly that to allow people to get back into employment and to help

    377
    them by way of low taxation and national insurance is an excellent way forward. I commend the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham to the House.
    I have heard nothing from Opposition Members that could possibly help low-paid people. I believe that Opposition Members should stop talking rhetoric and consider the practicalities behind their suggestions. The Government have already improved low-paid people's take-home pay by more than 30 per cent. during their period of office and we have demonstrated the way forward. I am confident that the Government will introduce further measures and will tackle the problems of wages councils, which will ensure that in future low-paid people will have an improvement in their standard of living.
    8.58 pm
    Ms. Clare Short: It was extremely generous and tolerant of you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to allow the hon. Member for Dorset, South (Mr. Bruce) to tell us the story of his working life. I am sure that we all found it of interest, but whether it was relevant to the debate is another question.
    I am sure that everyone would agree that the speech we witnessed tonight from the Secretary of State was remarkable. It was full of bluster, and it avoided the issue of low pay and the statistics that demonstrate, unequivocally and unquestionably, that there has been a massive growth in the number of people working for poverty wages since the Government came to power. The right hon. Gentleman made some extremely misleading claims about the levels of income and unemployment in our country. Before I talk in detail about low pay I want to put some facts on record.
    We should have political differences in this Chamber and we should debate them honestly, but it distresses me greatly that Conservative Members deliberately fabricate facts and they know that they do it. They distort statistics and go from the handouts they get from Central Office. They know that the Government have followed a strategy of encouraging low pay. Those Conservative Members who have spoken may pretend that that is not so—some of them might be stupid, but others are dissembling. They know the Government's strategy and not to admit it openly is to be dishonest with the House and with people.
    Reference has been made to the effects of tax and benefit changes since the present Government came to power. John Hills of the London School of Economics recently provided us with an analysis of the combined effects of changes in tax and social security during the past 10 years. His analysis, as quoted in The Observer, found:
    "'the cuts in direct taxes have been entirely paid for by cuts in the generosity of benefits.' There has thus been 'a major redistribution from those on low incomes to the better off', with the bottom 50 per cent. of families losing an average of £8·50 a week, while the top 10 per cent. have gained nearly £40 a week per family. By comparison with what would have happened if the 1978–79 tax and benefit levels had been uprated in line with the growth of national income, Mr. Hills states. "the bottom half of the population has lost £6·6 billion, of which £5·6 billion has gone to the top 10 per cent. Indeed,£4·8 billion has gone to the top 5 per cent.'"
    Such are the statistics when we talk about tax and benefit changes.
    The other misleading statistics given at great length by the Secretary of State concerned levels of unemployment. We all know that during the famous general election of
    378
    1979 when we had those Saatchi and Saatchi posters saying "Labour Isn't Working", unemployment was 1·2 million—as calculated on the old method. At that time the Tory party said that unemployment was too high, and we agreed. The Government then took power and induced a recession in our country and the destruction of our manufacturing capacity from which we are only now beginning to recover in terms of investment levels. Because of the Government's ideological commitment to monetarism they destroyed, virtually overnight, 2 million jobs. Those jobs were largely held by males and represented relatively well-paid work in manufacturing.
    Mr. Ian Bruce rose——
    Ms. Short: We have had the story of the hon. Gentleman's life, thank you very much.
    We have still not returned to the 1979 level of employment. The Government have suddenly ceased to talk about 1979, and 1983 has become the bench-mark. We have been told over and over again about the 1 million new jobs that have been created.
    There is no doubt that since 1983 there has been some job creation, but there is also no doubt that there has also been an enormous distortion of the unemployment figures. The new jobs that have been created or generated since 1983 have been overwhelmingly low paid, part time and for women. Women want jobs and want more employment, but they do not want low paid, insecure employment. We are faced with a continuing decline in full-time, reasonably paid jobs for men and some growth since 1983—it does not take us back to 1979 employment levels—of low paid and largely part-time work for women. That is what the statistics tell us about the national economy.
    Mrs. Mahon: My town is a typical example of what has happened since 1979. We have lost thousands and thousands of well-paid, skilled jobs in manufacturing. What we got in return was demonstrated by a survey last year of the jobcentres—jobs offering £1·20 an hour for cleaners and £1·75 an hour for looking after the elderly. A lot of the jobs on offer are temporary and are extremely low paid. That is what we have had in exchange for the jobs lost. I also saw the Secretary of State's nose grow by at least six inches when he was talking about the unemployment statistics.
    Ms. Short: My hon. Friend paints a picture of what is happening across the country, including the so-called prosperous south-east. The south-west has some of the worst low pay in the country in agriculture, tourism, and so on. I am putting those facts on record because we hear so many falsities and distortions from Conservative Members.
    I do not know how the Secretary of State has the brazen cheek to make claims about comparative unemployment statistics. The labour force survey shows that more than 5 million people in our country would like a job if they could get one. Of course they are not all included in the unemployment figures. That has never been the case. The International Labour Organisation recommends a statistic to give us a comparison across the OECD. That shows that the last published unemployment figure was more than 3 million. The other statistics are the fiddled figures that the Government put forward.

    379
    Although a great many jobs have been restored, we are still not back to 1979 levels of employment. There has been an enormous shift from the poorest to the richest through tax and benefit changes.
    Since 1979, 2 million more people have become low paid in Britain. To our shame, 9·8 million workers in Britain or 47 per cent. of those who are in work are low paid according to the Council of Europe decency threshold, which is the enormously generous figure of £3·80 an hour or £144 a week.
    Tory Members do not understand that poverty is relative. Obviously the minimum levels of pay for the poorest people would not be the same in a poorer part of the world. Britain is the 15th richest country in the world, but we should have some decency between the top and the bottom so that all our citizens can participate in the dignity of belonging to society in the way in which they live and care for their families.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: Will the hon. Lady give way?
    Ms. Short: No, I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman.
    The Government have been enormously successful. They set out to encourage low pay and they have succeeded by 2 million extra workers. Many people live on benefits, and the benefits are much less generous than they used to be. Many unemployed people wish that they were employed and millions of people work for their poverty in Britain today.
    Is it just nastiness? Are the Government just vile? Do they simply believe in inequality for its own sake? Do they want to help their rich friends and trample on the others? Is that why they do it? Some of that is true. The Government have all those instincts, but that is not all. The Government have an economic strategy. It was called monetarism and it was about creating more economic efficiency, the supply-side miracle that we have not experienced but were told would create more incentives through those who are well off retaining more, earning more and becoming better entrepreneurs, with those who are less well off having less and having to work harder.
    The Government deliberately took a whole series of measures to cut the wages of the poorest. They abolished schedule 11 to the Employment Act 1982 and got rid of the fair wages resolution and deliberately used the youth training scheme to lower the expectations of young people. There is no question about it. Had the YTS allowance been uprated by the old YOP levels, it would now be £57 a week. The Government provided subsidies to employers who took on workers on condition that they paid low wages. It was a subsidy not to increase wages but to force them down.
    The Government attacked the wages councils and diminished their protection. My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) and I served on the Committee which considered the Wages Bill and heard the Government time and again promising to reform the wages councils and retain them. But now we have a consultative paper about getting rid of the wages councils. It is all a strategy to encourage low pay. It has been an enormously successful strategy and the Government have succeeded in increasing the number of low-paid workers by no fewer than 2 million.
    380
    I think that that is a nasty strategy, and that people are entitled to say whether they think it desirable. It is an outrage, a disgrace and a hypocrisy for Ministers who are part of that strategy and understand it well to pretend that they are not doing what they are doing. They have taken a series of deliberate and enormously successful steps to encourage low pay.
    It is my view and that of most decent people, backed up by all the polling evidence, that an increasing proportion—an overwhelming proportion, indeed—of British people think that our country is too divided and unequal, and like the idea of a minimum wage. The present position is unjust and unpopular. The Government say, "Never mind that so many people are low paid. They can receive family credit and thus will not suffer poverty." But the take-up of family credit at present is about one third—it may be creeping a little higher—so two thirds of those entitled to it are not receiving it.
    What is this subsidy? It is a subsidy from the state to inefficient employers. Employers who pay low wages tend not to train or invest, and experience a high turnover of labour. Of course Opposition Members support some such system until there is a decent minimum wage and there is no longer any need to subsidise low wages, but we do not consider it desirable in itself. Does the Secretary of State consider it desirable to subsidise the most inefficient employers in our land?
    Beneath all the hoo-ha about the approach of 1992, we find that industrialists in Europe speak of one in three work places on the continent closing down as a consequence. We hear Britain's top industrialists saying that because Britain is less efficient and trains and invests less, as many as one in two work places may close down in 1992. The Government's low-pay strategy means not only inequality and injustice but enormous economic inefficiency.
    The Secretary of State keeps pointing out—as though he were terribly clever and understood the position in a way that no one else does—that there has been an increase in participation in the labour force since his Government came to power. That increase has come about because over a long period there has been a growth in female participation, in this as in other countries. A high participation rate, however, is not a measure of high economic development. Some of the poorest countries in the world have even higher participation rates. In the more efficient countries far more people tend to be in education for far longer than in the less efficient. The Secretary of State is unwise, indeed foolish, to keep boasting about our high participation rate. It is a reflection of the low proportion of 16 to 18-year-olds in full-time education, and of the low levels of training and retraining in the course of working lives. I wish that the Secretary of State would understand that.
    Mrs. Audrey Wise: My hon. Friend has interestingly and correctly challenged many of the statistics that have been given. Would she care to comment on the misleading impression given in the consultative document that very few employers actually underpay—that is, pay rates even lower than wages council rates? The Government claim that, according to the inspectors, only about 3 per cent. of workers are underpaid. If they read their own new earnings survey, they would see that 10 per cent. of female shop assistants are paid less than £2·10 per hour, against a wages council minimum of £2·33 per hour.

    381
    Those shop assistants are being robbed in every hour that they work. Why is the Conservative party so uninterested in such disobedience of the law?
    Ms. Short: My hon. Friend is right. Conservative Members are hypocritical about law and order. They do not give a damn about breaches of the law in respect of health and safety at work or the wage councils. They do not enforce the law although they know the statistics. Conservative Back Benchers have criticised the Government, even making a Nazi parallel, because a wages inspector dared to call on an employee in Thurrock. Conservative Members are hypocritical about law and order and decent standards of employment.
    The country is becoming increasingly aware that the options are low-paid work, short-term schemes or unemployment. In addition, the Social Security Bill demands that people must prove on a weekly basis that they are actively seeking work, regardless of the number of jobs available in their locality. A new provision states that people cannot in future demand the rate of pay that would be offered by a decent employer in their area. The Social Security Bill is another ratchet in the process of encouraging low pay. If we do not get rid of the Government in the meantime, no doubt we shall come back in a year or two's time to say that there are another I million low-paid people in this country and that more than half the work force are low paid.
    Mr. Bob Clay: My hon. Friend will be interested to know that a phenomenon that has not been seen for many years in Sunderland is now returning. As the shipyards are running down towards closure, 40 people are now sent by the jobcentre to stand in the road at 5 o'clock in the morning, allegedly to go to Teesside to the ship repair yards, where there is no negotiation with trade unions and the skilled rate is £133 a week. A bus arrives and a chargehand gets off and says, "We want five burners this morning. The rest of you, go home." If the other 35 learn the lesson and do not turn up the next day, they are technically not available for work. That is the position in today's Britain.
    Ms. Short: My hon. Friend describes a situation that we increasingly recognise. There has been a tremendous growth of casual and temporary work with a decline in the standard of employment protection that people can expect. The Government think that that is clever, but it is not, because we cannot have efficient organisations unless we have a stable work force with decent employment conditions, democratic work practices and high training and investment levels. That is the only healthy future for the British economy. This short-term, nasty strategy of encouraging low pay is unjust, bad for the low paid and damaging to the future of our economy. People will pay the price in the future and the Government will live to regret their strategy.
    9.17 pm
    Mr. James Paice: Thank you for the opportunity, Mr. Deputy Speaker—[Interruption.] Anyone who has been in the Chamber for the whole of this debate will know that I slipped out earlier only for a few minutes. I have been in the Chamber considerably longer than most Opposition Members.
    Mr. Martin Flannery: That is a Tory untruth. Everyone knows that it is untrue.
    Mr. Paice: If that is an untruth, I should be interested to know what is a truth.
    In this debate, Opposition Members have shown again that they do not understand the relationship between pay, jobs and standards of living. They have shown that they know nothing about running a business or about the relationship between costs and sales. If sales go down because costs and prices have gone up, jobs go down. Ultimately, that means fewer people in work and less prosperity. There is a fundamental point that it is sometimes difficult to get across. I often wish that I could speak in block capitals so that the Opposition could understand. Every job has a value that is reflected in the price of its end product. If there is no sale because the price is too high, the job will disappear.
    Lord Wilson—often reviled by the Labour party, but at least he won four general elections, which is better than its last three leaders—said that one man's pay increase was another man's price increase. We must understand that.
    As my hon. Friend said——
    Mr. Nellist: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Paice: Yes. I am not as rude as some Opposition Members.
    Mr. Nellist: Given that statement by Lord Wilson, what are the consequences of the wage increases awarded last year to Lord Hanson of 167 per cent. and to Lord King, chairman of British Airways, of 270 per cent.?
    Mr. Paice: Those salary increases would have been approved by the boards of those companies. They would have taken the decisions on the basis of the effect they would have on the price of their companies, end products, such as flight tickets. It is the responsibility of each business to take such decisions, not the Government's.
    Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: What would the consequences have been if those companies had gone bankrupt through bad management?
    Mr. Paice: The result would have been not just one or two, but hundreds, probably thousands, of lost jobs.
    We have heard about the importance not just of gross pay but of take-home pay. Conservative Members have referred to the need to improve the latter, and to the great strides that have already been made.
    The decency threshold has been mentioned. It is a European concept that has not been approved by Europe, let alone this country. The decency threshold is 68 per cent. of the national average wage, which rings close to what the Low Pay Unit describes as poverty—an income 40 per cent. above the benefit level. Both statistics suffer from the same fault—they are self-perpetuating.
    Mrs. Gorman: Will my hon. Friend give way?
    Mr. Paice: I shall not, because I must wind up.
    Both statistics are self-perpetuating. If the benefit rate or the average wage increases, so does the percentage. By the very nature of averages, there will always be people below them, so the Low Pay Unit is also self-perpetuating.
    I am sometimes worried that the Opposition pretend to be an alternative Government. This evening they have

    383
    shown that they fail to understand the meaning of running a business. I hope that the House will throw out this absurd motion.
    9.23 pm
    Mr. Barry Jones: The Secretary of State was nettled by the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) and lost his temper to my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-East (Mr. Turner). He forgot to explain that it was his Government who despatched more than 2 million jobs after 1979, before they began fiddling the falling rates of unemployment, of which they attempted to make much this evening. My hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Jones) countered with effective European figures. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) spoke with the authority of a distinguished Select Committee Chairman. He described the debate in moral terms, and rightly used the word "wicked". My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) put the facts on record.
    This debate was preceded by desperate Government filibustering that was flagged by my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) and her concern for the scandalously low pay rates in parts of the Pontypridd constituency. The proportion of women in Mid Glamorgan who earn less than £100 a week is 17·5 per cent. The proportion of men earning less than £130 in Mid Glamorgan is 15·7 per cent., which may be one reason why there is no Minister from the Welsh Office to answer the debate tonight.
    The Government claim that there have been a number of requests for the abolition of particular wages councils. But in the non-food wages council, for example, several members of the employers' side have expressed a wish that they should continue, including the booksellers, the Drapers Chamber of Trade, the National Association of Retail Furnishers, the Footwear Distributors Federation, the Radio Electrical and Television Retailers' Association and the Menswear Association. Even the threshold, as it is made out to be in Europe, is problematic.
    In my constituency, a man earns £157 a week but receives only £133 per week net. He pays £10 a week for a lift to work, £27 weekly rent, £2 weekly car insurance and £5·63 weekly for a bag of coal. He tells me that he feeds the slot meter about £14 a week. His wife turns off the immersion heater at weekends, when a coal fire heats the back boiler. That family has much less than £100 per week before it pays for food, leisure and holidays. My constituent's wife buys stewing beef at £1·63 a pound. white loaves at 47p, pasteurised milk at 27p per pint and eggs at £1·07 a dozen. All of that mounts up quickly. My constituent's pint of beer now costs 91p. Holidays, new clothes and nights out rarely happen.
    In my constituency, female cleaners earn the equivalent of £71 a week for 40 hours. It is little wonder that recently there was a one-day strike as they earn £1·78 an hour. In Clwyd enterprise zone, there are companies that pay £70 to £80 a week to grown men and the female cleaners are employed by a contract cleaning company that undercut
    384
    its rivals to gain the contract and cannot afford to pay the girls. That is what privatisation is about, as a distinguished trade union official told me.
    In that context, what a shabby speech the Secretary of State made. It was a miserable spectacle to observe a British Cabinet Minister who earns a small fortune arguing for what is, in effect, the depression of wages that are already low. His speech had the true whiff of Thatcherism. We know that some Ministers can jet off to Barbados with a first-class British Airways ticket costing £2,316 and, if they wish, can hire a private plane to islands such as Mustique. But those on low wages groan under the weight of higher rents, higher rates, higher water rates and higher electricity and gas bills. None of the speeches made by Conservative Members showed any comprehension of the problems faced by ordinary people on low wages.
    I want to give some facts about low pay in the Principality. First, average earnings for men are lower in Wales than in any other region of Great Britain. The incidence of low pay among men is more severe in Wales than in any other region. One in four men in Wales earns less than the decency threshold of £150 per week set by the Council of Europe. Dyfed and Powys counties are at the bottom of the league of male earnings for all the counties of Great Britain. Low pay is a massive problem for women. More than 80 per cent. of women in Wales in manual jobs are low paid and one in five women working full-time in Wales earns less than £100 a week, including one third of those in manual jobs. In my own county of Clwyd, two out of three women working full-time are low paid and one third of those working full-time still earn less than £100 per week.
    The problems of low pay in Wales have deteriorated, and the disparity between Wales and the south-east has widened. The proportion of men earning less than £130 per week in Wales is 15·8 per cent., which puts Wales at the bottom of the league—nobody would be surprised if I said the south-east was at the top. I imagine that that is another reason why no Minister from the Welsh Office will answer tonight's debate.
    The proportion of women earning less than £100 per week in Wales is 19·8 per cent. I know that the county of Powys shares bottom place with Cornwall in the league table of male earnings in all the counties of Great Britain. According to the 1988 new earnings survey, Dyfed has the lowest level of male manual earnings of any county in Great Britain.
    Mr. Redwood: Will the hon. Gentleman remind the House why he and his hon. Friends voted against the tax reductions which have been of great benefit to the lower paid as well as others?
    Mr. Jones: The speech made by the hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) was delivered with all the passion of a tired funeral director. It was the sort of speech that I would expect of somebody who formerly worked for Rothschild, who was a fellow of All Souls college and who worked in the policy unit at No. 10 Downing street. None of us was impressed by the hon. Gentleman's over-long speech.
    Women in Wales are particularly disadvantaged in the labour market. Six out of 10 women in Wales are low-paid and half work full-time for less than £130 per week. One

    385
    in five still work full-time for under £100 per week. Average earnings for women are lowest in Clwyd, at £137 per week, which is £13 less than the decency threshold.
    Mr. Janman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Jones: No, I have no more time.
    Mr. Janman: I have a genuine question.
    Mr. Jones: I wish that the hon. Gentleman had made a genuine speech. I am not giving way to him; time is running out because of the length of his speech.
    Over two thirds of women working full-time in Clwyd are low-paid and nearly one in three still earns less than £100 for a full week's work.
    The Wages Act 1986 severely weakened the powers of the wages councils to set legal minimum rates of pay for over 100,000 workers in Wales. Over 20,000 young people aged under 21 have been removed from the protection of the wages councils. It is a sad fact that, in 1987, the only office of the wages inspectorate in Wales was closed and the responsibility was transferred to offices in Bristol and Manchester. I imagine that that is another reason why there will not be a Welsh Office Minister at the Dispatch Box tonight.
    With the Government planning to abolish wages councils 80 years after they were first introduced to protect workers in sweated trades, about one in eight employees in Wales—over 100,000 workers—are covered by legal minimum rates of pay set by the wages councils. Those people work in 18,000 establishments across the country, in shops, bars, restaurants, cafes, hotels, hairdressers and clothing manufacturers.
    The 1987–88 hourly rates of pay set by the wages councils are modest. In the case of clothing the rate is £1·99 per hour; hairdressing, £2·05 per hour; hotels and restaurants, £2 per hour; pubs and clubs, £2·16 an hour; and retailing, the princely hourly sum of £2·33—another reason, I guess, why no Welsh Minister will be coming to the Dispatch Box tonight to reply to this debate.
    So, abolishing wages councils and the wages inspectorate, which attempts to enforce the minimum rates, will mean workers at the very bottom of the earnings league having no redress against unscrupulous employers who pay poverty wages. A wise and prudent Secretary of State, a wise and prudent Government, would consider retaining the wages councils system, restoring the powers and coverage lost as a result of the Wages Act 1986, establishing new wages councils in areas that have grown up in recent times—for example, the contract cleaning business—and increasing the numbers employed in the wages inspectorate to ensure effective enforcement of the law. Then they should tighten the rules governing prosecution.
    Mrs. Gorman rose——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is not giving way.
    Mr. Jones: They should set penalties high enough to be an adequate deterrent to employers considering underpaying. In addition, a wise and prudent Government would consider publicising in the media the industries covered by the wages councils and their current minimum rates and conditions.
    My right hon. and hon. Friends from Wales are deeply concerned that tens of thousands of our fellow citizens do
    386
    not share, and have no present hope of sharing, in the prosperity of our society. When billions of pounds have been given in tax relief to the richest of British society, and when the North sea still yields billions of pounds to the national Treasury in oil revenues, it is not unreasonable to urge Her Majesty's Government to think again in the interests of the lowest paid and most vulnerable of our communities.
    We believe that our case has moral force. I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Ladywood was right to emphasise again and again in her speech that one of the biggest issues facing our nation is the growing divide between those on low wages, who are under-privileged, and the many millions who are getting quite a lot of the best things available in our modern society. In his speech tonight the Secretary of State made no attempt to address this very real issue. His speech was evasive. It was the speech of a Cabinet Minister who lacked the imagination to understand the predicament of ordinary people trapped on low wages. From no Tory Members did we hear any sympathy for, or understanding of, the families on low wages who are attempting to bring up young children, realising that they are not benefiting from the many good things in life that are now available.
    This debate touches as much upon the quality of life as upon the standard of living of the low paid. The family on low wages does not receive the perks of subsidies or expenses. It is really what we might call basement living. It is the harsh world of making ends meet, and this is a Government who do not care about those who are getting a raw deal.
    At the heart of this debate is proof of a greatly divided society of debt and of the temptation of petty crime. The Government appear to be interested only in the south-east of England, northern Europe, and the consequences of :he Channel tunnel for the south-east of Britain. Hon. Members know that the Opposition speak for the common people and that the Government are only about the comfortably off. We are asking for social justice for the low paid. We say to the Government, for pity's sake, desist. We demand that these unjust policies are abandoned.
    9.40 pm
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Patrick Nicholls): Obviously, I will deal as best I can with the points that have been made by the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones). My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales is presently engaged abroad, promoting the interests of the Principality. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Wales has been with me for almost the entire debate and has also worked closely with me. I understand the pressures that the Pontypridd by-election places on the hon. Gentleman, but I must make that explanation in response to his somewhat uncharacteristically ungenerous remarks about my hon. Friend.
    Many hon. Members have made important contributions to the debate. In the time available, I shall answer as many points as I can.
    Certainly, this argument cannot be won solely by bandying around a stream of statistics. Far more important are the positive things that we have done to help those who actually are in need

    387
    At least two points are crucial to the debate. First, by any definition, there will always be those in society who are lower paid than others, or those who have lower household incomes than other people. Attempts to change that are doomed to failure, and for a good reason: it is impossible to do so. In a society of millionaires, anybody on £500,000 a year would be counted poor. Secondly, it must surely be true that, as a rule, a job is better than no job, and low pay is better than no pay. That is what the Opposition have conveniently chosen to ignore, and that is what the Government are putting right.
    Our record in encouraging the creation of more jobs, helping more people back into work, and laying the foundations for a successful and growing economy cannot simply be pushed aside as irrelevant. Furthermore, despite everything that Opposition Members have said, the Government do not ignore the lower paid, the less well off or those households that live on the margins of economic viability. All the evidence bears out that proposition to the hilt. Since the Government took office, employment opportunities have increased by leaps and bounds. Jobs are increasingly available, and so is the training that helps people to get them.
    The real blight is not the blight of low pay; it is the blight of no pay at all and the depression and despondency that can go with it. For all their protestations, Opposition Members do no service to the people of this country by crying out for measures that would ultimately deprive many people of the pay that they now have.
    Mr. Win Griffiths: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Nicholls: I shall not give way. I have been here for the whole debate. If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I want to press on.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Janman) referred to wages councils, and so did the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) and other hon. Members. Some points must be reiterated. The first should be self-evidently true, but it is apparently not so to the Opposition. It is that the situation in 1909 was vastly different from what it was in 1986, and from the present position.
    To listen to Opposition Members, one would think that the wages council structure as we now have it has achieved precisely what they want. But everything that we have heard from Opposition Members has demonstrated that the present system does not work. Therefore, the idea that the structure of the wages councils in some way deals with low pay simply does not wash. Even Opposition Members would have to concede that.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: Will my hon. Friend give way?
    Mr. Nicholls: If my hon. Friend will allow me, I will not give way. I shall certainly give him due credit. My hon. Friend also made the point that the present system simply does not work.
    My right hon. Friend has made it clear that there is a consultation period and we cannot know what the result of that will be. Some of the consequences of the present system really should be looked at by anyone who has a genuine interest in the fate of the low paid.
    On average, since 1986, the yearly increase in the rates awarded by wages councils has been about 8·6 per cent. I
    388
    urge Opposition Members to imagine what it must be like to be running a business and to be told that the least skilled in that business must be paid an increase of, for the sake of argument, 8·6 per cent. It does not stop there. Differentials are completely eroded because that figure must be paid throughout the business. Therefore, the idea that simply paying percentage rates to the lowest paid has no knock-on effect is simply wrong.
    Several hon. Members, typically including the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short), have said that there is widespread evidence that employers are underpaying.
    Mr. Ronnie Campbell: Of course they are.
    Mr. Nicholls: The hon. Gentleman bawls out from a sedentary position, "Of course they are", but the facts do not bear that out. It is clear from visits made by wages inspectors£the numbers of which have been constant under both Labour and Conservative Governments—that about 97 per cent. of workers covered by wages councils are paid the correct rate. Opposition Members seem to be completely prosecution-minded and say that that is not enough and they want to see more prosecutions. I should have thought that the Opposition would be more concerned about doing something to ensure that the present structure of wages councils was abided by.
    If an inspector finds that due to a genuine misunderstanding—[Laughter.] Hon. Members may laugh, but we are talking about the real world, not the world of their fevered imaginations. If the inspectors find that an employer has underpaid because of some misunderstanding about his duties, and he makes it clear that he wants to comply with the law, what would be the point in saying that there should automatically be a prosecution?
    As 97 per cent. of people who are covered by wages councils are being paid the correct amount, for the Opposition to maintain that the law is being widely flouted simply will not work. That shows that the system does not work in improving low pay, but that is another matter.
    The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland made several points about wages councils and he referred to the debate on 28 April 1909 on the Trade Boards Bill. As Liberals are wont to do, he sought his inspiration from events that took place the best part of a century ago. He was apparently harking back to the golden days of 1909 when the system worked correctly. However, if he looks at the speech which followed that of Sir Winston Churchill, he will not find great approbation being given to the system. A Mr. T. F. Richards says:
    "we regret exceedingly that we are not in the schedules. I certainly should have liked to see the boot and shoe industry in the schedule".—[Official Report, 28 April 1909; Vol. IV, c. 394.]
    If the hon. Gentleman thinks that people in 1909 were satisfied with the structure of wages councils, he is not correct.
    Ms. Short: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Nicholls: No, I shall not give way. Time does not permit.
    Wages councils simply do not have the effect that Opposition Members would have us believe.
    Let me deal now with something that we have not heard much about. The hon. Members for Newham, North-East

    389
    (Mr. Leighton) and for Ladywood rather let the cat out of the bag. The cat that they released was the Labour party's policy. If I am wrong I shall give way immediately to the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), but I do not think that he said one word about the Labour party's policy on the low paid. They cannot intend to maintain the wages councils in their present form, because they do not work. Labour party policy is for a national minimum wage. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Oldham, West dissociates himself from that policy. One knows that, at times, he has trouble with particular aspects of Labour party policy. However, he is on record as saying as recently as 5 October 1988 that:
    "a top priority for the next Labour Government must be a national minimum wage."
    I do not know why the hon. Gentleman did not mention that, because it goes down well with his right hon. and hon. Friends. Perhaps he forgot that it was in the Labour party manifesto. I remind him—and one must hand it to Labour for their optimism—of what it said:
    "We will implement a comprehensive strategy for ending low pay, notably by the introduction of a national statutory minimum wage."
    Apparently, that is the policy which a Labour Government would operate. The hon. Gentleman told the House nothing about that. If he wonders how it goes down with some of his right hon. and hon. Friends, a number of them have shown already that they go along with it. However, there is a problem for the Labour party when it comes to a national minimum wage. I will intrude for a moment or two on some of the Labour party's private griefs. Presumably the hon. Member for Oldham, West will take account of comments by his right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley)—that great economist—who writing as recently as 1987 in his book "Choose Socialism" observed:
    "If the law requires employers to pay a statutory minimum rate, and if workers in more highly paid industries negotiate to preserve their relative position, there can only be one possible outcome. The low paid remain low paid at a higher rate of inflation."
    Just in case the message has not sunk in, the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook added:
    "The real danger comes from the pretence that a national minimum wage could be introduced cheaply or easily."
    Other Opposition Members could have told the hon. Member for Oldham, West about the fallacies in his thinking. He might have discussed them with his hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), who could have explained the problems that a national minimum wage can cause. I refer to an article by the hon. Member for Birkenhead in The Times, in which he wrote:
    "The higher statutory minimum wage has the drawback that it increases employers' costs. If implemented … it will lead to significant increases in unemployment and a big jump in the rate of inflation."
    Even if we do not agree with the analysis of the hon. Member for Birkenhead, at least he speaks in debates with great authority. His article went on:
    "I calculate that the higher minimum wage target could result in a loss of more than 400,000 women's jobs, a 4·4 per cent. rise in the total wage bill, together with a 2 to 2·5 per cent. rise in prices."
    In case the hon. Member for Oldham, West is still not convinced about the efficiency or otherwise of a national minimum wage, he can do no better than talk to a former Minister of State for the Department of Employment who, when rejecting such policies, commented:
    "blanket provision across the board, by its failure to discriminate, will not tackle the pockets of poverty which
    390
    undeniably exist. It is better to have a discriminatory approach in the provision of social security benefits, perhaps supplemented by fiscal policies."—[Official Report, 1 March 1977; Vol. 927, c. 164.]
    If the hon. Member for Oldham, West is wondering which Minister of State that was, I can tell him that it was none other than his right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, Central (Mr. Walker), speaking from this Dispatch Box in 1977.
    We can well understand why the Labour party's preferred policies, set out in their manifesto and endorsed by the hon. Member for Oldham, West, received not one single word of praise from the Front Bench today but had to be let out of the bag by other Opposition Members.
    What would be the effect of a national minimum wage? It would destroy jobs by increasing wages without increasing output. Employers' costs would increase, competitiveness would lessen, the total number employed would drop, and differentials would be artificially compressed—causing pressure to restore them, which would add to wage costs and erode competitiveness.
    Ms. Short: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Nicholls: Out of misguided gallantry, I give way to the hon. Lady.
    Ms. Short: Can the Minister explain why every other country in western Europe can afford a national minimum wage and Britain cannot? Has he seen the study by Cambridge Econometrics which examined every sector of the economy where there is low pay and showed in detail that a national minimum wage is not only affordable but creates greater efficiency?
    Mr. Nicholls: The reason why other countries can get along with a national minimum wage is simply by ignoring it and refusing to uprate it. That is how they cover that side of the argument.
    There was also reference to the European decency threshold. Listening to Opposition Members, one would think that it was a law or a policy adopted by every other country in the European Community and that only this country failed to abide by it. Let us look for a moment at what the so-called decency threshold is. It was suggested by a committee of independent experts in the Council of Europe which thought that it should be 68 per cent. of the national average wage, but it has never been endorsed by any member state, nor does it appear in the European social charter. It has not been endorsed by the governmental committee on the European social charter, and the charter does not refer to a percentage of average earnings regarded as an acceptable minimum. In other words, the idea that Europe has set a decency threshold is complete and utter nonsense.
    Again it illustrates the fallacy which Opposition Members have shown throughout the debate in believing that what matters in the interests of the poor is the gap between rich and poor. Of course, the poor cannot live off the gap. The poor are not interested in the distance between themselves and those who are earning a great deal more; they need to know what is in it for them. They need to know the relative strength of their position.
    If the hon. Member for Newham, North-East wants to know what has happened to the lower paid in recent years, may I tell him that for a single person earning 50 per cent. of average male earnings, the real take-home pay has increased by 27·9 per cent. during the lifetime of the

    391
    Government. For a married couple with one earner and two children, earning 50 per cent. of average male earnings, take-home pay has increased by 22·7 per cent. Those are the figures which matter. Those are the figures which the working poor can rely on. To say that it is the gap which matters shows a total lack of understanding.
    The debate was supposed to be about the blight of low pay, but for too many of our citizens the legacy of the Socialism of the 1960s and the 1970s was the blight of no job in the 1980s. Through the policies and efforts of the Government that blight has steadily receded. The debate has served to remind us that even now there is waiting in the wings a party which has learnt nothing from the past and which promises for the future merely the fruits of its own blinding ignorance. For the sake of the low paid and of those who are still without a job, Labour's miserable inadequacy has to be exposed. With their customary incompetence the Opposition have given us that opportunity. It was said of the French kings that they had learnt nothing and that they had forgotten nothing. The Opposition have gone one better. They have shown us that they have learnt nothing and forgotten everything. That is what the Opposition offer us today.
    One appreciates the demands that the Pontypridd by-election have imposed on the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside, but let me remind him of the facts. If he had cared to tell us about the position in his constituency, he could have said that in just the last year the rate of unemployment has fallen by no less than 30 per cent. The hon. Gentleman failed to tell us that. If he is so concerned about average real earnings in Wales, why did he not tell us that during the period of the Labour Government the average earnings of male employees in Wales rose by a miserable 4·6 per cent. and that under this Government they have gone up by 15·9 per cent? Surprisingly the hon. Gentleman did not mention that. Again, if he looks at some of the other figures, he will see that they show a massive increase in expenditure in Wales. Why did the hon. Gentleman not remind us that the Welsh Development Agency's budget for 1989–90 is £130 million, 15 per cent. higher than in the previous year?
    Mr. Robert N. Wareing rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
    Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.
    Question put accordingly, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
    The House divided: Ayes 201, Noes 275.

    Division No. 71]

    10.00 pm

    AYES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Beith, A. J.

    Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony

    Allen, Graham

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Alton, David

    Bidwell, Sydney

    Anderson, Donald

    Blair, Tony

    Archer, Rt Hon Peter

    Blunkett, David

    Armstrong, Hilary

    Boateng, Paul

    Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

    Boyes, Roland

    Ashton, Joe

    Bradley, Keith

    Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

    Bray, Dr Jeremy

    Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

    Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

    Barron, Kevin

    Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

    Beckett, Margaret

    Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

    Beggs, Roy

    Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

    392

    Buchan, Norman

    Kennedy, Charles

    Buckley, George J.

    Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

    Caborn, Richard

    Lamond, James

    Callaghan, Jim

    Leadbitter, Ted

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    Leighton, Ron

    Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

    Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

    Campbell-Savours, D. N.

    Lewis, Terry

    Canavan, Dennis

    Livingstone, Ken

    Carl Me, Alex (Mont'g)

    Livsey, Richard

    Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

    Lofthouse, Geoffrey

    Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

    Loyden, Eddie

    Clay, Bob

    McAllion, John

    Clelland, David

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Clwyd, Mrs Ann

    Macdonald, Calum A.

    Cohen, Harry

    McKelvey, William

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    McLeish, Henry

    Corbett, Robin

    McTaggart, Bob

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Madden, Max

    Cousins, Jim

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Crowther, Stan

    Marek, Dr John

    Cryer, Bob

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Cummings, John

    Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

    Dalyell, Tam

    Martlew, Eric

    Darling, Alistair

    Maxton, John

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Meacher, Michael

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

    Meale, Alan

    Dewar, Donald

    Michael, Alun

    Dixon, Don

    Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

    Dobson, Frank

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

    Doran, Frank

    Mitchell, Austin (G'f Grimsby)

    Duffy, A. E. P.

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Dunnachie, Jimmy

    Morgan, Rhodri

    Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

    Morley, Elliott

    Eadie, Alexander

    Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

    Eastham, Ken

    Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

    Evans, John (St Helens N)

    Mullin, Chris

    Fatchett, Derek

    Murphy, Paul

    Fearn, Ronald

    Nellist, Dave

    Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

    Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

    Fisher, Mark

    Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

    Flannery, Martin

    Patchett, Terry

    Flynn, Paul

    Pendry, Tom

    Foot, Rt Hon Michael

    Pike, Peter L.

    Foster, Derek

    Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

    Foulkes, George

    Prescott, John

    Fraser, John

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Fyfe, Maria

    Quin, Ms Joyce

    Galbraith, Sam

    Radice, Giles

    Galloway, George

    Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

    Garrett, John (Norwich South)

    Reid, Dr John

    Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

    Richardson, Jo

    Godman, Dr Norman A.

    Robertson, George

    Gould, Bryan

    Robinson, Geoffrey

    Graham, Thomas

    Rooker, Jeff

    Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Rowlands, Ted

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Ruddock, Joan

    Grocott, Bruce

    Salmond, Alex

    Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Healey, Rt Hon Denis

    Sheerman, Barry

    Heffer, Eric S.

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    Henderson, Doug

    Shore, Rt Hon Peter

    Hinchliffe, David

    Short, Clare

    Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

    Sillars, Jim

    Holland, Stuart

    Skinner, Dennis

    Home Robertson, John

    Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

    Hood, Jimmy

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

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

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

    Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

    Snape, Peter

    Hoyle, Doug

    Spearing, Nigel

    Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

    Steel, Rt Hon David

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

    Strang, Gavin

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

    Straw, Jack

    Illsley, Eric

    Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Ingram, Adam

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Janner, Greville

    Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis

    Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

    Turner, Dennis

    Jones, leuan (Ynys MÔn)

    Vaz, Keith

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

    Wall, Pat

    393

    Wallace, James

    Wise, Mrs Audrey

    Walley, Joan

    Worthington, Tony

    Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

    Wray, Jimmy

    Wareing, Robert N.

    Young, David (Bolton SE)

    Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

    Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan

    Mr. Frank Haynes and

    Wilson, Brian

    Mr. Men McKay.

    Winnick, David

    NOES

    Adley, Robert

    Dicks, Terry

    Aitken, Jonathan

    Dorrell, Stephen

    Alexander, Richard

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael

    Dover, Den

    Allason, Rupert

    Dunn, Bob

    Amess, David

    Durant, Tony

    Amos, Alan

    Dykes, Hugh

    Arbuthnot, James

    Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Fallon, Michael

    Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

    Favell, Tony

    Ashby, David

    Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

    Aspinwall, Jack

    Fookes, Dame Janet

    Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

    Forman, Nigel

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

    Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

    Baldry, Tony

    Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

    Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

    Fox, Sir Marcus

    Batiste, Spencer

    Freeman, Roger

    Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

    French, Douglas

    Bellingham, Henry

    Gardiner, George

    Bendall, Vivian

    Garel-Jones, Tristan

    Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

    Gill, Christopher

    Benyon, W.

    Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

    Bevan, David Gilroy

    Glyn, Dr Alan

    Biffen, Rt Hon John

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Blackburn, Dr John G.

    Gower, Sir Raymond

    Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Body, Sir Richard

    Gregory, Conal

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    Grist, Ian

    Boscawen, Hon Robert

    Grylls, Michael

    Boswell, Tim

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Bottomley, Peter

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

    Hanley, Jeremy

    Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

    Hannam, John

    Brandon-Bravo, Martin

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

    Brazier, Julian

    Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

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

    Harris, David

    Browne, John (Winchester)

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

    Hayes, Jerry

    Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

    Hayward, Robert

    Buck, Sir Antony

    Heathcoat-Amory, David

    Budgen, Nicholas

    Heddle, John

    Burns, Simon

    Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

    Burt, Alistair

    Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

    Butler, Chris

    Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

    Butterfill, John

    Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

    Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

    Hind, Kenneth

    Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

    Carrington, Matthew

    Holt, Richard

    Carttiss, Michael

    Hordern, Sir Peter

    Cash, William

    Howard, Michael

    Channon, Rt Hon Paul

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

    Chapman, Sydney

    Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

    Chope, Christopher

    Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

    Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dtord)

    Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

    Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

    Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

    Hunt, David (Wirral W)

    Colvin, Michael

    Hunter, Andrew

    Conway, Derek

    Irvine, Michael

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

    Irving, Charles

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Jack, Michael

    Cormack, Patrick

    Jackson, Robert

    Couchman, James

    Janman, Tim

    Critchley, Julian

    Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    Currie, Mrs Edwina

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Curry, David

    Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

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

    Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Key, Robert

    Day, Stephen

    King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

    Devlin, Tim

    Kirkhope, Timothy

    394

    Knapman, Roger

    Rost, Peter

    Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

    Rowe, Andrew

    Knowles, Michael

    Ryder, Richard

    Knox, David

    Sainsbury, Hon Tim

    Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

    Scott, Nicholas

    Lang, Ian

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Latham, Michael

    Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

    Lawrence, Ivan

    Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

    Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Lee, John (Pendle)

    Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

    Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

    Shersby, Michael

    Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

    Sims, Roger

    Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    Lightbown, David

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Lilley, Peter

    Soames, Hon Nicholas

    Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

    Speller, Tony

    Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

    Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

    McCrindle, Robert

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

    Macfarlane, Sir Neil

    Squire, Robin

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Stanbrook, Ivor

    McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

    Steen, Anthony

    Madel, David

    Stern, Michael

    Major, Rt Hon John

    Stevens, Lewis

    Malins, Humfrey

    Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

    Marland, Paul

    Stradling Thomas, Sir John

    Marlow, Tony

    Sumberg, David

    Marshall, John (Hendon S)

    Summerson, Hugo

    Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Maude, Hon Francis

    Taylor, John M (Solihull)

    Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

    Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

    Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

    Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

    Meyer, Sir Anthony

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Miller, Sir Hal

    Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

    Mills, Iain

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Thurnham, Peter

    Mitchell, Sir David

    Townend, John (Bridlington)

    Monro, Sir Hector

    Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

    Montgomery, Sir Fergus

    Tracey, Richard

    Moore, Rt Hon John

    Tredinnick, David

    Morrison, Sir Charles

    Trippier, David

    Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Moss, Malcolm

    Vaughan, Sir Gerard

    Mudd, David

    Viggers, Peter

    Neale, Gerrard

    Waddington, Rt Hon David

    Needham, Richard

    Wakeham, Rt Hon John

    Nelson, Anthony

    Walden, George

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Walker, Bill (T'side North)

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    Waller, Gary

    Norris, Steve

    Ward, John

    Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Warren, Kenneth

    Paice, James

    Watts, John

    Patnick, Irvine

    Wells, Bowen

    Patten, John (Oxford W)

    Wheeler, John

    Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

    Whitney, Ray

    Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Wiggin, Jerry

    Powell, William (Corby)

    Winterton, Mrs Ann

    Price, Sir David

    Winterton, Nicholas

    Raffan, Keith

    Wolfson, Mark

    Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

    Wood, Timothy

    Redwood, John

    Woodcock, Mike

    Rhodes James, Robert

    Yeo, Tim

    Riddick, Graham

    Young, Sir George (Acton)

    Ridsdale, Sir Julian

    Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

    Mr. David Maclean and

    Roe, Mrs Marion

    Mr. Tom Sackville.

    Rossi. Sir Hugh

    Question accordingly negatived.
    Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments):—
    The House divided: Ayes 246, Noes 181.

    Division No. 72]

    [10.15 pm

    AYES

    Adley, Robert

    Glyn, Dr Alan

    Aitken, Jonathan

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Alexander, Richard

    Gower, Sir Raymond

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Amess, David

    Gregory, Conal

    Amos, Alan

    Grist, Ian

    Arbuthnot, James

    Grylls, Michael

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Ashby, David

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Aspinwall, Jack

    Hanley, Jeremy

    Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

    Hannam, John

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

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

    Baldry, Tony

    Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

    Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

    Harris, David

    Batiste, Spencer

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

    Hayes, Jerry

    Bendall, Vivian

    Hayward, Robert

    Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

    Heathcoat-Amory, David

    Benyon, W.

    Heddle, John

    Bevan, David Gilroy

    Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

    Biffen, Rt Hon John

    Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

    Blackburn, Dr John G.

    Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

    Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

    Body, Sir Richard

    Hind, Kenneth

    Boscawen, Hon Robert

    Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

    Boswell, Tim

    Holt, Richard

    Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

    Hordern, Sir Peter

    Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

    Howard, Michael

    Brandon-Bravo, Martin

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

    Brazier, Julian

    Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

    Browne, John (Winchester)

    Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

    Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

    Buck, Sir Antony

    Hunt, David (Wirral W)

    Burns, Simon

    Hunter, Andrew

    Burt, Alistair

    Irvine, Michael

    Butler, Chris

    Irving, Charles

    Butterfill, John

    Jack, Michael

    Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

    Jackson, Robert

    Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Janman, Tim

    Carrington, Matthew

    Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    Cash, William

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Channon, Rt Hon Paul

    Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

    Chapman, Sydney

    King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

    Chope, Christopher

    Knapman, Roger

    Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

    Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

    Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

    Knowles, Michael

    Colvin, Michael

    Knox, David

    Conway, Derek

    Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

    Lang, Ian

    Cormack, Patrick

    Latham, Michael

    Couchman, James

    Lawrence, Ivan

    Currie, Mrs Edwina

    Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

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

    Lee, John (Pendle)

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

    Day, Stephen

    Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

    Devlin, Tim

    Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

    Dicks, Terry

    Lightbown, David

    Dorrell, Stephen

    Lilley, Peter

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

    Dover, Den

    Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

    Dunn, Bob

    McCrindle, Robert

    Durant, Tony

    Macfarlane, Sir Neil

    Dykes, Hugh

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

    McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

    Fallon, Michael

    McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

    Favell, Tony

    Madel, David

    Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

    Major, Rt Hon John

    Fookes, Dame Janet

    Malins, Humfrey

    Forman, Nigel

    Marland, Paul

    Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

    Marshall, John (Hendon S)

    Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

    Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

    Fox, Sir Marcus

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Freeman, Roger

    Maude, Hon Francis

    French, Douglas

    Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

    Gardiner, George

    Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

    Garel-Jones, Tristan

    Meyer, Sir Anthony

    Gill, Christopher

    Miller, Sir Hal

    396

    Mills, Iain

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Squire, Robin

    Mitchell, Sir David

    Stanbrook, Ivor

    Monro, Sir Hector

    Steen, Anthony

    Montgomery, Sir Fergus

    Stern, Michael

    Moore, Rt Hon John

    Stevens, Lewis

    Morrison, Sir Charles

    Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

    Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

    Stradling Thomas, Sir John

    Moss, Malcolm

    Sumberg, David

    Neale, Gerrard

    Summerson, Hugo

    Needham, Richard

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Nelson, Anthony

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Taylor, John M (Solihull)

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

    Norris, Steve

    Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

    Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

    Paice, James

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Patnick, Irvine

    Thurnham, Peter

    Patten, John (Oxford W)

    Townend, John (Bridlington)

    Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

    Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Tredinnick, David

    Powell, William (Corby)

    Trippier, David

    Price, Sir David

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Raffan, Keith

    Vaughan, Sir Gerard

    Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

    Viggers, Peter

    Redwood, John

    Waddington, Rt Hon David

    Rhodes James, Robert

    Wakeham, Rt Hon John

    Riddick, Graham

    Walden, George

    Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

    Walker, Bill (T'side North)

    Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

    Waller, Gary

    Rossi, Sir Hugh

    Ward, John

    Rowe, Andrew

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    Ryder, Richard

    Wells, Bowen

    Sainsbury, Hon Tim

    Wheeler, John

    Scott, Nicholas

    Whitney, Ray

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

    Wiggin, Jerry

    Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

    Winterton, Mrs Ann

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Winterton, Nicholas

    Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

    Wolfson, Mark

    Shersby, Michael

    Wood, Timothy

    Sims, Roger

    Yeo, Tim

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    Young, Sir George (Acton)

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Soames, Hon Nicholas

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Speller, Tony

    Mr. David Maclean and

    Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

    Mr. Tom Sackville.

    NOES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

    Campbell-Savours, D. N.

    Alton, David

    Carlile, Alex (Monf'g)

    Anderson, Donald

    Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

    Archer, Rt Hon Peter

    Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

    Armstrong, Hilary

    Clay, Bob

    Ashton, Joe

    Clelland, David

    Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

    Clwyd, Mrs Ann

    Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

    Cohen, Harry

    Barron, Kevin

    Corbett, Robin

    Beckett, Margaret

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Beggs, Roy

    Cousins, Jim

    Beith, A. J.

    Crowther, Stan

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony

    Cryer, Bob

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Cummings, John

    Bidwell, Sydney

    Dalyell, Tarn

    Blair, Tony

    Darling, Alistair

    Blunkett, David

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Boateng, Paul

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

    Boyes, Roland

    Dewar, Donald

    Bradley, Keith

    Dixon, Don

    Bray, Dr Jeremy

    Dobson, Frank

    Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

    Doran, Frank

    Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

    Duffy, A. E. P.

    Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

    Dunnachie, Jimmy

    Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

    Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

    Buchan, Norman

    Eadie, Alexander

    Buckley, George J.

    Eastham, Ken

    Caborn, Richard

    Evans, John (St Helens N)

    Callaghan, Jim

    Fatchett, Derek

    397

    Fearn, Ronald

    Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

    Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Fisher, Mark

    Morgan, Rhodri

    Flannery, Martin

    Morley, Elliott

    Flynn, Paul

    Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

    Foot, Rt Hon Michael

    Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

    Foster, Derek

    Murphy, Paul

    Foulkes, George

    Nellist, Dave

    Fraser, John

    Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

    Fyfe, Maria

    Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

    Galbraith, Sam

    Patchett, Terry

    Galloway, George

    Pendry, Tom

    Garrett, John (Norwich South)

    Pike, Peter L.

    Godman, Dr Norman A.

    Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

    Graham, Thomas

    Prescott, John

    Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Quin, Ms Joyce

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Rachce, Giles

    Grocott, Bruce

    Reid, Dr John

    Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

    Richardson, Jo

    Heller, Eric S.

    Robertson, George

    Henderson, Doug

    Rooker, Jeff

    Hinchliffe, David

    Rowlands, Ted

    Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

    Ruddock, Joan

    Holland, Stuart

    Salmond, Alex

    Home Robertson, John

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Hood, Jimmy

    Sheerman, Barry

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

    Shore, Rt Hon Peter

    Hoyle, Doug

    Short, Clare

    Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

    Sillars, Jim

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

    Skinner, Dennis

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

    Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

    Illsley, Eric

    Smith, C. (Islton & F'bury)

    Ingram, Adam

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

    Janner, Greville

    Snape, Peter

    Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

    Spearing, Nigel

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

    Steel, Rt Hon David

    Kennedy, Charles

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

    Strang, Gavin

    Lamond, James

    Straw, Jack

    Leadbitter, Ted

    Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Leighton, Ron

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

    Turner, Dennis

    Lewis, Terry

    Vaz, Keith

    Livsey, Richard

    Wall, Pat

    Lofthouse, Geoffrey

    Wallace, James

    Loyden, Eddie

    Walley, Joan

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

    Macdonald, Calum A.

    Wareing, Robert N.

    Mcleish, Henry

    Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

    McTaggart, Bob

    Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

    Madden, Max

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Wilson, Brian

    Marek, Dr John

    Winnick, David

    Marshall, David (Shottlesion)

    Wise, Mrs Audrey

    Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

    Worthington, Tony

    Martlew, Eric

    Wray, Jimmy

    Maxton, John

    Meacher, Michael

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Meale, Alan

    Mr. Frank Haynes and

    Michael, Alun

    Mr. Allen Mckay

    Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    MR. SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
    Resolved,
    'That this House, noting that since this Government came to power personal disposable income has increased at every level in society and that the lowest paid have had proportionately higher increases than many other groups, considers that the best way in which the Government can help the low paid is by creating the conditions for more jobs by breaking down the barriers to employment and encouraging labour market flexibility; and welcomes the Government's decision to consult about the abolition of Wages Councils.'.

    European Community Documents
    10.27 pm
    Mr. Teddy Taylor: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for the motion that we are about to consider to be considered under Standing Order No. 102(5) when the Standing Committee which met to consider the document did so only yesterday and the Hansard report of its proceedings reached the Vote Office only this morning?
    As Standing Order No. 102(5) provides that you can select for debate any amendment tabled by any hon. Member, does it not undermine the rights of Members if they do not have, until the day in question, the report of the Committee's proceedings? That might appear to be rather a niggling point, but it is an important one which I hope you will consider.
    The Euro instruments on machine safety were unanimously recommended for debate by the Select Committee in its November report on the basis that this was one of the most ambitious plans for the internal market and that it could increase substantially the costs of industrial firms. In its January report, it explained that it would automatically require the amendment of two major Acts of Parliament.
    We know that the Council of Ministers effectively settled these matters in December 1988, but the Committee did not even consider them until yesterday, when there was no debate, apart from a two-minute speech by the Minister, who apologised for their having already been settled in Brussels.
    If, Mr. Speaker, you do not agree that the motion is out of order, can you not declare it null and void under Standing Order No. 41, which deals with irrelevance? Why should the time of the House be wasted on silly motions to approve or disapprove when sovereignty has gone and the decision was made in Brussels in December? This makes nonsense of our consideration of European legislation. May we have a decision on the motion, or else do away with it entirely, instead of wasting the time of the House, the Clerks and yourself?
    Mr. Nigel Spearing: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I want to put to you additional factors for the consideration that I hope you will give this matter.
    Unlike the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor), I do not think that the fact that this was decided in Brussels before debate is strictly relevant to the central point. If on the Order Paper there appears a motion on a document that was sent to Committee by resolution of the House under the appropriate Standing Order, surely there should be at least an interval of a day between the appearance of the Official Report of the Committee's proceedings and of a motion in the House. That would enable hon. Members to table amendments to it for discussion the following day.
    I do not dissent from what the hon. Member for Southend, East said about the importance and unusual nature of this matter, but, whatever the content of the Committee's resolution, my point stands.
    Mr. William Cash: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. A resolution of the House of 1980 declares that in all possible circumstances there should be a debate before the adoption of a common position on a

    399
    matter of this sort. If that is not strictly adhered to, our difficulties when considering matters vital to the future of industry in this country will increase. I should be grateful if this could be given further consideration in the appropriate quarters.
    Mr. Hugh Dykes: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) for missing his first few remarks after the Division. Although our views about membership of the Community may vary, I echo my hon. Friend's remarks—he may look surprised—and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) and of the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), the Chairman of the Select Committee on European Legislation.
    Whatever our views, procedures must be correctly followed. The House needs the essential elements of a scrutiny procedure to be effective. Recently, and for all sorts of reasons, there has been a disturbing increase in the number of decisions taken by the collective institutions of the Community before matters have been properly considered by the House. That must be put right. It behoves us all to get it right. Hon. Members are worried, and we seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker.
    The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): I have not had much time to consider this matter, hut, in view of the remarks made by hon. Members on both sides of the House, it would perhaps be better if the Government did not move the motion tonight so that I can look into it.

    Mentally Ill People (Community Care)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Durant.]
    10.34 pm
    Mrs. Gillian Shephard: I am grateful for the chance to raise this subject. I hope that the heat and light engendered by the publication of the NHS review yesterday will not deflect attention for too long from Government action on community care following the Griffiths report.
    What is community care? My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary may be interested to know that a seminar of 80 hon. Members held in the House last July gave at least 80 answers. The evidence of the Department of Health and Social Security to the Select Committee on Social Services in 1984–85 gave a catch-all definition:
    "Its objective is to enable an individual to remain in his own home wherever possible rather than be cared for in a hospital or a residential home."
    That definition, whose blandness is due, no doubt, to the fact that it has to encompass a wide variety of patient and client groups, is almost meaningless for mental illness and especially for schizophrenia, which fills more hospital beds than any other illness and to which I intend to devote this debate.
    We know the facts about the incidence of mental illness, but they will stand repetition. Even if one knows academically that one in six people will need professional help for a mental health problem during a lifetime or that one person in 100 suffers from schizophrenia, one does not realise it until it hits one's friend or family or oneself.
    Community care for the mentally ill is not new. Since 1962, there has been active encouragement of the development of local alternatives within the community to the large Victorian hospitals. The anti-psychotic drugs, introduced in the mid-1950s, helped many patients to live almost normal lives in the community. Proof of that is that in the mid-1950s the psychiatric hospital population stood at about 150,000 and it is now about 60,000. A more significant figure is that there are 200,000 admissions and discharges to and from psychiatric hospitals each year.
    Mr. Patrick Thompson: I wonder whether my hon. Friend is aware that nine out of 10 hospital admissions for people suffering from schizophrenia are readmissions. Does she agree that districts should, therefore, review, slow down or even stop the closure of mental hospitals until at least adequate alternatives have been found? I should be interested in my hon. Friend's comments on that.
    Mrs. Shephard: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. I know that he takes a keen interest in the subject. I shall be dealing with the question that he has raised. The point about readmissions for schizophrenic patients is that it is the nature of their illness that causes them to relapse. I hope to deal with that matter later.
    Mental illness is costly. The Government spend about £1·4 billion on it every year and to that we must add social security payments, the cost of social services provision and a huge drugs bill. The psychiatric drugs bill amounts to about a quarter of the national total. Can we be sure that we are obtaining real value and the best care for patients

    401
    and their families from such a substantial sum? Is the 10 per cent. of it that is devoted to community care enough if we mean what we say about its importance?
    In its report last April, the Public Accounts Committee asked some searching questions about community care. It pointed out the need to ensure in any review of the policy that not only should there he adequate provision for individuals, but that care should give value for money. It said that, although community care had been an official policy for years, there had been no systematic monitoring of the way in which it was working. It said that the operation of joint planning and its financing was still not satisfactory. I have often said, in the House and elsewhere, that in joint financing every pound is handled 12 times by a combination of committees and procedures, and one has to assume that that reduces its value to the individual patient. One of the Committee's most significant points was that, while improvements in planning and efficiency were being required of health authorities, they were not and could not be of local authorities and that sometimes resulted in an uneven match between the closure of large hospitals and appropriate systems of local authority care.
    The overall picture in the report was not of a service lacking in resources, but of a service in which resources have to be used in a way that is difficult to manage because of budgetary conventions and without clear policy guidelines and information about the effectiveness of the policy in the first place. I hope that when the Government issue their response to the Griffiths report those questions will be considered, and in no area more urgently than schizophrenia.
    We know that some areas of the country have developed effective services in the community for the mentally ill. In my constituency, the West Norfolk and Wisbech health authority has a substantial budget of £3·5 million with which to help its mentally ill patients. There are 60 acute beds with 26 for long-stay patients, a further 88 beds for the elderly mentally ill and 140 day places, some of which are run successfully with the voluntary sector. Future plans involve drop-in centres and a sensible use of section 117 with the social services.
    Monitoring the effectiveness of the services is being carried out in another part of my constituency by the Norwich health authority, with a research project, mounted with the university of East Anglia. I know that the Department of Health is conscious of the lack of information with which to evaluate community care and mental illness services in general. As the Minister's predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) said to MIND in her speech in November:
    "we need a clearer picture of what is going on at a local level. During this year and next we will be looking closely at what we have on the ground. Particularly from the point of view of the patient."
    I am delighted that that question is being vigorously tackled in the Department and feel sure that much good practice will be discovered to help areas where provision and practice are not so good.
    However, I believe that in all areas there is one group of patients which the system is at present failing. They are either avoided or they are not offered adequate support when not resident in hospital. The problems that they and their families encounter have been given useful publicity by the National Schizophrenia Fellowship and the campaigning group SANE, which stands for
    402
    Schizophrenia: A National Emergency, which rightly recognises that much public education as well as better organised services are desperately needed.
    The problem of who should treat small groups of severely ill patients who, as part of their illness, do not recognise the need for medication and who, if they do riot take that medication outside hospital, present severe problems for themselves can be tackled. I shall propose a number of solutions—I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister is relieved to hear that.
    However, I should first like to give some examples of such patients and their families. They illustrate that for those patients, no matter how good the community care network, discharge from hospital can lead—and all too often does—to relapse due to lack of medication, to breakdown, often in harrowing circumstances, and to their eventual readmission to hospital.
    One mother wrote to me about her schizophrenic son:
    "Like most schizophrenics he will not go voluntarily to hospital. So when his social worker finally decides that he is 'a danger to himself' his removal to hospital involves his GP, his psychiatrist, his social worker, and at least one police officer. At this stage his home has deteriorated into almost unbelievable squalor … What is needed are section orders that can run for much longer than 6 months and/or community treatment orders whereby those who need continuing treatment to keep them stable can he compulsorily treated at home."
    Another letter states:
    "I wholeheartedly support … efforts to put into place a Community Treatment Order. When our daughter gets treatment early in the episode it can last as little as 3 weeks. When neglected she gets into all manner of troubles and can be as long as 8 months in the recovery."
    Those two examples, from many hundreds that I could have chosen, illustrate that the problem for that group is agonising and that it is at least as agonising for the families, who have to live with the notion of their relative becoming a hostile stranger and with the gnawing uncertainty of what will happen when he or she leaves hospital. The scale and nature of the problem faced by those people has been highlighted by an excellent series of articles in The Times and The Sunday Times by Marjorie Wallace and in a number of programmes on television.
    What can be done? I have three groups of suggestions. The first is non-controversial; the second is financial so my hon. Friend will make up his own mind about whether it is controversial; and the third is very controversial as it involves changes in mental health law and has implications for the patients' civil liberty.
    First, there should be increased public awareness of the problem. MIND, the National Schizophrenia Fellowship and SANE have done invaluable work in giving publicity to schizophrenia. The public needs to be educated about the fact that the illness can strike suddenly, without warning and in any family. A public that is educated will also be educated about ways to help. There should also be a code of practice to be used in conjunction with the Mental Health Act. I hope and believe that this is in course of preparation in the Department of Health, and it is eagerly awaited.
    There is no excuse for any group of patients ever to be disadvantaged because of faulty co-operation between agencies or professionals, yet this is precisely what can happen to people with schizophrenic breakdown in the

    403
    community. We need clear guidelines, personal accountability by professionals, and monitoring standards, and I hope that the code, when it appears, will provide all of these.
    There needs, too, to be much more information about what actually happens to individual patients on discharge. I have said already that, although everyone pays lip service to the concept of community care, we have no idea if different forms of it are effective.
    I understand that SANE is hoping to launch a survey, to be conducted by Professor Jones of York university, which is to follow 1,000 patients discharged from seven hospitals. The survey will trace where and when breakdown occurs, if it does, and will be able to offer thoughts on what has been good practice. SANE is raising a sum of money to offer towards this research. I believe that it hopes to meet my hon. Friend or his colleagues in the near future, and I hope that its request that that sum be matched will be considered favourably.
    Those who plan services must recognise that both sufferers and their families want asylum and hospital admission to be part of the range of services to which they can have speedy and hassle-free access at times of breakdown. Support for the families might even prevent breakdown in a certain number of cases.
    My second set of solutions concerns finance. The Government are spending huge sums of money on the treatment of mental illness and on community care. The cost of keeping large, old-fashioned hospitals open is a heavy burden on any budget, while the funds that would be released by closure could help in both revenue and capital terms. I am not arguing that these large, old hospitals should be closed before the alternatives, including asylum, are in place, but the peculiarities of health and local government year-on-year budgeting make the co-ordination of closure and replacement provision almost impossible to achieve.
    I have great hopes of the review in that it itself suggested a number of flexible ways in which health authorities might look at their budgeting, and that that flexibility, which perhaps could involve mortgaging against assets, or borrowing against assets, could be applied to this area where it is much needed. The arrangements for bridging and for dowries for patients that were introduced in 1983 were of great help, but they were hardly the mechanism one would choose if one were setting up the system from scratch. I think the funds are there but are locked up, and they need to be unlocked for the benefit of patients.
    Finally, there is the more controversial suggestion, which enters the difficult moral sphere of civil liberty. It seems clear to me that what is needed, now that much care of the mentally ill and, therefore, of schizophrenic patients will take place in the community, is a recognition of that fact in mental health law. It is true that a sensible application of sections 2 and 3 of the Act, which could be made clear in the code, would help matters without a change in the law.
    It is also true that more extensive use of section 7 guardianship, which as yet has hardly been tried by the local authorities, would also give help without a change in the law. But many schizophrenic patients and their families argue for something stronger, some form of
    404
    amendment to the Act that will allow for compulsory treatment within the community. Indeed, amendment will be needed in any case since, under the Act, compulsory treatment is allowed only in hospitals, and in future many patients will be in hostels or other residential facilities.
    The Royal College of Psychiatrists has, I believe, considered community treatment orders. So has NAHA. The advantages of a community treatment order include the fact that community treatment is available as an alternative to detention in hospital, and the order can provide a legal framework to encourage compliance in the matter of medication and thus prevent breakdown and readmission. There can be no doubt that such an order would do an enormous amount to increase the confidence of families having to care for schizophrenic patients, in that they would know that at least breakdown due to a lack of medication would be avoided. On the other hand, many would argue that such an order goes against the very idea of civil liberty.
    The Mental Health Act Commission makes two further suggestions for amendment of the Act, both of which I hope my hon. Friend will consider carefully. They concern the power of guardianship.
    In section 7 the power to require the patient to attend at places and times specified for the purposes of medical treatment is not accompanied by a specific authority to convey. The disadvantages of that are obvious and need not be illustrated. Clearly, if guardianship is to be regarded as a serious alternative, the patient must be conveyed to the place, but as the law stands there is still an omission. The power to convey could get the patient to the place —as a horse can be led to water—but unless a power were added to require him to take the medical treatment as prescribed by his responsible medical officer it would be of little use conveying him anywhere.
    In any eventual legal solution—I am confident that there will have to be such a solution to reflect the change in practice which is being encouraged—I hope that the interest of the patient and his family will be paramount, and not those of warring professional groups. That sentiment, indeed, goes for the whole debate. The plight of schizophrenic patients and their families through the nature of their illness is too acute to be ignored, and I hope that the Government's eventual consideration of the Griffiths report will include specific solutions for them. They should not be forgotten.
    10.50 pm
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Roger Freeman): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mrs. Shephard) for raising this important subject. I consider it one of the most important with which I have to deal at the Department, and my view is clearly shared by many hon. Members on both sides of the House.
    My hon. Friend has spoken with authority, based on what must be a unique combination of experience as a member of a local authority social services committee, chairman of a health authority and a Mental Health Act commissioner. She has made several very pertinent observations, and some practical suggestions, to which I shall respond as positively as I can.
    With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall take a few seconds—as this is the first opportunity for me to do so—to pay tribute to the former Member for Kettering, Mr.

    405
    William Homewood, who has recently died. He lived in Market Harborough, worked in Corby and represented Kettering between 1979 and 1983. I am sure that many other hon. Members on both sides of the House will wish to send best wishes and condolences to his widow. His work in the House will be long remembered.
    Ever since the early 1970s it has been common ground that, as resources allow, health services for those suffering from schizophrenia and other forms of mental illness should be locally based rather than focused on the traditional, old-style mental hospitals with which we are all familiar. The aim is for a comprehensive range of local hospital and community services, associated with appropriate social services provision and voluntary sector facilities, to meet local needs. I think that all hon. Members agree with those principles.
    As those local services are developing, the number of beds in the older hospitals are being reduced, and some of the hospitals are closing. Locally based services have been developing. For example, in the 10 years to 1986, the number of day hospital places in England increased from 11,000 to nearly 19,000, and day centre places from nearly 5,000 to over 9,000. I emphasise, however, that hospital closures should be occurring only as a consequence of the development of better alternative forms of provision. The closure of hospitals per se is in no sense a primary aim of Government policy.
    While, I believe, virtually everyone supports this policy in principle, there are genuine concerns about how it is being implemented in practice. For example, the National Schizophrenia Fellowship, an organisation that we much respect, believes that there is a danger that the total number of hospital beds has already fallen—or soon will fall—below the level required for patients needing full-time care. In the last year or so, two new organizations—Schizophrenia: A National Emergency, or SANE, and Concern—have been established to express broadly similar worries.
    As my predecessor made clear in her speech to last year's MIND annual conference, there is no going back to the old days of hospitals with 2,000 or more beds and wards of 60 patients. Equally, we are determined that the move to locally based services should be properly planned and implemented, so that those needing treatment can receive it in the setting appropriate to their circumstances, whether as out-patients or in-patients.
    We take the concerns expressed by the National Schizophrenia Fellowship, SANE and Concern very seriously. My officials maintain close contact with all three, and I hope to meet representatives of all three very shortly.
    During the current year we shall be examining the position in each of the 14 English health authority regions, and I hope to visit as many as possible to discuss the point that my hon. Friend has raised—the transfer of patients from the old mental illness hospitals into the community, and how our policies are working out locally.
    We shall be talking to the regional health authorities, seeking a social services perspective from the social services inspectorate, and linking directly with voluntary organisations who represent sufferers and their relatives. Our aim is to gain a fuller understanding of how national policy is being implemented.
    My hon. Friend referred to relevant research on the follow-up of patients being sponsored by SANE and undertaken by Professor Kathleen Jones of York
    406
    university. We know of that research, and next week my officials will be meeting SANE and Professor Jones to discuss the research proposed. I can assure my hon. Friend that I shall be following that meeting with great interest and care. I know of the request for funding under section 64, and I shall certainly give it sympathetic consideration. The House may wish to know that the Medical Research Council spends about £4 million per annum and the Department of Health about £1 million per annum directly on research into mental health matters.
    My hon. Friend referred to finance. That is, of course, important in order to develop new services before older hospitals close, but there is considerable scope for using more effectively the massive sums already tied up in services, particularly the capital value of the older mental hospitals, which often occupy 100 to 200 acres of land. The obvious problem with such disposals is that local services must be built before a closure is effected.
    My hon. Friend suggests bridging finance to release capital from old mental hospital sites destined for closure, so that adequate provision can be made for care facilities in the community now. I am sympathetic to that plea and I can give my hon. Friend an assurance that the Government will be exploring actively how that can be achieved better, possibly with the co-operation of the private sector.
    I draw the attention of my hon. Friend, and others interested in the matter, to the White Paper on the NHS review. It contains an interesting section about our approach to working with the private sector in order to release the capital value of sites, such as those of larger mental hospitals, that are in due course to close, and trying to release them earlier so that we can accelerate the construction of facilities in the community. My hon. Friend already knows that each region can use bridging finance for closures. For example, the East Anglia regional health authority has long been practising that policy.
    My hon. Friend has also drawn attention to the possible contribution of legislation. Before I respond on the possibility of orders for compulsory treatment in the community, which would require new legislation, I want briefly to refer to the position in respect of a relevant piece of legislation already on the statute book, but not yet activated—section 7 of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986.
    My hon. Friend will be aware of the importance of that Act in strengthening and extending legal provisions for disabled people and reinforcing their rights in society. That, of course, includes mentally ill people. Section 7 will require health and local authorities to assess the needs of people discharged from hospital after treatment for a mental disorder of six months or more, and officials from the Department are currently involved in a series of meetings with representatives of both health and local authorities, identifying the processes, procedures and costs that will make up the requirements under this important section of the Act.
    I am taking a personal interest in those discussions, and I can assure my hon. Friend that we treat the matter seriously. Section 7 is not far from the forefront of my mind. I appreciate the significance of the notification to local authorities and the need to ensure that ca re is followed through and given to those discharged from mental hospitals.
    Despite all efforts, it may be that some mentally ill people will refuse further treatment after they leave

    407
    hospital, even if that is considered essential by the treatment team responsible for their care. Legal measures to enable compulsory treatment to be given in the community have been suggested as one way forward with a small group of patients, and there have been discussions within such organisations as the Mental Health Act Commission, of which my hon. Friend will know, the Royal College of Psychiatrists and MIND. This is a complex area. Important civil liberty issues arise and there are strongly-held views on all sides about the applicability of compulsory treatment orders once a patient has been discharged from mental hospitals into the community and the extent to which an individual can be compelled to undergo treatment.
    Officials from my Department are listening to the debate with close attention, but to date no firm proposals have been put to us and little research is available from this country as yet. No changes in this difficult area would be considered without full consultations with all those concerned with mental health. This debate has assisted that consultation in no small measure.
    My hon. Friend also drew attention to an extension of the powers of guardianship contained in the Mental Health Act 1984. I concur with my hon. Friend that there is no legal authority under the Act's guardianship provisions to convey a person anywhere, and nor is there a power requiring a person received into guardianship to take medication. The introduction of such a power is one of the options put forward by the Mental Health Act Commission in the debate on whether there would be a power compulsorily to treat people in the community. That is a suggestion worthy of serious consideration, and I shall certainly reflect on my hon. Friend's remarks. I know that my Department's officials will pay particular attention to her comments on that subject.
    My hon. Friend referred to the code of practice. We are working on the code of practice required under the Mental Health Act 1984 and I intend saying something definite on that subject very shortly. My hon. Friend may press me as to what "very shortly" really means. As far as I am concerned, it means within the coming months. It is most important to get the code of practice right, and I would much prefer to take an extra week or month doing that rather than rush into publication.
    Even more important than treating those who fall ill is seeking to prevent illness. Much action on prevention must await scientific advances and a better understanding of the origins of the major mental illnesses. However, enough is known already for it to be realistic and urgent to place greater emphasis on services promoting good emotional and psychological health among children and adolescents,
    408
    and on ways of reducing the risk of relapses for those who have suffered from the major disabling conditions such as schizophrenia. My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson) referred to that aspect in his intervention. He is right to draw attention to the fact that, sadly, those who are readmitted for the second or third time are those who have, by definition, suffered in the past.
    This is not the moment for me to elaborate on our plans for that area, but I simply register the fact that, henceforth, prevention will be a key element of Government mental health policy. My predecessor played a valuable role in highlighting the importance of health promotion and the prevention of ill health in respect of physical disabilities. I see it as my task to extend her work into the field of mental illness, and to deal with its prevention.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West raised the question of the need for increased public awareness, and the House will be interested to know that the Health Education Authority has submitted proposals for the coming year that include the development of a mental health programme. One of its aims is to raise public awareness.
    Before concluding, I must make reference to the deep interest that there is in all parts of the House in community care issues in general and in Sir Roy Griffiths' report in particular. Community care is a subject to which the Government attach great importance. It is of vital concern to the many thousands of people throughout the country who themselves need care, or who help provide it to their friends and relatives. We are fully committed to playing our part in ensuring that their needs are met. That is why we have taken time fully to explore the various options before us, and to take careful account of the numerous representations that we have received.
    We have not as yet reached a final conclusion, but we are actively engaged in working out our plans for the future of community care. I assure the House that the Government are mindful of concern that action should not be unduly delayed—we share that concern. For that reason, and as my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health told the House last week, and repeated earlier this week, we hope to be in a position to bring forward our own proposals in the near future.
    In conclusion, I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the issue of services for those with a mental illness, and for her balanced and practical approach. I hope that the House will, in turn, welcome what I have said in response.
    The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
    Adjourned accordingly at three minutes past Eleven o'clock.

TRANSPORT

  Fennell Report
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress has been made to implement recommendation 46 of the Fennell report that the annual inspection by the London fire brigade of underground stations and tunnels should continue and unsatisfactory features be remedied and reported on within six weeks and that copies of the reports be sent to the chief safety inspector and railway inspectorate and that arrangements be made by London Underground to publish the reports in consultation with the London fire brigade and London regional passengers committee.

  Mr. Portillo
  I understand that London Underground Ltd. has agreed a new procedure in response to this recommendation. The London fire and civil defence authority will send LUL a formal report of each inspection. Copies will be sent to the railways inspectorate and the chief safety inspector. LUL will respond to the LFCDA within six weeks. A copy of the report, together with LUL's response, will be passed to the London regional passengers' committee and to the House of Commons Library. This procedure will take effect from the receipt by LUL of the next LFCDA annual inspection report.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress has been made to implement recommendation 141 in the Fennell report that London Underground shall review its proposals for the working of the underground ticketing system at stations and take advice from the railways inspectorate and the London fire brigade; and if he will take steps to ensure that for all such final proposals which are at variance with the railway inspectorate's or London fire brigade's advice a reason shall be publicly given by London Underground.

  Mr. Portillo
  London Underground Ltd. had taken the advice of the London fire brigade and of the railways inspectorate on this matter prior to the publication of Mr. Fennell's report. However, London Regional Transport has, at my request, appointed consulting engineers to carry out an independent study of the Underground ticketing system. The study will focus on the implications for passenger safety and will be completed by the end of April. LRT intends to discuss the results of this review with the railways inspectorate and the London fire brigade.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress his Department has made in response to recommendation 120 of the Fennell report that the law on fire certification as it relates to underground stations should be clarified.

  Mr. Portillo
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department has made an order under 210
  the Fire Precautions Act 1971, that was laid before Parliament on 27 January, under which underground railway stations will require a fire certificate unless regulations which are to be made under section 12 of the 1971 Act apply to them.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress has been made to implement recommendation 48 of the Fennell report that locked emergency gates shall be fitted with alarmed panic bars; and what trials have been carried out to see if they work under panic conditions following an incident which for passenger safety has to be responded to at great speed and where a large number of people are involved.

  Mr. Portillo
  I understand that London Underground has identified 24 exits and 11 sites at stations with lifts where it is necessary to fit alarmed panic bars. London Underground considers that a new design of gate may be necessary in order to accommodate the panic bars, and a prototype is being installed at Moorgate for evaluation in February. If the prototype is successful, London Underground will install the alarmed panic bars at the sites identified by 30 June 1989.

  Exit Barriers (London Underground)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will direct London Underground Ltd. and London Regional Transport to make available a copy of all relevant correspondence, reports and documentation communicated between themselves and the fire authorities for London about the consequences for safety of automatic exit barriers installed at London underground stations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  It is for London Regional Transport, London Underground Ltd. and the London fire and civil defence authority to consider whether to make available such exchanges.

  Channel Tunnel
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make clear the likely sources of funding for environmental protection for communities and land potentially affected by a high-speed Channel tunnel rail link; if he will clarify the position with regard to the use of Government funds for such purposes in the light of section 40 of the Channel Tunnel Act; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  The environmental protection measures which BR will need to take as part of its proposals for a new line will form part of the cost of the project which will have to be met from increased BR revenues. Government subsidy is ruled out by section 42 of the Channel Tunnel Act.

  Mr. Gerald Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether there is any contractual arrangement or other commitment between Her Majesty's Government or British Rail with the French Government or French rail authorities on the speed of trains from the Channel tunnel to London, and over other parts of the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  [holding answer 31 January 1989]: There are no agreements between the British and French

  211
  Governments on the speed of Channel tunnel trains within the United Kingdom. The contractual arrangements between BR and SNCF are a matter for them, but I understand that they provide for the shares of revenues to reflect relative contributions towards the overall quality of service and hence its commercial success. BR would accordingly receive an increased share of the joint revenues from the service and pay a smaller share of the costs if the current journey time between London and the tunnel were reduced.

  London Regional Transport (Director)
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information he has as to the date on which Dr. Ridley, former director of London Regional Transport, vacated the premises from which he carried out his official duties on behalf of London Regional Transport.

  Mr. Portillo
  Dr. Ridley's official duties as a member of London Regional Transport terminated on 10 November 1988, when he resigned. Any temporary use of facilities granted subsequently by LRT at its discretion to help him clear up his affairs is a matter for LRT.

  Coastguard
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he has taken to recommence recruitment for professional, trained coastguards; and if he will list in the Official Report the number of vacancies occurring at each registered coastguard rescue centre indicating the length of time for which any vacancy has lasted.

  Mr. Portillo
  [holding answer 30 January 1989]: A recruitment campaign is currently in progress. Advertisements will appear shortly both in trade magazines and selected newspapers in order to reach suitably qualified and experienced candidates. The main thrust of this campaign is to attract candidates who are prepared to fill vacancies on the mainland of Scotland and in the Scottish islands.

  Particulars of vacancies as at 1 January 1989 are as follows:

  Coastguard District

  Number

  Since

  Shetland

  3

  15 November 1988

  12 November 1988

  4 March 1988

  Pentland

  1

  5 October 1988

  Moray

  5

  Watchkeeping duties cease on

  30 March.

  Vacancies will not be filled.

  Tyne/Tees

  2

  20 June 1988

  26 July 1988

  Yarmouth

  4

  11 November 1988

  15 August 1988

  18 August 1988

  19 September 1988

  Thames

  1

  30 April 1988

  Dover

  3

  7 May 1987

  4 April 1988

  31 July 1988

  Milford Haven

  1

  8 February 1988

  Liverpool

  1

  15 November 1988

  Belfast

  4

  1 February 1988

  20 February 1988

  9 November 1987

  25 November 1988

  212

  Coastguard District

  Number

  Since

  Oban

  1

  5 December 1988

  Stornoway

  2

  4 March 1988

  28 September 1988

  Moray MRSC will close on 30 March 1989.

  All other vacancies are planned to be filled by promotion, transfer or recruitment.

  LRT (Fares)
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will tabulate in the Official Report the overall increase in percentage of fares charged by London Regional Transport for each fare increase since January 1984, together with the respective increase in the cost of living index for the relevant preceding period.

  Mr. Portillo
  [holding answer 30 January 1989]: The information requested is as follows. As a result of the increased use made of travelcards and capitalcards, the fare charged per mile travelled has remained broadly constant in real terms over the period 1984–85 to 1988–89.

  Annual fare increases Per cent.

  Annual cost of living increase (using RPI) Per cent.

  January 1985

  18·5

  17·8

  January 1986

  6·5

  5·5

  January 1987

  4·0

  3·9

  January 1988

  9·5

  3·3

  January 1989

  12·4

  26·8

  Note: All figures indexed from January the previous year except as noted below.

  1 Figures indexed from previous fare increase in May 1983.

  2 December 1988 prices indexed to December 1987 (January 1989 figures not yet available for comparison with January 1988).

ENVIRONMENT

  Palace of Westminster (Chandeliers)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has now completed the investigations referred to in his reply to the hon. Member for Nottingham, North, 10 January,Official Report, column 508.

  Mr. Chope
  Not yet, but I shall ensure that the advice is provided to the Select Committee as soon as it is available.

  Water
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he is taking in response to the Countryside Commission's report asking for a change in water privatisation plans to protect 300 sites it lists as being of conservation and recreational value and 15 sites warranting special protection because of their national importance which are owned by water authorities; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Mr. Young) on 19 January.

  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether the measures he proposes to limit
  213
  takeovers of water companies will apply to the Coquet water board; what information he has on the present ownership and control of this undertaking; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The Coquet water board will not be affected by the recently announced measures limiting takeovers of statutory water companies. It was wound up by the Newcastle and Gateshead Water (Coquet Water Board Dissolution) Order 1983, and its liabilities were taken over by the Newcastle and Gateshead water company. It now has no separate existence.

  Mr. Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will take steps to assess whether the acquisition of a stake in the Folkestone water company in partnership with AIPF by the Southern water authority will lead to greater competition.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The special provisions for water mergers announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 11 January do not apply to mergers involving water companies with assets of less than £30 million. The continued independence of such companies is not essential to comparative competition, which those provisions are designed to safeguard. The acquisition of shares in smaller water companies continues to be subject to fair trading legislation, the administration of which is the responsibility of my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will indicate the increases in water charges proposed by the water authorities for 1989–90; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Howard
  The water authorities are facing demands from the public and from Government to meet increasingly stringent quality standards for drinking water, for our rivers and for coastal waters. These improvements cost money.

  The Government have therefore agreed to a 20 per cent. increase in capital expenditure in 1989–90 which will enable the authorities to continue to move towards these higher standards. I announced this to the House on 2 November, when I also expressed the expectation that increases in charges for next year should, on average, be kept to single figures.

  Several of the water authorities' chairmen would have preferred even more ambitious programmes of investment next year. However, in considering the need for increases in water charges I have given full weight to the interests of the consumer and the need to avoid sharp increases in any one year. I have also had to take into account the national pressures on the construction industry and the need to avoid unreasonable demands which would lead to higher construction prices.

  The discussions I have held with the water authority chairmen enable me to confirm that their proposals on charges for 1989–90 will result in an average increase of under 10 per cent., with individual authorities' average increases ranging from 7 to 13 per cent.

  I am confident that the figures we have agreed will enable the water authorities to make good progress towards our targets for improved environmental standards in the coming year. They represent an appropriate balance between charges and borrowing next year, taking account of the authorities' long-term financial
  214
  requirements. Once the industry is privatised, it will no longer have to compete for public funds; it will be free to raise finance on the markets.

  Mr. Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if the Southern water authority has given him an undertaking that it will not use minority stakes in statutory water companies' to block either the removal of limits on dividends or the companies' conversion to plc status; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  [holding answer 30 January 1989]: No such undertaking has been given.

  Football Hooliganism
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what account was taken by his working party on football hooliganism of the arrangements existing in Scotland, particularly those introduced as a consequence of the McElione report; what are the reasons for his non-adoption of any of these arrangements in England and Wales; or what steps he has taken to encourage their adoption.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The McElione report of 1977 made a number of recommendations on the conduct of football matches in Scotland in relation to the Scottish football authorities and Scottish football at that time. Many of these recommendations were taken up in Scotland and similar steps have been taken in England and Wales, including restrictions on the sale of alcohol and the segregation of rival groups of supporters.

  My working party was established to review the main principles of a national membership scheme for football supporters. This is not an issue on which the McElione report made recommendations.

  Football Membership Scheme
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will take steps to ensure that any charges levied for the proposed football supporters' identity cards do not depend on the holder's willingness to allow personal details to be used for marketing purposes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  I will discuss this with the Data Protection Registrar and the Football Membership Authority at the appropriate stage.

  Beaches (Pollution)
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list all those beaches in England which failed to meet the European Community directive on bathing water quality standards in the last year for which data is available; when it is planned for each of these beaches to meet these standards; and what is the estimated cost in each case.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The information on the quality of English bathing waters during the 1988 bathing season is at present being collated. I expect to announce the results before the start of this year's bathing season. We are currently discussing with water authorities their plans for improving those bathing waters which do not yet meet the required standards.

  Water Pollution
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will seek to introduce legislation to make it an offence to allow polluted drinking water to come through a tap; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to clause 51 of the Water Bill, which will make it an offence for a water undertaker to supply to any premises water that is unfit for human consumption.

  Homeless People
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when his Department's review of the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977 will be published.

  Mr. Trippier
  I have nothing to add to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Grant) on 17 January at column 150.

  Woking Local Plan
  Mr. Cranley Onslow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to publish his inspector's report on the Woking local plan.

  Mr. Howard
  Inspectors are appointed by the Secretary of State to conduct inquiries into objections to local plans. However the inspector reports direct to the local planning authority.

  This particular inquiry raised a number of very complex issues and, together with necessary site visits, extended over some 17 weeks. The inspector is making every effort to complete his report as soon as possible and expects to submit it to Woking borough council for its consideration by July.

  Subsequent publication of the report is then a matter for the local planning authority itself.

  Exeter Airport
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if, pursuant to his answer of 19 December 1988,Official Report, column 47, he will now make an announcement in respect of the future development of Exeter airport.

  Mr. Ridley
  I hope to announce my decision later this month.

  Urban Programme
  Mr. Patnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what resources will be available for local authorities in the urban programme in 1989–90; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  I am today announcing initial urban programme resource allocations for 1989–90, totalling over £245 million. The resources will be allocated to the 57 urban programme partnership and programme authorities. The money will be used to support projects which will encourage economic development and environmental improvements to rebuild confidence and encourage private investment in those areas.

  The urban programme is one of the Government's range of programmes to help revitalise our inner cities. It
  216
  complements the Department of the Environment's other urban initiatives including the urban development corporations, city grant and derelict land grant. Together these programmes will provide £674 million for inner city regeneration in 1989–90.

  The urban programme allocations made today are provisional; formal allocations are made after inner area programmes have been assessed and approved. Allocations will not be confirmed until authorities have provided a satisfactory annual report on achievements through the UP in 1987–88. Additional resources sometimes become available for redistribution in the course of the year which may lead to outturn being different from these initial allocations.

  I attach considerable importance to the improvement in the management of the urban programme and am grateful to authorities for their continuing commitment to and achievements in the urban programme management initiative.

  The allocations to individual authorities are as follows.

  £ million

  Region and Authority

  Initial allocation 1989–90

  Northern

  Newcastle/Gateshead

  17·061

  Hartlepool

  1·750

  Langbaurgh

  1·750

  Middlesbrough

  5·349

  North Tyneside

  3·400

  South Tyneside

  4·700

  Stockton

  1·368

  Sunderland

  5·019

  North West

  Manchester/Salford

  21·773

  Blackburn

  4·000

  Bolton

  3·625

  Burnley

  1·891

  Oldham

  3·583

  Preston

  2·120

  Rochdale

  3·545

  Wigan

  2·366

  Merseyside

  Liverpool

  19·353

  Halton

  1·325

  Knowsley

  3·768

  St. Helens

  1·662

  Sefton

  1·429

  Wirral

  3·253

  West Midlands

  Birmingham

  23·000

  Coventry

  4·575

  Dudley

  1·340

  Sandwell

  4·407

  Walsall

  1·595

  Wolverhampton

  4·867

  The Wrekin

  0·680

  East Midlands

  Derby

  1·480

  Leicester

  4·750

  Nottingham

  5·120

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  Barnsley

  1·598

  Bradford

  4·500

  Doncaster

  1·793

  Hull

  4·636

  Kirklees

  0·889

  Leeds

  4·315

  Rotherham

  1·794

  217

  Region and Authority

  Initial allocation 1989–90

  Sheffield

  5·059

  London

  Hackney

  8·034

  Islington

  8·717

  Lambeth

  9·932

  Brent

  3·332

  Greenwich

  0·970

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  3·330

  Haringey

  2·650

  Kensington and Chelsea

  1·775

  Lewisham

  1·700

  Newham

  2·589

  Southwark

  2·494

  Tower Hamlets

  4·373

  Wandsworth

  3·183

  South West

  Bristol

  1·373

  Plymouth

  1·003

  Redundant Farm Buildings
  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether on appeal against refusal of planning permission for the conversion of redundant farm buildings, the guidance given in his Department's document PPG7 dated January 1988 will prevail when that conflicts with an earlier county structure plan.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 31 January 1989]: Planning appeals are determined on their merits, taking account of all material planning considerations. Where the provisions of a structure or local plan clearly conflict with more recently issued national guidance they will usually be accorded less weight in that process. An up-to-date development plan may justify acceptable local variations from national policies.

  New Towns
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy that all section 7(1) submissions from new town development corporations be sent contemporaneously to hon. Members whose constituencies are affected.

  Mr. Trippier
  [holding answer 30 January 1989]: My right hon. Friend is under a statutory obligation to consult local authorities before deciding on applications from new towns development corporations for planning consent under section 7(1) of the New Towns Act 1981. I shall ask corporations also to ensure that they have satisfactory arrangements in place for informing hon. Members of such applications, where they have expressed an interest.

  Football (Arrests)
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many representations he has received from Football League clubs regarding arrests made in the 1987–88 and 1988–89 seasons; and if, in the light of such representations, he will amend his table of arrests and the annex to his letter of 21 December 1988.

  Mr. Moynihan
  [holding answer 20 January 1989]: I have received letters from three Football League clubs
  218
  about the arrest figures for the 1987–88 season. One Football League club has written to me about the arrest figures included in the list of incidents of football hooliganism in 1988–89, annexed to my letter of 21 December 1988 to parliamentary colleagues.

  Re-examination of the 1987–88 statistics has revealed that the local police made one transcription error in the figures notified to ACPO. The number of arrests at Leicester City football club should be amended from 81 to 31. The revised total of arrests at league matches in the 1987–88 season is 6,097. The correct entry for Leicester City is the table given in my reply of 19 December to a question from the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes), at columns 55–60, is therefore:

  Leicester City

  Matches

  22

  Total attendance

  223,049

  Total arrests

  31

  Average attendance per match

  10,139

  Average arrests per match

  1·41

  Arrests as a proportion of attendance (Per cent.)

  0·01

  A revised version of the illustrative incidents list was made available on publication of the Football Spectators Bill.

PRIME MINISTER

  Taxation
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will make it her policy to reduce total taxation on those individuals and families where it has increased since 1979 to the level prevailing in 1979.

  The Prime Minister
  It is our policy to reduce the burden of taxation as and when it is prudent to do so.

  Negative Vetting
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) if she will make a statement on the use of negative vetting of(a) civil servants and (b) others working directly or indirectly for the Government;

  (2) if she will publish a table showing how many civil servants have been negatively vetted in each Government Department from 1979 to the current date;

  (3) if she will publish a table showing the total number of civil servants as part of their duties involved in negative vetting investigations of employees and potential employees in each Department from 1979 to the current date;

  (4) if she will publish a table showing the total number of negative vetting investigators employed in each Department from 1979 to the current date;

  (5) if she will place in the Library official forms issued to negative vetting investigators from each Government Department;

  (6) if she will describe the procedures used in negative vetting;

  (7) how many civil servants in each Government Department failed negative vetting in each of the last 10 years;

  (8) which civil service or other Government-appointed posts require negative vetting;
  219
  (9) what guidelines to Government Departments are issued on how negative vetting of employees and prospective employees is to be undertaken;

  (10) how individual civil servants are informed that they have failed negative vetting procedures; and what rights of appeal they have.

  The Prime Minister
  It is not my practice to give detailed information about security vetting procedures.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Child Abuse
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Attorney-General what involvement his Department has had in the Broxtowe child sex abuse case; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  The Crown Prosecution Service conducted the prosecution of members of the Taylor family.

  In cases such as this it is necessary that the jury should hear the evidence of the young children involved, both in chief examination and in any cross-examination. I welcome the successful use of a video link facility to minimise the distress which testifying inevitably causes to the victims of these abhorrent crimes.

  Departmental Staff (Child Care)
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Attorney-General what child care provision the Attorney-General's and Lord Chancellor's Department provides for pre-school age

  Table 1

  Numbers of school leavers attempting A-level examinations

  Thousands

  Regions

  German

  French

  Spanish

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1985

  1986

  1987

  North

  0·6

  0·3

  0·5

  0·9

  0·7

  0·9

  nil

  1—

  1—

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  0·7

  0·7

  0·6

  1·6

  1·7

  1·8

  0·2

  0·2

  0·2

  North West

  0·8

  0·7

  0·8

  2·6

  2·3

  2·2

  0·4

  0·4

  0·3

  East Midlands

  0·5

  0·5

  0·5

  1·3

  1·2

  1·4

  0·1

  0·1

  0·1

  West Midlands

  0·7

  0·6

  0·6

  1·9

  1·8

  1·2

  0·2

  0·3

  0·2

  East Anglia

  0·2

  0·2

  0·3

  0·6

  0·6

  0·6

  0·1

  0·1

  1—

  Greater London

  0·7

  0·8

  0·7

  2·6

  2·2

  2·0

  0·3

  0·4

  0·3

  Other South East

  1·9

  1·8

  1·9

  5·2

  4·7

  4·8

  0·5

  0·8

  0·5

  South West

  0·8

  0·6

  0·5

  2·1

  1·7

  1·6

  0·2

  0·1

  0·2

  England2

  6·8

  6·3

  6·3

  18·8

  16·8

  16·4

  2·0

  2·2

  1·8

  1 The numbers of pupils fall below 100.

  2 Figures for England may not match the sum of those for the constituent regions owing to rounding.

  Table 2

  Numbers of school leavers obtaining an A-level pass expressed as a percentage of those who attempted the examination

  Percentages

  Regions

  German

  French

  Spanish

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1985

  1986

  1987

  North

  76·9

  72·5

  82·1

  79·9

  77·3

  82·5

  nil

  73·3

  52·8

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  90·3

  93·7

  81·0

  74·6

  73·3

  75·7

  80·1

  81·1

  76·3

  North West

  74·7

  84·5

  77·4

  73·7

  73·1

  79·3

  70·7

  84·8

  96·8

  East Midlands

  95·3

  80·5

  90·4

  79·1

  78·0

  78·0

  92·5

  84·0

  89·4

  West Midlands

  91·4

  87·5

  82·1

  77·7

  77·2

  70·0

  80·6

  87·8

  84·9

  East Anglia

  85·7

  89·8

  82·5

  80·0

  88·1

  88·1

  100·0

  100·0

  100·0

  Greater London

  88·9

  90·1

  87·3

  83·1

  84·8

  87·7

  83·9

  88·2

  92·3

  Other South East

  88·3

  92·4

  88·2

  84·4

  80·5

  85·3

  82·5

  85·6

  91·5

  South West

  87·7

  82·9

  92·2

  87·3

  78·1

  87·4

  88·1

  100·0

  94·5

  England

  86·7

  87·8

  85·3

  80·8

  78·7

  82·2

  81·7

  86·7

  90·0

  Ms. Quin
  To ask the secretary of State for Education and Science how many students have taken English, physics, chemistry, mathematics, biology and computer 220
  children of the Department's employees; what child care provision for school holidays or after school care is provided for employee's children aged five years and over; and what plans there are for increasing provision in the next five years.

  The Attorney-General
  A pilot scheme for children of school age will run from 13 to 17 February 1989 and 28 March to 7 April 1989 in London. Together with other Whitehall Departments, staff in my Departments and the Lord Chancellor's Department have been circulated with an invitation to place their children with the scheme.

  My Departments and the Lord Chancellor's Department are considering proposals to provide nursery facilities for children of pre-school age. It is likely that some nursery facilities will be in operation within the next two years.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  A-level Examinations
  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many students have taken German, French, and Spanish at A-level standard over the last three academic years; and what was the success rate in each year, showing the figures by region and in percentage and numerical terms.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The information is as follows. The figures relate to the numbers of pupils attempting A-level examinations, and the proportion who passed.

  studies at A-level standard over the last three academic

  221
  years; and what was the success rate in each year, showing all figures by standard planning region and in percentage and numerical terms.

  Table 1

  Numbers of school leavers attempting A-level examinations

  Thousands

  English

  Physics

  Chemistry

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1985

  1986

  1987

  Regions:

  North

  2·6

  2·0

  2·1

  2·2

  2·1

  2·0

  2·2

  2·0

  2·0

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  3·7

  3·7

  3·5

  3·7

  3·7

  3·2

  3·6

  3·5

  3·4

  North West

  5·5

  4·6

  4·9

  5·2

  5·3

  4·6

  4·7

  5·1

  4·8

  East Midlands

  3·4

  3·2

  3·4

  3·1

  2·8

  2·5

  2·8

  2·8

  2·5

  West Midlands

  4·6

  4·2

  4·5

  4·4

  4·1

  4·1

  4·0

  4·0

  3·9

  East Anglia

  1·6

  1·6

  1·6

  1·2

  1·3

  1·3

  1·1

  1·1

  0·9

  Greater London

  5·8

  5·2

  5·3

  4·7

  5·3

  4·5

  4·8

  4·8

  4·0

  Other South East

  11·5

  11·2

  11·8

  11·0

  9·2

  9·2

  9·1

  8·4

  7·5

  South West

  4·2

  4·1

  4·0

  3·6

  3·4

  3·1

  3·3

  3·2

  3·0

  England1

  42·9

  39·7

  41·1

  39·1

  37·1

  34·5

  35·6

  35·0

  32·0

  1 Figures for England may not match the sum of those for the constituent regions owing to rounding.

  Thousands

  Mathematics

  Biology

  Computer science

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1985

  1986

  1987

  Regions:

  North

  3·4

  3·0

  3·2

  2·1

  1·8

  1·6

  0·5

  0·5

  0·5

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  5·8

  5·7

  5·2

  3·2

  2·7

  3·1

  0·6

  0·5

  0·5

  North West

  7·7

  8·0

  7·3

  3·5

  4·1

  4·0

  0·7

  0·8

  0·5

  East Midlands

  5·1

  4·6

  4·4

  2·3

  2·6

  2·1

  0·4

  0·4

  0·4

  West Midlands

  6·0

  5·6

  5·9

  3·2

  3·3

  3·2

  0·5

  0·6

  0·4

  East Anglia

  2·4

  2·1

  2·1

  1·2

  1·2

  1·0

  0·2

  0·2

  0·1

  Greater London

  8·5

  8·6

  7·5

  4·2

  3·2

  3·3

  0·4

  0·6

  0·6

  Other South East

  18·0

  17·6

  17·6

  7·8

  7·2

  6·9

  1·3

  1·4

  1·2

  South West

  5·7

  5·6

  5·6

  3·0

  2·9

  3·0

  0·4

  0·4

  0·1

  England1

  62·5

  60·8

  58·7

  30·4

  28·9

  28·2

  5·0

  5·3

  4·3

  1 Figures for England may not match the sum of those for the constituent regions owing to rounding.

  Table 2

  Numbers of school leavers obtaining an A-level pass expressed as a percentage of those who attempted the examination

  Percentages

  English

  Physics

  Chemistry

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1985

  1986

  1987

  Regions:

  North

  77·4

  77·1

  77·7

  75·7

  76·3

  77·1

  83·5

  81·0

  78·9

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  71·4

  75·7

  71·8

  76·9

  79·7

  73·5

  79·6

  78·5

  80·9

  North West

  77·3

  78·3

  79·2

  78·6

  77·6

  72·7

  82·1

  81·1

  79·8

  East Midlands

  79·8

  80·7

  79·4

  78·8

  78·1

  80·4

  83·5

  78·5

  77·5

  West Midlands

  75·9

  81·3

  77·4

  76·4

  75·1

  75·5

  80·1

  76·9

  76·0

  East Anglia

  84·2

  84·2

  88·3

  81·6

  85·6

  75·5

  75·9

  81·7

  87·4

  Greater London

  81·1

  82·4

  83·6

  79·9

  75·3

  77·6

  78·9

  75·6

  83·3

  Other South East

  83·1

  81·7

  84·8

  81·7

  79·0

  81·1

  80·4

  78·7

  85·6

  South West

  83·6

  82·5

  86·2

  76·3

  79·7

  79·0

  78·9

  84·9

  82·9

  England

  79·8

  80·7

  81·5

  79·0

  78·0

  77·5

  80·4

  79·2

  81·5

  Numbers of school leavers obtaining an A-level pass expressed as a percentage of those who attempted the examination

  Percentages

  Mathematics

  Biology

  Computer science

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1985

  1986

  1987

  Regions

  North

  77·2

  77·7

  78·1

  70·3

  73·3

  82·3

  67·2

  85·2

  86·3

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  72·9

  74·6

  74·6

  70·1

  73·0

  76·2

  71·1

  76·7

  66·5

  North West

  76·4

  74·1

  71·6

  81·3

  72·7

  77·5

  80·2

  66·3

  84·6

  East Midlands

  76·1

  72·3

  74·5

  77·8

  71·5

  74·4

  93·6

  59·8

  79·0

  West Midlands

  75·1

  74·8

  75·2

  75·3

  73·2

  77·6

  85·7

  68·1

  57·1

  East Anglia

  75·0

  78·8

  75·6

  75·3

  81·3

  85·8

  73·5

  87·1

  84·7

  Greater London

  75·4

  76·6

  74·5

  79·0

  76·4

  76·2

  87·2

  66·5

  73·4

  Other South East

  81·2

  78·6

  79·5

  78·7

  78·0

  77·6

  80·7

  84·3

  83·0

  South West

  75·6

  81·4

  74·0

  78·0

  72·4

  76·6

  79·4

  75·0

  83·1

  England

  77·1

  76·8

  75·9

  76·9

  74·8

  77·5

  79·7

  74·8

  77·3

  222
  Mrs. Rumbold
  The information is as follows. The figures relate to the numbers of pupils attempting A-level examinations, and the proportion who passed.

  Education (No. 2) Act 1986
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many local education authorities have implemented section 58 of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  All local education authorities in England and Wales are subject to section 58, which empowers an LEA to pay travelling and subsistence allowances to governors of schools and establishments of further education, in accordance with the provisions of a scheme made by it.

  I do not have any information about the number of authorities which have implemented schemes.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what assistance the Government will give to local education authorities not opposed to section 58 of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The fact that an LEA may decide not to introduce a scheme for the payment of travelling and subsistence allowances does not mean that it is "opposed" to the section. It merely shows that the LEA has chosen to give priority to other areas of expenditure, which may, in the circumstances of the particular LEA, be entirely proper.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he has any plans to make mandatory the powers under section 58 of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  We believe that it should be for local education authorities, in determining their expenditure priorities, to decide whether to introduce a scheme for the payment of travelling and subsistence allowances to governors.

  We hope, nevertheless, that LEAs will provide allowances where not to do so would cause genuine hardship or would discourage people from becoming governors.

  Open University
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement about the membership of the Open university visiting committee.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  I have appointed Mr. Kenneth Dixon, the chairman of Rowntree plc, to be chairman-designate of the committee. He will take over as chairman on 1 January 1990.

  I am most grateful to Sir Austin Bide, who has been chairman of the visiting committee since it was set up in 1982. My predecessor and I have benefited greatly from the committee's advice and from its thorough analysis of the problems and opportunities which the Open university has faced over the years. I take this opportunity to thank Sir Austin for his enormous contribution in establishing the committee so successfully.

  I have also appointed Professor Michael Hart, professor of physics at Manchester university and Mr. Chris Tipple, director of education for Northumberland, to be members of the committee for three years, until December 1991.

ENERGY

  British Coal (Survey)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will list the pits that have been involved in British Coal's market research survey carried out by Research Services of Wembley; the number of interviews carried out and the nature of the questions asked; when the results will be made public and if he will make a statement as to whether this research has been undertaken in preparation for the privatisation of the coal industry.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  This is a management matter for the British Coal Corporation, and I have asked the chairman to write to the hon. Member.

  Coal Reserves
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will give his Department's latest estimate of coal reserves in Great Britain.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The British Coal Corporation is responsible for making any assessments of coal reserves. I will ask the chairman to write to the hon. Member.

  Mining Industry (Scotland)
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (1) if he will list each deep-mined colliery in Scotland, giving details of the rates paid by each colliery to its local authority;

  (2) how many jobs have been lost in the Scottish mining industry since 1984; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) if he will give the number of employees at British Coal headquarters in Edinburgh each year from 1984 to date; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  These are matters for the British Coal Corporation, and I have asked the chairman to write to the hon. Member.

  Nuclear Power Industry (Vetting Policy)
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his policy towards the vetting of prospective employees working at British Nuclear Fuels plc and the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The security procedures of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority and British Nuclear Fuels plc towards prospective employees are similar to those employed in the Civil Service for comparable positions.

  VAT
  Mr. Heddle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will initiate discussions with(a) the chairman of British Gas and (b) other bodies within his Department's responsibility about the effect of the imposition of value added tax on non-domestic construction work following the decision of the European Court on 21 June 1988, including the effect on partnership schemes to redevelop redundant inner city land with the private sector.

  Mr. Parkinson
  I refer my hon. Friend to the statement made by the Economic Secretary to the Treasury on 21
  225
  June 1988 at columns 957–58. Customs and Excise has consulted interested parties on how the judgment of the European Court could be best applied. Action to protect public sector construction programmes, by allowing where necessary compensating adjustments to the relevant central Government expenditure provision, has already been taken in consultation with relevant bodies.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  VAT
  Mr. Gregory
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the estimate of the tax yield if value added tax was imposed at 25 per cent. on those goods which were formerly taxed at this rate under purchase tax; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lilley
  I regret that information is not readily available at the level of detail required.

  Tax Revenue
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the additional revenue to the Exchequer in (i) 1989–90 and (ii) a full year if(a) there were a 5 per cent. increase in duties on cigarettes, tobacco and alcoholic drinks, (b) value added tax were levied on new construction at 15 per cent., (c) the taxable benefit of company cars were increased by 25 per cent. and (d) mortgage interest relief were limited to the standard rate of tax.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  (a) It is estimated that the net additional revenue yield from a 5 per cent. increase in the duties on cigarettes, tobacco and alcoholic drinks would be £355 million in 1989–90 and £385 million in a full year;

  (b) It is estimated that, if value added tax were levied on new construction, both domestic and non-domestic, at 15 per cent., the net additional revenue yield from the private sector would be £1,280 million in 1989–90, and £1,670 million in a full year. Because of the uncertainties involved in estimating the effects of such a change, particularly on the housing market, the figures should be taken as no more than a general indicator of the additional revenue which would accrue;

  (c) It is estimated that the revenue yield from a 25 per cent. increase in the scale charges for company cars would be £120 million in 1989–90 and £140 million in a full year;

  (d) It would be premature to provide an estimate for 1989–90 of the additional revenue from the restriction of mortgage interest relief to the basic rate, since the yield will depend on the amount of mortgage lending and the level of interest rates as well as on the 1989–90 income tax rates and bands. The revenue yield in a full year at 1988–89 levels of lending, interest rates and tax rates would be £330 million.

  Wages and Tax
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the average wage(a) for the United Kingdom and (b) in the Nottingham area; and what is the total tax burden in each case for each of the years from 1979 to date.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The information requested for Great Britain was provided to my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire) on 10 January 1989 at 226
  columns 633–56. Data for average earnings in Nottinghamshire are available for April each year in the new earnings survey. They are as follows, with estimates of the implied burden of income tax and NICs. No data are available which would permit any estimates of the burden of indirect taxes to be made.

  Income tax and NICs as percentage of average earnings

  April

  Average earnings (£ per week)

  Single person

  Married man, no children

  1978

  88·50

  31·1

  27·2

  1979

  101·50

  29·2

  25·5

  1980

  122·60

  30·3

  26·7

  1981

  138·40

  32·0

  28·8

  1982

  147·80

  32·6

  29·2

  1983

  158·40

  32·5

  28·8

  1984

  164·30

  32·0

  27·9

  1985

  174·70

  31·7

  27·6

  1986

  194·40

  31·3

  27·5

  1987

  210·20

  30·0

  26·6

  1988

  227·30

  28·5

  25·3

  Notes:

  1. Average earnings are taken to be the average gross weekly earnings of all full-time males on adult rates with pay unaffected by absence in Nottinghamshire.

  2. Income tax payments are calculated on the assumption that the tax units have no other tax reliefs apart from the standard allowances. Earners are assumed to pay class 1 NI contributions at the contracted in rate. The figures for NI contributions are financial year averages.

  European Monetary System
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will list the factors other than the prevailing exchange rates which will be taken into account in judging when the time is right for Britain to join the exchange rate mechanism of the European monetary system.

  Mr. Lilley
  All relevant factors will be taken into account.

  GNP
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of the gross national product has gone to the Exchequer since 1979; where this came from; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Major
  Information on taxes and social security contributions as a percentage of gross national product is published each year in "The United Kingdom National Accounts" (table 15.7 in the 1988 edition). The publication is available in the Library of the House.

  IMF (Meetings)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many meetings he has had with the International Monetary Fund since becoming Chancellor; and if he will give the dates of such meetings and the topics discussed.

  Mr. Lilley
  Since becoming Chancellor, my right hon. Friend has attended 10 meetings of the International Monetary Fund—including the interim committee, development committee, and in the autumn, the joint annual meetings of the IMF and World bank—on the following occasions:

  25–30 September 1983;

  12–13 April 1984;

  227

  22–27 September 1984;

  17–19 April 1985;

  9–11 April 1986;

  28 September—3 October 1986;

  9–10 April 1987;

  27 September—1 October 1987;

  14–15 April 1988;

  25–29 September 1988.

  The discussions have covered a wide range of subjects summarised in the communiqués of the interim and development committees, copies of which have been deposited in the House of Commons Library.

  VAT and Car Tax
  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the revenue or duty received by Her Majesty's Government in the last financial year from value added tax and car tax, as applicable on(a) mopeds, (b) small motorcycles and (c) cars of 1,000 cc or under.

  Mr. Lilley
  I regret that information is not available at the level of detail required.

  BP (Shares)
  Mr. Colin Shepherd
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what will be the effect on his estimates of public sector debt repayment and of privatisation proceeds of the purchase by the British Petroleum Company plc of 790 million of its shares currently owned by the Kuwait Investment Office.

  Mr. Lawson
  At their extraordinary general meeting on 31 January 1989, the shareholders of BP approved the purchase of 790 million of BP shares from the KIO. Following the purchase, these shares will be cancelled and the KIO's holding will be reduced to 9·9 per cent. of BP's issued share capital, as recommended by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.

  The KIO will pay the final instalment of £830 million on these shares in March rather than on the due date of 27 April 1989 and will be issued with share certificates forthwith. The Treasury has agreed to these arrangements
  228
  because the powers available to BP to purchase its own shares apply only to fully-paid shares and not to partly-paid shares or shares held in the form of interim rights.

  Following the KIO's payment, the public sector debt repayment in 1988–89 will be £830 million higher than otherwise. There is no other effect on the PSDR in 1988–89. BP will be liable to advance corporation tax on the purchase and it has stated that the KIO is entitled to an equivalent tax credit from the Inland Revenue. BP can offset this ACT against its future corporation tax bill, but only if its United Kingdom taxable income is high enough in the years ahead. The cost of any such offset would in any event be far less than the gains from the Government's decision in October 1987 to proceed with the sale of shares in BP at the underwritten price of 330p

  The present estimate of £6·1 billion privatisation proceeds in 1988–89 will be increased to approximately £6·9 billion. There is some flexibility on the timing of privatisation receipts, and the central estimate of total proceeds remains at £5 billion for 1989–90.

  Executive Agencies
  Mr. Hayward
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the provisions of the Government Trading Funds Act 1973 will be applied to next steps executive agencies.

  Mr. Major
  Trading funds can already be created for agencies which meet the requirements in the Government Trading Funds Act 1973. However, some bodies including those which are directed by statute to provide a service and where the fees are fixed by regulation, are at present outside the scope of the 1973 Act. Some agencies which are at present outside its scope would be able to operate more efficiently under the more commercial regime. We therefore propose to bring forward legislation at the earliest opportunity so that trading or agency funds will be available in such cases. This change would add significantly to the range of financial regimes available to agencies and make a significant contribution to the implementation of the Government's next steps policy.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Recipient Countries
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what information is available to his Department country by country on life expectancy rates in those countries that are actual or potential recipients of British overseas aid.

  Expectation of life at birth (years)

  Deaths per 1000 live births

  Males

  Females

  Infants under 1 year old

  Children under5 years old

  Europe

  Cyprus

  72·3

  77·0

  16·5

  17

  Gibraltar

  71·2

  78·1

  9·8

  —

  Greece

  72·2

  76·4

  12·3

  18

  Malta

  70·8

  76·0

  13·6

  —

  Portugal

  68·4

  75·2

  17·8

  22

  Turkey

  60·0

  63·3

  92·1

  104

  Yugoslavia

  67·7

  73·2

  27·3

  31

  Africa—North of the Sahara

  Algeria

  58·5

  61·4

  88·0

  117

  Egypt

  56·8

  59·5

  70·5

  136

  Libya

  56·6

  60·0

  96·5

  130

  Morocco

  56·6

  60·0

  96·5

  130

  Tunisia

  60·1

  61·1

  85·3

  110

  Africa—South of the Sahara

  Angola

  40·4

  43·6

  148·5

  242

  Benin

  42·4

  45·6

  120·1

  193

  Botswana

  52·7

  59·3

  76·2

  99

  Burkina Faso

  43·7

  46·8

  150·3

  245

  Burundi

  44·9

  48·1

  124·1

  200

  Cameroon

  49·2

  52·6

  103·2

  162

  Cape Verde

  59·0

  61·0

  76·5

  95

  Central African Republic

  41·4

  44·6

  142·0

  232

  Chad

  41·4

  44·6

  142·8

  232

  Comoros

  48·3

  51·7

  88·3

  135

  Congo

  44·9

  48·1

  81·1

  122

  Djibouti

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Equatorial Guinea

  42·4

  45·6

  137·3

  223

  Ethiopia

  39·3

  42·5

  154·9

  257

  Gabon

  47·4

  50·7

  111·9

  178

  Gambia

  33·5

  36·5

  174·1

  292

  Ghana

  50·3

  53·8

  98·3

  153

  Guinea

  38·7

  41·8

  159·1

  259

  Guinea-Bissau

  41·4

  44·6

  1428

  232

  Ivory Coast

  48·8

  52·2

  109·9

  157

  Kenya

  51·2

  54·7

  80·2

  121

  Lesotho

  46·3

  52·3

  111·1

  144

  Liberia

  47·4

  50·7

  132·5

  215

  Madagascar

  48·9

  50·4

  67·0

  97

  Malawi

  38·1

  41·2

  130·0

  275

  Mali

  46·9

  49·7

  120·9

  302

  Mauritania

  42·4

  45·6

  137·3

  223

  Mauritius

  64·4

  71·2

  26·3

  32

  Mayotte

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Mozambique

  44·4

  46·2

  153·5

  252

  Namibia

  46·6

  49·9

  115·6

  —

  Niger

  40·9

  44·1

  145·7

  237

  Nigeria

  46·9

  50·2

  114·2

  182

  Reunion

  65·5

  74·0

  13·1

  —

  Rwanda

  45·1

  47·7

  132·0

  214

  St. Helena

  —

  —

  29·7

  —

  Sao Tome and Principe

  —

  —

  61·7

  —

  Senegal

  41·7

  44·9

  142·2

  231

  Seychelles

  66·2

  73·5

  17·4

  —

  Sierra Leone

  32·5

  35·5

  179·5

  302

  Somalia

  39·3

  42·5

  154·9

  257

  Sudan

  46·6

  49·0

  117·8

  187

  Swaziland

  46·9

  50·2

  129·2

  182

  Tanzania

  49·3

  52·7

  114·8

  183

  Togo

  48·8

  52·2

  102·3

  160

  230
  (2) what information is available to his Department country by country on child mortality rates in those countries that are actual or potential recipients of British overseas aid.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Information on life expectancy and infant mortality rates is included in the "United Nations Demographic Yearbook" for 1986, published in 1988. Information on child mortality is included in the UNICEF report on "The State of the World's Children", 1987, also published in 1988. The rates for all developing countries are given in the following table.
  231

  Expectation of life at birth (years)

  Deaths per 1000 live births

  Males

  Females

  Infants under 1 year old

  Children under5 years old

  Uganda

  47·4

  50·7

  111·9

  178

  Zaire

  48·3

  51·7

  107·3

  170

  Zambia

  49·6

  53·1

  88·3

  135

  Zimbabwe

  54·0

  57·6

  80·2

  121

  America—North and Central

  Anguilla

  —

  —

  33·9

  —

  Antigua

  —

  —

  7·7

  —

  Bahamas

  —

  —

  26·4

  —

  Barbados

  67·2

  72·5

  13·1

  16

  Belize

  —

  —

  21·5

  —

  Bermuda

  68·8

  76·3

  7·1

  —

  Cayman Islands

  —

  —

  10·9

  —

  Costa Rica

  70·5

  75·7

  18·9

  23

  Cuba

  72·7

  76·1

  13·6

  19

  Dominica

  —

  —

  19·6

  —

  Dominican Republic

  60·7

  64·6

  74·5

  88

  El Salvador

  62·6

  67·1

  35·1

  91

  Grenada

  —

  —

  15·4

  —

  Guadeloupe

  66·4

  72·4

  15·3

  —

  Guatemala

  55·1

  59·4

  56·0

  109

  Haiti

  51·2

  54·4

  127·8

  180

  Honduras

  53·4

  56·9

  81·5

  116

  Jamaica

  70·3

  75·7

  10·0

  25

  Martinique

  67·0

  73·5

  14·1

  —

  Mexico

  62·1

  66·0

  53·0

  73

  Montserrat

  —

  —

  7·7

  —

  Netherlands Antilles

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Nicaragua

  58·7

  61·0

  76·4

  104

  Panama

  69·2

  72·9

  25·6

  35

  St. Kitts—Nevis

  —

  —

  27·8

  —

  St. Lucia

  67·3

  73·1

  17·6

  —

  St. Pierre et Miquelon

  —

  —

  —

  —

  St. Vincent

  —

  —

  26·5

  —

  Trinidad and Tobago

  66·9

  71·6

  12·7

  26

  Turks and Caicos Islands

  —

  —

  24·5

  —

  Virgin Islands (Br)

  —

  —

  12·2

  —

  America—South

  Argentina

  65·5

  72·7

  35·3

  40

  Bolivia

  48·6

  53·0

  124.4

  184

  Brazil

  60·9

  66·0

  70·6

  91

  Chile

  61·3

  67·6

  19·5

  26

  Colombia

  61·4

  66·0

  50·0

  72

  Ecuador

  59·5

  61·8

  69·5

  92

  Falkland Islands

  —

  —

  —

  —

  French Guiana

  —

  —

  20·1

  —

  Guyana

  65·8

  70·8

  36·2

  41

  Paraguay

  62·8

  67·5

  45·0

  64

  Peru

  56·8

  60·5

  98·6

  133

  Suriname

  65·6

  70·6

  36·2

  41

  Uruguay

  65·7

  72·4

  30·4

  32

  Venezuela

  64·9

  70·7

  26·1

  45

  Asia—Middle East

  Bahrain

  65·9

  68·9

  31·6

  35

  Iran

  55·8

  55·0

  108·1

  —

  Iraq

  61·5

  63·3

  77·1

  101

  Israel

  73·1

  76·6

  11·4

  16

  Jordan

  64·6

  71·0

  54·1

  65

  Kuwait

  69·6

  73·7

  18·5

  25

  Lebanon

  63·1

  67·0

  48·0

  56

  Oman

  51·0

  53·7

  117·2

  172

  Qatar

  65·4

  69·8

  37·8

  43

  Saudi Arabia

  59·2

  62·7

  66·1

  109

  Syria

  63·8

  64·7

  58·8

  71

  United Arab Emirates

  65·4

  69·8

  37·8

  43

  Yemen

  46·9

  49·9

  134·9

  210

  Yemen (Democratic)

  46·9

  49·9

  134·9

  210

  Asia—South

  Afghanistan

  36·6

  37·3

  181·6

  329

  Bangladesh

  55·3

  54·4

  128·2

  196

  Bhutan

  46·6

  45·1

  138·7

  206

  Burma

  55·8

  59·3

  70·0

  91

  India

  55·6

  55·2

  104·9

  158

  232 233

  Expectation of life at birth (years)

  Deaths per 1000 live births

  Males

  Females

  Infants under 1 year old

  Children under 5 years old

  Maldives

  53·4

  49·5

  57·5

  —

  Nepal

  50·9

  48·1

  138·7

  206

  Pakistan

  59·0

  59·2

  94·5

  174

  Sri Lanka

  67·8

  71·7

  30·5

  48

  Asia—Far East

  Brunei

  70·1

  72·7

  12·0

  —

  China

  66·7

  68·9

  39·3

  50

  Hong Kong

  73·8

  79·2

  7·5

  II

  Indonesia

  522

  54·9

  84·4

  126

  Kampuchea

  42·0

  44·9

  159·9

  216

  Korea (DPR)

  64·6

  71·0

  29·7

  35

  Korea (Republic)

  62·7

  69·1

  29·7

  35

  Laos

  48·3

  51·2

  122·5

  170

  Macao

  —

  —

  12·6

  —

  Malaysia

  67·6

  72·7

  17·0

  38

  Mongolia

  60·0

  64·1

  53·0

  64

  Philippines

  60·2

  63·7

  50·6

  78

  Singapore

  68·7

  74·0

  9·1

  12

  Taiwan

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Thailand

  57·6

  61·6

  47·5

  55

  Timor

  39·2

  40·7

  183·3

  —

  Viet Nam

  56·7

  61·1

  75·8

  98

  Oceania

  Cook Islands

  63·2

  67·I

  8·1

  —

  Fiji

  67·0

  71·0

  18·5

  34

  Kiribati

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Nauru

  —

  —

  19·0

  —

  New Caledonia

  71·0

  76·8

  16·8

  —

  Niue Island

  —

  —

  —

  Pacific Islands (United States)

  —

  —

  23·2

  —

  Papua New Guinea

  51·2

  537

  74·4

  94

  Pitcairn Island

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Polynesia, French

  —

  —

  20·5

  —

  Solomon Islands

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Tokelau Islands

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Tonga

  —

  —

  5·0

  —

  Tuvala

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Vanuatu

  —

  —

  —

  75

  Wallis and Futuna

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Western Samoa

  61·0

  64·3

  33·0

  —

  Sources:

  Life expectancy at birth and infant mortality are taken from the UN Demographic Yearbook for 1986, published in 1988.

  Child mortality statistics are taken from a report by UNICEF called The State of the World's Children 1987, also published in 1988.

  Data is the most recent that is readily available.

  Data that is not available is shown by—.

  Note:

  The list of countries is taken from the Development Assistance Committee's list of Developing Countries.

  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information is available to his Department for each of those countries that are actual or potential recipients of British overseas aid as to the numbers of people who would be considered to be in a state of starvation or semi-starvation by international bodies such as the World Health Organisation.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Few developing countries have nutritional monitoring systems. Statistics on nutritional status are therefore unreliable. The United Nations sub-committee on nutrition has used data from many sources to produce the world nutrition situation report, which provides a regional perspective on nutritional status. The World Bank also publishes national estimations of daily per capita calorie supply as a percentage of calorie requirement. This gives an indication of the proportion of people in any country who have too few calories to maintain health.

  Southern Africa
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what new initiatives he will propose at the coming meeting of the Southern Africa Development Co-ordination Conference in Angola.

  Mrs. Chalker
  My hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development will be attending the annual donors meeting of the Southern Africa Development Co-ordination Conference in Angola on 2–3 February. An announcement will be made shortly on the contents of his statement.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Nursing Staff
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many nursing staff at all levels are employed in Downshire hospital, Downpatrick; how
  235
  many of these staff have been advised of their new grades under clinical grading review; and how many appeals have been received.

  Mr. Needham
  There are 474 nursing staff employed in Downshire hospital Downpatrick all of whom have been advised of their new grades. Informal review of grades was requested by 180 staff, of whom 14 initiated this review by using the formal grievance form.

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many nursing staff at all levels are employed in Downe hospital, Downpatrick; how many of these staff have been advised of their new grades under the clinical grading review; and how many appeals have been received.

  Mr. Needham
  There are 117 nursing staff employed in Downe hospital, Downpatrick all of whom have been

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  Full-time students1

  Stranmillis

  Advanced Certificate

  18

  24

  16

  9

  Nil

  DASE

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  7

  St. Mary's2

  Advanced Certificate

  Nil

  Nil

  7

  6

  Nil

  DASE

  4

  6

  7

  7

  14

  Part-time students

  Stranmillis

  New Starts DASE

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  201

  New Starts Advanced Certificate

  Nil

  Nil

  25

  10

  Nil

  Carry over Advanced Certificate

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  25

  10

  St. Mary's2

  New Starts DASE

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  16

  New Starts Advanced Certificate

  3

  2

  13

  Nil

  Nil

  Carry over Advanced Certificate

  3

  3

  Nil

  13

  Nil

  1 A further 58 students are undertaking modular courses which could lead either to the DASE or the Advanced Certificate.

  2 The numbers for St. Joseph's College of Education are included with St. Mary's for 1983–84 and 1984–85. The colleges amalgamated on 1 September 1985 to form St. Mary's College·

  Theatre Sisters
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the hospitals in Northern Ireland where no theatre sisters' posts have been regraded under the new grading structures and the number of theatre sisters who have not received a regrading.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 27 January 1989]All theatre sisters' posts in Northern Ireland have been regraded under the clinical grading review.

  Strip Searches
  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many strip searches were made of female prisoners in Her Majesty's prisons Armagh and Maghaberry in each year for which information is

  Number of Searches

  1983 (April-December)

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  Total number of searches carried out

  701

  355

  490

  463

  408

  336

  Reasons for Search

  First admission on remand/ awaiting trial

  51

  51

  82

  81

  77

  82

  First admission on sentence/ final discharge

  68

  118

  164

  199

  219

  177

  236
  advised of their new grades. Informal review of grades was requested by 38 staff, of whom 25 initiated this review by using the formal grievance form.

  Student Numbers
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what were the student numbers in the diploma in the advanced study of education in each of the years 1983–84 to 1987–88 in(a) Stranmillis college of education and (b) St. Mary's college of education, Belfast.

  Mr. Needham
  Before 1985–86, colleges of education offered the advanced certificate in education. From that year, it has been gradually replaced by the diploma in the advanced study of education.

  The numbers of full and part-time students receiving support from the Department of Education for Northern Ireland for either course are as follows:

  available up to and including 1988, giving the number of times each person was searched, if any prison contraband, smuggled item or illegal correspondence was discovered in any search, including which items; in how many cases prisoners refused to be searched and had to be restrained while the search was being conducted; and what were the reasons for the search under each of the following headings (a) making a remand appearance at a trial, (b) attending trial, (c) inter-prison visit and (d) other reasons.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  [holding answer 31 January 1989]Details of the numbers of, and reasons for, strip searches made of female prisoners in Her Majesty's prisons. Armagh and Maghaberry were first recorded in April 1983. Information on the number of times each prisoner was searched could be provided only at disproportionate cost. The remaining information requested is as follows:
  237

  Number of Searches

  1983 (April·December)

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  Attending Remand Court

  84

  31

  19

  34

  25

  2

  Attending Trial

  50

  5

  8

  6

  1

  —

  Attendance Court for Appeal

  11

  2

  I

  9

  4

  —

  Attendance Court for Bail

  50

  47

  56

  66

  33

  1

  Pre-release home leave scheme

  126

  66

  63

  39

  31

  53

  Compassionate home leave

  —

  —

  8

  4

  2

  —

  Inter·prison visits

  22

  30

  10

  16

  11

  8

  Visits to outside hospital

  1

  2

  8

  8

  2

  5

  Pre-release programme (Lifers)

  232

  —

  66

  —

  —

  —

  Attendance Court/Police Station (Sect. 16 Prison Act (NI) 1953)

  6

  —

  5

  1

  —

  —

  Bail paid

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Temporary release (Sect. 18Prison Rules (NI) 1982)

  —

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  General Search of Prison

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Fines Paid

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  After a Visit

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  5

  Items Discovered

  Occasions when items discovered

  14

  —

  21

  —

  —

  —

  Refusals

  Number of prisoners searched after refusing to be searched

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1 Items included drugs, perfume, money and correspondence.

  2 Drugs.

THE ARTS

  Georgian Theatre, Richmond, Yorks
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what assistance his Department will be providing to Richmond council and the Yorkshire Arts Association to keep open the Georgian theatre at Richmond, North Yorkshire; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Luce
  The Georgian theatre at Richmond receives regular funding from Yorkshire Arts and from all three local authorities: North Yorkshire county council, Richmond shire district council and Richmond town council. I understand that the theatre management has plans to improve the level of private funding.

CIVIL SERVICE

  Next Steps
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what progress is being made with the next steps initiative; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Luce
  The next steps initiative is making good progress. The responsible Ministers have now established the first three agencies, and another 30 (plus three in the Northern Ireland Civil Service) have been announced as candidates. These are listed. Together they cover nearly 200,000 people, or about one third of the Civil Service. I expect at least four more to be set up before the summer recess; these are likely to include the resettlement units, the employment service, the QE II conference centre and, in my own Department, the Civil Service college. The project manager is continuing his review of Departments' activities, against the Government's decision that to the greatest extent practicable the executive functions of Government should be carried out by agencies.

  As the House knows, the purpose of next steps is to improve management in the Civil Service. It enables the Minister responsible for each agency to define more clearly
  238
  the objectives and tasks required for the execution of policies, and the resources within which this must be done. People in agencies will be better able to tailor management structures and practices to the specific needs of their work, will have better defined jobs and objectives, and greater personal responsibility and accountability for achieving them. The aim is better value for money and better service to the public.

  As the Government said in their reply to the Treasury and Civil Service Committee in November, they share the Committee's view that decentralised agencies offer scope for delegating more responsibility to managers for operational matters. The actions we have already taken since the announcement of the initiative by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister demonstrate the importance that we attach to ensuring that this should take place to the greatest extent possible, within a framework governing the agency's operations. On 10 November my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury announced, following a recommendation of the TCSC and after consultation with the Public Accounts Committee, that agency chief executives would take on significant accounting officer responsibilities. In a further development, aimed at permitting a more commercial regime in suitable cases, my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury has today announced that the Government will seek legislation at the earliest opportunity to amend the Government Trading Funds Act 1973 to apply also to agencies through the medium of agency funds.

  The action plan to secure improved management training which the project manager has drawn up is now being implemented in Departments, and good progress is being made. This is helped by the £1 million challenge funding scheme which we announced in November and which is now coming into effect.

  Executive agencies established

  Vehicle Inspectorate

  Companies House

  Her Majesty's Stationery Office

  Executive agency candidates announced

  Building Research Establishment

  239

  Business Statistics Office

  Civil Service College

  Civil Service Occupational Health Service

  Crown Suppliers Fuel Branch

  Defence Non-Nuclear Research Establishments

  Department of Registers of Scotland

  Driver and Vehicle Licensing Directorate

  Driver Testing and Training

  Employment Service

  Historic Buildings and Monuments Directorate, Scottish Office

  Historic Royal Palaces

  Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce

  Insolvency Service

  Laboratory of the Government Chemist

  Land Registry

  Meteorological Office

  National Physical Laboratory

  National Weights and Measures Laboratory

  Passport Department

  Patent Office

  Planning Inspectorate

  QEII Conference Centre

  Radiocommunications Division, DTI

  Resettlement Units

  Royal Parks

  Social Security Operations

  Training Agency

  Vehicle Component Approval Division, DTp

  Warren Springs Laboratory

  Northern Ireland Civil Service:

  Employment and Training Services, Agricultural Research

  Establishments, Social Security Operations

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Slaughterhouses
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are the major differences between current United Kingdom and EEC standards for slaughterhouses; and what are the major differences between current United Kingdom and United States Department of Agriculture standards for slaughterhouses.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  EC legislation on red meat slaughterhouse standards applies to plants in member states which engage in intra-Community trade. At present, the United Kingdom and other member states set rigorous standards for plants which supply only their national markets. Hygiene requirements and meat inspection procedures in the United States do not differ significantly from our own domestic legislation; however EC and United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) rules on construction and layout are more closely specified and detailed. Flexibility in these respects is possible for domestic production where current monitoring of operations and enforcement are in the hands of local enforcement authorities. In fact one significant difference is that we depend largely on environmental health officers in domestic plants but EC and USDA rules require veterinary supervision in export plants.

  EC legislation on poultry meat slaughterhouse standards applies to all licensed poultry slaughterhouses in the UK. There are no major differences between that legislation and USDA requirements.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what guidance he has given to local environmental health officers in their supervision of slaughterhouses; what standards he expects them to ensure in those slaughterhouses; what letters, circulars, or other representations he has made to local authorities about 240
  slaughterhouses in the last two years; and what requests he has made to local authorities for monitoring reports on slaughterhouse standards and for returns of human and financial resources applied to slaughterhouse supervision.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Environmental health officers (EHOs) are employed by local authorities which have responsibility for enforcing slaughterhouse hygiene and inspection standards required by:The Slaughterhouses (Hygiene) Regulations 1977 as amended; The Meat Inspection Regulations 1987; and The Fresh Meat Export (Hygiene and Inspection) Regulations 1987.

  Ministry veterinary officers visit all slaughterhouses to monitor standards and to give advice and guidance tailored to the circumstances of individual premises. This advice and guidance is confirmed by letter to the local authority concerned.

  The resources employed are a matter for local authorities. Returns are not collected. We have the highest regard for EHOs and their professionalism.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what standards of hygiene, equipment, maintenance, personnel training, waste disposal and the comfort and handling of animals are applied to slaughterhouses; and what additional standards are required by the European Community Commission for meat exported to the European Economic Community.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The standards relating to hygiene, inspection, equipment, maintenance, waste disposal and animal welfare which must be observed in slaughterhouses are laid down in:

  The Slaughterhouses Act 1974;

  The Slaughterhouses (Hygiene) Regulations 1977 (as amended);

  The Meat Inspection Regulations 1987;

  The Authorised Officers (Meat Inspection) Regulations 1987;

  The Meat (Sterilisation and Staining) Regulations 1982 (as amended);

  The Slaughter of Animals (Prevention of Cruelty) Regulations 1958; and

  The Slaughter of Pigs (Anaesthesia) Regulations 1958.

  Training of slaughterhouse personnel is a matter for the industry and the nationwide scheme run by the Institute of Meat is recognised by the National Council for Vocational Qualifications.

  In addition, meat for intra-Community trade must comply with the conditions of the Fresh Meat Export (Hygiene and Inspection) Regulations 1987. These implement EC directive 64/433 on intra-Community trade in fresh meat and require that meat is produced in premises approved by my Department as meeting the detailed requirements as to structure and layout which those regulations require. Supervision and certification by an official veterinary surgeon is also required. This is not an additional requirement but a different one; domestic slaughterhouses rely largely on environmental health officers whose professional status is of the highest order.

  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate his Department has made of the number of qualified veterinary surgeons required to operate a system of meat hygiene in abattoirs at a level comparable to standards currently in existence in Norway and Germany.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  I do not accept that the presence of veterinary surgeons is essential to guarantee
  241
  satisfactory standards of hygiene in abattoirs. Our arrangements for non-exporting plants, operating under the supervision of environmental health officers, are capble of ensuring satisfactory standards.

  Food Poisoning
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to increase expenditure on measures that would help to limit the incidence of food poisoning.

  Mr. Ryder
  The Government have a series of measures to tackle the salmonella problem. Provisions will be made for the resources necessary to implement them. In addition the joint MAFF/Department of Health national food hygiene education campaign will be launched early this year.

  Rats
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he is investigating the causes of the increase in rats in urban and rural areas; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ryder
  [holding answer 31 January 1989]The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food does not have responsibility for rats in urban areas, but the Department maintains an extensive research programme to ensure continued efficiency of rat control in rural areas. Work is not directed at monitoring rural populations.

  Tourism
  Mr. Gregory
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much financial assistance has been given by his Department towards tourism for each year since 1983; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ryder
  Under the agricultural improvement scheme introduced in 1985 grants for tourism and craft facilities were available in the less-favoured areas. The farm diversification grant scheme, introduced in January 1988 extended the list of eligible activities and offered grants of 25 per cent. on capital investments both inside and outside the LFA. Over two thirds of applications under that scheme have been for tourism and recreation projects. Grant approved for craft and tourism and farm diversification projects in England has been:

  £

  1986

  161,293

  1987

  186,181

  1988

  2,587,902

  In addition, the Agricultural Development and Advisory Service has continued to offer free general advice to individuals and to marketing groups such as the Farm Holiday Bureau.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action his Department took to prevent distribution of animal feed contaminated with salmonella from those protein processing plants identified as being contaminated by salmonella during 1987 and 1988.

  Mr. Ryder
  [holding answer 30 January 1989]My official have routinely inspected all protein processing 242
  plants to monitor their compliance with the requirements of the Protein Processing Order 1981 and, when salmonella has been found in samples of their product, notices have been served on the plant requiring compliance with the bacteriological standard within a time limit. In all cases resampling has been carried out until a salmonella-free product has been produced. A new statutory provision to stop the supply of products from processing plants where salmonella is found, is being made today.

  Mr. Lord
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the action he is taking on salmonella in eggs.

  Mr. Ryder
  [pursuant to the reply, 18 January 1989, c. 214]An order has now been made giving powers to Ministry inspectors to prevent movement of processed animal protein out of premises where salmonella contamination has been detected by testing samples of the product. The order is an amendment to the Diseases of Animals (Protein Processing) Order 1981.

  Hormones
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many cases of illegal use of steroid growth promoting hormones to fatten cattle have been reported to him in each of his Department's regions in 1987 and 1988; and in how many cases fines were levied.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Four cases of suspected illegal use of hormone growth promoters, all in Wales, were investigated by officers of the Ministry's legal department in 1988. In one case it was established that treatment took place before the hormone ban was introduced. In the other three cases the evidence was not conclusive enough to warrant prosecutions.

  Pesticides
  Mr. McTaggart
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are the Government's future proposals with regard to the implementation of joint research programmes involving the agrochemical industry into the factors influencing contamination of land and water supplies by pesticides.

  Mr. Ryder
  Following the Autumn Statement by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer my Department announced extra funding of £2 million in 1990–91 rising to £5 million in 1991–92 for strategic arid public good research in a number of areas within its responsibilities including protection of the environment. We are currently preparing programmes internally and will be taking into account the opportunity to involve industry in joint programmes where this is appropriate.

  British Food and Farming Year
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on what Her Majesty's Government are doing to support the 1989 British Food and Farming Year; and how this fits in with the European Community common agricultural policy.

  Mr. Ryder
  The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has assisted in the planning of British Food and Farming Year from the outset. It is taking part in many of
  243
  the year's special events including the Hyde Park festival in May where there will be a major exhibition relating to the Ministry's work over the last 100 years.

  The year will show how much a modern and market-oriented food and farming industry has to offer, which is very much in keeping with recent developments in the common agricultural policy.

  Radioactive Waste
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will give the monthly figures for measured total beta radioactivity from the discharge from Sellafield sea pipeline and Hunterston A and B as derived from the operators' returns to his directorate of fisheries research; and the figures for the authorised discharge limits in each case, for each year since 1983.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  [holding answer 30 January 1989]:Authorised discharge limits for both Sellafield and Hunterston for the period 1983–87 are published in the Ministry's annual reports "Radioactivity in Surface and Coastal Waters of the British Isles", copies of which are available in the Library of the House.

  Monthly records of radioactivity discharged from these sites are obtained by Departments in confidence. Annual data of discharges and of their radiological consequences are published.

DEFENCE

  ROF Bishopton
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many civil servants are employed at ROF Bishopton; and what discussions have taken place with them and their trade unions as to their future employment.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  There are 80 civil servants based at ROF Bishopton (including part-timers and Ministry of Defence police), and informal discussions have been taking place with them and their trade unions about their future employment.

  Departmental Staff (Child Care)
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what child care provision his Department provides for pre-school age children of civilian Ministry of Defence employees; what child care provision, for school holiday or after-school care, is provided for employees' children aged five and over; what plans there are for increasing provision in the next five years; and how these are to be funded.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  We are currently examining the feasibility of providing child care facilities for the children of MOD civilian staff in central London, Bath, and other locations throughout the United Kingdom. This examination will include the basis of the funding of such schemes. The schemes being examined include creches and school holiday play schemes. In conjunction with other Government Departments, we are supporting a school holiday play scheme in the Westminster area.

  Lesser Horseshoe Bats
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what has been the cost incurred by the Royal Air 244
  Force in converting an air raid shelter at its station at Caerwent, Gwent, into a home for lesser horseshoe bats; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Neubert
  There was no cost incurred by the Royal Air Force as a result of this project as it was carried out by apprentices from the Army apprentices college, Beachley, to practise their trade skills during their deployment to the station on exercise. This work was wholly consistent with the established conservation policy of the Ministry of Defence.

  Vetting Policy
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what is his policy towards the vetting of prospective employees of defence contractors;

  (2) what is his policy towards the vetting of labourers on Ministry of Defence construction sites.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  It is a condition of contract that, before anyone is employed on an MOD contract who may gain access to classified information, the prior agreement of MOD is sought.

  Economic League
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his policy towards the Economic League providing speakers for training courses for military personnel.

  Mr. Neubert
  No directives have been issued concerning the involvement of members of the Economic League in service training courses. It is my policy to give course directors maximum freedom to select speakers on the basis of the value they are likely to contribute to the course, subject only to the usual security considerations.

  Patchett-Sterling Mark 5
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the Sterling model L24A1, also known as the Sterling mark 5, has been issued to or used by the Army serving in Northern Ireland, since 1971.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I assume the hon. Member is referring to the L34A 1 (the commercial version of which is known as the Patchett-Sterling mark 5). So far as can be ascertained from the available records, this weapon has not been issued to or used by the Army in Northern Ireland.

  Captain Fred Holroyd
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to the answer of 10 January,Official Report, column 543, if the Army Board considered references to emotional stability or only reference to a mental problem.

  Mr. Neubert
  I have nothing to add to the answer given by my hon. Friend on 20 July 1988 at columns 709–10 or to my own answer of 10 January 1989 at column 543.

  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to the answer of 10 January,Official Report, column 543, who was the assistant adjutant-general who interviewed Captain Holroyd; and where the interview occurred.
  245
  Mr. Neubert
  It is not the policy to name individual officers. The records do not show where the interview occurred.

  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to the answer of 10 January,Official Report, column 543, in what way Captain Fred Holroyd (retired) was informed of the findings of the special confidential report; and by whom.

  Mr. Neubert
  According to our records, Captain Holroyd was shown a photocopy of the special confidential report on his arrival at the depot regiment, Royal Corps of Transport. It is not our policy to name individual officers.

  AIDS
  Mr. Grylls
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what safeguards his Department takes to ensure that no one shown by tests to be HIV-positive or to have AIDS is allowed to work in the kitchens or galleys of defence establishments of Her Majesty's ships.

  Mr. Neubert
  No individual in the armed forces, known to be HIV-positive or to have AIDS, is currently employed in the kitchens of defence establishments or the galleys of Her Majesty's ships. There is, however, no evidence that the human immunodeficiency virus can be transmitted through the handling of food.

  Skyguard Radar
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans exist for the purchase of additional Skyguard radar systems; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 25 January 1989]There are at present no firm plans to purchase additional Skyguard radar systems. In addition, I would refer the hon. and learned Member to the reply given to him by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces on 25 January at column 652. The results of these trials are still under consideration.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  KAGISO Trust
  Mr. Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the South African Government about the raid by security police on 19 January on the offices of the KAGISO Trust, a partner in the special programme of the European Community.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We are opposed to the harassment of non-governmental organisations engaged in peaceful opposition to apartheid. The South African Government are well aware of our concern to see the continued development of the EC positive measures programme.

  Disclosure of Foreign Funding Bill (South Africa)
  Mr. Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make representations to seek to dissuade the South African Government from further proceeding with the Disclosure of Foreign Funding Bill.
  246
  Mrs. Chalker
  We have told the South African Government that we hope that they will drop their plans for foreign funding legislation. We continue to make clear to them the unacceptable nature of any legislation which affects the provision of aid funds to the black community. We are closely watching developments on the "Disclosure of Foreign Funding" Bill and remain in touch with groups who are likely to be affected if the Bill becomes law.

  Western European Union
  Mr. Hill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what changes Her Majesty's Government are seeking to each article of the modified Brussels treaty on Western European Union; and why.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  No decision will be taken on possible changes to the modified Brussels treaty until the review of the treaty agreed by the WEU ministerial council on 14 November has been completed.

  Mr. Hill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is Her Majesty's Government's policy towards appointing members of the European Parliament as representatives to the Western European Union assembly.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We believe that the membership of the WEU assembly should be drawn from national parliaments as defence questions do not fall within the competence of the European Community. Any change in the method of appointment would require an amendment to the modified Brussels treaty.

  Mr. Hill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy to consult the United Kingdom delegation to the Western European Union assembly on the changes he intends to propose to the modified Brussels treaty.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Yes.

  Mr. Hill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how the Western European Union ministerial organs intend to follow up the session organised by the French Institute des Hautes Etudes de Defense Nationale in November 1988 in order to make European security requirements better known to public opinion.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The European session organised by the Institut des Hautes Etudes de Defense Nationale will be followed by similar events organised by other member states including by the United Kingdom in 1990. The WEU secretariat will provide support for these events.

  Mr. Hill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is Her Majesty's Government's policy towards the proposal by M. Rocard, Prime Minister of France, to set up a European higher defence studies institute in the framework of Western European Union.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We have noted the proposal to establish a new WEU institute in Paris. We belies e that the WEU secretariat in London and the WEU agency in Paris should be located together in Brussels and that, in this context, a small agency working inside the secretariat general could provide valuable research support.
  247
  Mr. Hill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how the Western European Union council intends to pursue the political impetus it declared it wished to give to arguments co-operation; what relevant initiatives Her Majesty's Government have taken in the council and with what result.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The WEU council has kept the question of armaments co-operation under review with a view to intensifying such co-operation and maintaining in Europe a technologically advanced industrial base. The WEU also wishes to encourage the activities of organisations such as the IEPG which has already given a new political impetus to arms co-operation.

  Mr. Hill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the Western European Union council's assesment of the decision announced by the Soviet Union to make major unilateral reductions in its conventional forces in Europe and start destroying its chemical weapons in advance of the end of the Geneva disarmament conference.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The recent decisions and announcements of the Soviet Union have been discussed within the WEU and are the subject of continuing analysis. But no formal collective assessment has yet been made.

  Mr. Hill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if Her Majesty's Government intend to intervene actively in the Western European Union council to ensure that the latter defines and makes public, in accordance with the assembly's recommendations, a joint position by Western European Union countries on specific aspects of arms limitation, giving priority to conventional and chemical disarmament; and when he expects that the Western European Union member countries will make public a collective position on this matter.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The WEU council is a forum for exchanging views on security and arms control issues. The responsibility for defining and publicising joint positions on specific aspects of arms limitation rests with NATO.

  Mr. Hill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs why the Western European Union assembly has not yet been informed in any detail either of the existence or of the essential points of the collective position adopted by the Western European Union council on the Start negotiations.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  It is not the function of the WEU council to adopt a collective position on the Start negotiations. These negotiations are bilateral between the United States and the Soviet Union. It would not be appropriate for European members of the Alliance to adopt positions in a forum where the United States is not present.

  Mr. Hill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how Her Majesty's Government are considering following up the Western European Union assembly recommendation inviting Governments of member countries to keep the press and public opinion better informed about disarmament issues, including the relationship between arms reductions and defence spending.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We agree that the Governments of WEU member states have a responsibility to keep their 248
  press and public opinion well informed about disarmament issues. We already attach importance to such information work and will continue to do so.

  Mr. Hill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is Her Majesty's Governent's policy towards the Western European Union assembly's recommendations regarding the definition of conditions for setting up a European satellite agency in the Western European Union with the initial task of verifying a future conventional arms control agreement; and if he plans to take appropriate steps in the Western European Union council.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We have noted with interest the assembly's recommendations. We agree that satellite verification may be part of a verification regime for a future conventional arms control agreement. The first step will be to undertake further work to ascertain how effective satellite verification would be. The work of the WEU agency could play a useful role in this.

  Berenfeld Family
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made to the Russian Government about the plight of the Berenfeld family of Moscow, who first applied for an exit visa in 1977.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  As far as I can establish, the Berenfeld family has not previously come to our attention. But if my hon. Friend could provide details of this case I would be happy to consider making representations to the Soviet authorities about the Berenfelds.

  Pakistan and Afghanistan (Mine-clearing)
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what has been the outcome of the report to the United Nations co-ordinator for Afghan aid by a team of British Army explosive experts on an international mine clearing operation in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The team returned from their assessment visit to Pakistan on 17 October. Their report on the land mine problem in Afghanistan was forwarded to the United Nations co-ordinator who has indicated that he will make specific proposals for British help in training refugees in mine awareness and clearance.

  Mozambique
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proposals he has to increase the scale of military assistance to Mozambique.

  Mrs. Chalker
  No decision has been taken to alter the level of British military assistance to Mozambique. The United Kingdom currently trains Mozambican troops at Nyanga in Zimbabwe at the rate of three companies (some 360 men) per year; these troops are then dedicated to the protection of the Limpopo railway line. We have also donated a quantity of non-lethal defence equipment (Land-Rovers, communications equipment, boots, and so on) to assist in this task. A small number of Mozambican officer cadets undergo training in the United Kingdom.

WALES

  Midwives
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list those health authorities in Wales which anticipate a shortage of midwives over the next five years; what is the estimated shortage; and what are the measures he is proposing to overcome it.

  Mr. Grist
  Midwifery requirements were examined in the first round of the manpower resource planning exercise undertaken by the Health Service in Wales last year. The purpose of the exercise, initiated by the manpower steering group established by the Department in 1986, is to identify future manpower requirements and enable action to be taken to meet these requirements at the all-Wales level.

  Aggregation of district health authorities' returns shows that, at the all-Wales level, shortfall in the number of qualified midwives over planned staffing levels varies from between five and 27 (whole-time equivalents) over the period to 1992. Compared to a planned staffing level in excess of 1,200, these projected shortfalls are not considered sizeable. It would not be appropriate to list individual district figures, given the tentative nature of some of the first round plans.

  Based on the all-Wales figures, a report on the outcome of the first planning round has recommended that a direct entry midwifery training scheme should be considered which is currently being addressed by the Welsh National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting, and that DHA cross-boundary training should be explored on an all-Wales basis. It is hoped that a diploma in midwifery based on Mid and South Glamorgan health authorities will start this year at the Welsh college of medicine, and that this will eventually lead to a degree in midwifery.

  Beaches (Water Quality)
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list all those beaches in Wales which failed to meet the European Community directive on bathing water quality standards in the last year for which data are available; when it is planned for each of these beaches to meet these standards; and what is the estimated cost in each case.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  The results of the 1987 bathing water survey, the latest for which data are presently available, are held in the Library of the House. The information in respect of 1988 is at present being collated and we expect it to be available shortly.

  Welsh Office officials are currently discussing with the Welsh water authority their plans for improving those waters which do not yet meet the required standards.

  Bilingual Policies
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what provision is made in the rate support grant settlement to allow local authorities to develop bilingual policies.

  Mr. Grist
  Central Government support towards bilingual education comes from two main sources. Specific grants support expenditure on certain local authority schemes approved by the Secretary of State. Our intention for the rate support grant settlement for 1989–90 is that 250
  such grants should amount to .£1.5 million. Further spending by local authorities on bilingual education is eligible for rate support grant, but information on expenditure supported in this way is not held centrally.

  Handicapped Children (Educational Needs)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his policy towards ensuring that there is adequate provision within the Welsh and bilingual schools system in English-speaking parts of Wales to provide for the special educational needs of Welsh-speaking handicapped children.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  It is for local education authorities to consider the pattern of education in their areas and to determine provision for all children with special educational needs.

  YTS
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many young people there were in Wales who had left school either at Easter 1988 or summer 1988 who had not obtained work, further education or a place on a YTS scheme by 31 December 1988; and if he will make a statement on the future of the Christmas guarantee.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  Information on the destination of all school leavers is not available. However, the Government guarantee the offer of a YTS place to all 16 and 17-year-olds not in full-time education or employment whenever they apply; this replaces the "Christmas guarantee".

  The new guarantee is effectively being met in Wales and at 12 December 1988 a total of 581 young people were on bridging allowance awaiting a suitable YTS place and 4,221 places remained available at 31 December.

  Non-agricultural Land
  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his estimate of the number of acres of land in Wales which are not in actual use for agriculture; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts: 916,000 acres.

  Pigmeat
  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy to formulate long-tenn plans to increase pigmeat production in Wales, and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  Pigmeat production will benefit from better marketing, and we are doing our best to encourage this.

  Welsh Language Board
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether any organisations have expressed any reluctance to co-operate with the Welsh Language Board because of the membership of the board of a former council member of the Economic League.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  No.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Child Sex Abuse (Broxtowe)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what involvement his Department has had in the Broxtowe child sex abuse case; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  None. The investigation of alleged child sexual abuse is an operational matter for the chief officer of the police force concerned.

  Tote
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to announce his plans for the privatisation of the Tote.

  Mr. John Patten
  No decision on the future of the Tote will be taken until Lloyds merchant bank has completed its current feasibility study on privatising it. We hope that the study will be concluded well before Easter, but the Government will then need to give full consideration to the outcome before any announcement could be made.

  DSS (Fraud Investigators)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will instruct police forces not to co-operate in the passing of information to the Department of Social Security fraud investigators.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  No. The police may need to liaise with social security fraud investigators from time to time when, for instance, evidence of social security fraud comes to light in the course of police inquiries into other matters, or when the social security fraud investigators refer a case to the police because of its gravity.

  Civil Emergency Planning
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the most recent civil emergency planning questionnaire was returned to NATO's senior civil emergency planning committee; and if he will summarise the responses in the categories(a) governmental readiness, (b) food and agriculture, (c) industry,(d) manpower, (e) civil communications, (f) energy, (g) civil air transport, (h) inland surface transport, (i) ocean shipping and (j) civil defence.

  Mr. John Patten
  The civil emergency planning questionnaire is completed by NATO members every four years with an interim review two years afterwards. The United Kingdom returned its most recent questionnaire on 1 June 1988. The document is principally concerned with civil support for the armed forces and is classified.

  Prisoners
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he has as to how many complaints from prisoners were(a) received and (b) investigated by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration in each year from 1980 to 1987, inclusive.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The numbers of complaints from prisoners in respect of which the Parliamentary Commissioner sought a report from the Home Office between 1980 and 1987 were as follows:252

  Numbers

  1980

  10

  1981

  10

  1982

  7

  1983

  3

  1984

  9

  1985

  9

  1986

  3

  1987

  4

  Gipsies
  Mr. Gregory
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on how many occasions the Public Order Act 1986 has been invoked against gipsies; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The information requested is not available.

  Police Forces (Sex Discrimination)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will establish an inquiry into the extent of sex discrimination in employment in police forces, and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  No. Chief officers of police are aware that the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 applies to the police and that, subject to the specific exceptions provided by section 17(2), any sex discrimination in the treatment of police officers is unlawful.

  Breath Tests
  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consideration is being given to possible changes to police powers in respect of roadside breath tests.

  Mr. Hurd
  The current powers to stop vehicles and to require roadside breath tests are contained in the Road Traffic Act 1972. Under section 159 a police officer may stop any vehicle at any time; and under section 7 a breath test may be required:

  (a) where there is reasonable cause to suspect that the driver has alcohol in his body; or

  (b) where there is reasonable cause to suspect that the driver has committed a moving traffic offence; or

  (c) where there is reasonable cause to believe that the driver has been involved in an accident.

  These powers rely on the use in combination of two widely separated sections of the 1972 Act. The courts have held that it is lawful for these powers to be used together. However, there may be benefit in clarifying the position by bringing together the two powers in one section. This would secure express endorsement by Parliament of the use of the powers and would make them more readily understandable to the motoring public.

  The police service had, until recently, maintained that current powers were sufficient for the effective enforcement of drinking and driving legislation. This view was accepted by successive Governments. However, the associations of chief police officers of England and Wales and of Scotland reviewed their policy during 1988 and have proposed that the legislation should be changed to allow police officers to require a breath test at any time without requiring any grounds for suspicion.

  The associations argue that current powers place unnecessary constraints on breath testing; and that there

  253
  should be no necessity for a police officer to establish grounds for suspicion before requiring a breath test. They suggest that an unrestricted power would allow chief constables to deploy their resources more effectively in deterring and detecting offenders by targeting their enforcement effort on particular places, at times of day or on groups of drivers. It is implicit in this argument that the powers to test would be exercised in a targeted way, and that the use of any wider discretion than at present would not involve random testing.

  The associations also argue that extended breath testing powers would be an appropriate response to changes in public opinion towards drinking and driving. They suggest that the public would now consider extended powers acceptable and desirable in the interests of deterring and detecting offenders and protecting themselves as potential victims of drunken drivers.

  The Government consider that a decision on possible changes to police powers should not be taken without an opportunity for full public consultation. The three options under consideration, and the main relevant arguments can be summarised as follows:

  (i)To make no change to existing police powers
  Existing powers provide the restriction that although the police can stop the motorist without cause they cannot test unless there is reasonable cause to suspect that the person has consumed alcohol or has been involved in an accident or committed a moving traffic offence. This is consistent with the principle in other areas of police intervention, such as the powers under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 to stop and search or arrest, that the powers rest on reasonable suspicion that an offence may have been committed.

  (ii) To consolidate existing powers
  is would be achieved by bringing together in one section the two separate powers contained in section 7 and 159 of the 1972 Act to clarify current powers and to seek express parliamentary endorsement of their use in combination. It would allow better public understanding of the powers which enable the police to stop and test on the basis of clearly stated legislative provisions, while preserving the current safeguards. It would not, however, make any substantive change to current powers.

  (iii) introduce unrestricted powers to require a breath test
  This would allow chief constables the complete discretion which they seek and would allow a police officer to stop and to require a breath test from any motorist at any time. This would in theory permit random testing, although it is likely that the powers would be exercised in a targeted way. It would provide an enhanced deterrent in the knowledge that any driver could be stopped and tested at any time. Much would depend on the sensible exercise of discretion by individual officers.

  I welcome views on these three options. Anyone who wishes to comment may do so in writing to F5 division in
  my Department at 50 Queen Anne's Gate, London SW1H 9AT, by 30 April 1989.

  Data Protection
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will consider seeking to amend the terms of the Data Protection Act 1987 to(i) set guidelines as to the transfer of information by registered data users to unregistered users and (ii) to enable the Data Protection Registrar to prosecute Government Departments.

  Mr. Renton
  No.

  Mr. Albert Baker
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what arrangements are being made for resettlement plans for Mr. Albert Baker, Her Majesty's prison, Long Lartin, 241254 on his release.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The terms on which a life sentence prisoner is to be released can only be settled close to the time of release. The first formal review by the local review committee and the parole board to consider whether to make a recommendation to the Secretary of State for release is normally three years in advance of the expiry of the period which the prisoner can expect to serve to satisfy the requirements of retribution and deterrence. In Mr. Baker's case this is still some time ahead and it would therefore be premature to consider the suitability of any release plan.

  BBC (Vetting)
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will make a statement on the use of vetting of potential employees of the British Broadcasting Corporation in (i) non-sensitive posts and (ii) sensitive posts;

  (2) if he will make a statement on the use of vetting of current employees of the British Broadcasting Corporation in (i) non-sensitive posts and (ii) sensitive posts.

  Mr. Renton
  The Government believe (as have successive Governments over a long period) that it is in the national interest for the BBC to apply certain necessary security procedures. A review of these procedures was undertaken by the director-general of the BBC in 198:5. This led to a clarification of the criteria for their application and ensured that the number of posts affected by them is kept to the necessary minimum. The BBC alone decides whom to appoint to any post within the corporation, and no external agency has a right of veto on the appointment or promotion of any member of staff.

  Special Branch
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will define the role and purpose of special branch.

  Mr. Hurd
  The functions of special branches were set out in the published guidelines issued by the Home Office on 19 December 1984.

  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his policy towards information held by special branch being passed on to (i) commercial firms and (ii) employers' organisations.

  Mr. Hurd
  The published guidelines on the work of a special branch which were issued on 19 December 1984 make it clear that information held by a special branch should not be passed to commercial firms or to employers' organisations.

  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the effectiveness of accountability systems operating for special branch.

  Mr. Hurd
  The published guidelines on the work of a special branch which were issued on 19 December 1984
  255
  state that all members of a special branch are responsible, as is any other member of the force, to the chief officer of the force through the head of the branch and any intervening supervisory ranks in the force structure. Like other aspects of the management of police forces, these arrangements are subject to inspection under the inspection arrangements appropriate to the force in question. Any deficiencies are drawn to the attention of the chief officer of the force.

  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what is his policy towards links between special branch, the Economic League and the uniformed police;

  (2) what is his policy towards links between special branch and (i) private security firms and (ii) private investigating firms.

  Mr. Hurd
  Relationships between special branches and outside organisations are governed by the principles set out in the Home Office guidelines issued on 19 December 1984.

  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much from the total police budget was allocated to special branch for each year from 1979 to current date.

  Mr. Hurd
  The allocation of resources to special branches is a matter for the chief constable of each force concerned and this information is not held centrally.

  Police National Computer
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his policy towards the use of the police national computer by private security firms.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We have no plans to give the private security industry access to the police national computer.

  Immigrant Residents (Financial Affairs)
  Ms. Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the following information on the financial affairs of immigrant residents in the United Kingdom is kept on the Home Office computers(a) income, (b) social security payments and welfare benefits and (c) mortgage commitments; whether such information is currently being collected; if any such information is available to immigration officials at ports of entry to the United Kingdom; whether any such information will be made available in the future via the Government data network; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Renton
  No such information is held or is planned to be held on Home Office computers. The use of all personal information held on computers in the Home Office is controlled in accordance with the provision of the Data Protection Act 1984. Within the immigration and nationality department there are some 30 registrations of computer systems under the Act. It is open to an individual to make an application for disclosure of information held under section 21 of the Act. Details of these registrations are held by the office of the Data Protection Registrar.

  Prevention of Terrorism (Advisers)
  Mrs. Maureen Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the fees paid to advisers appointed under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984.

  Mr. Hurd
  The current daily fee for advisers appointed under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984 to consider representations against exclusion is £94.

  Football Matches (Arrests)
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is(a) the number of association football matches played at Wembley stadium during the 1987–88 season, (b) the total attendance during the season, (c) the total arrests in association with these matches, (d) the average attendance per match, (e) the average number of arrests per match and (f) the arrests as a proportion of the attendance.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  [holding answer 26 January 1989]I understand from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that the information is as follows:

  Wembley stadium 1987–88

  Number of association matches played

  14

  Total attendance

  859,935

  Total arrests

  551

  Average attendance per match

  61,424

  Average number of arrests per match

  39

  Arrests as a proportion of attendance

  1:1,561

  Arrests as a percentage of attendance

  0·06

EMPLOYMENT

  Employment Training
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people have dropped out of employment training.

  Mr. Nicholls
  By the end of November 1988, the latest date for which information is available, 23,100 people had left the programme earlier than planned. Many of these people were transferees from previous programmes and so had received the benefit of a longer period of training and practical experience.

  Mr. Robert Pearce
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when Mr. Robert Pearce, employed at Canvey Island unemployment benefit office, whose appeal for reinstatement was successfully heard on 6 September 1988, will be reinstated.

  Mr. Lee
  The Department has decided not to accept the recommendation of the Civil Service appeal board to reinstate Mr. Pearce and has asked the board, in accordance with the provisions of the pay and conditions of service code for civil servants, to determine an appropriate compensation payment.

  Training Managers
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will list the training managers who have been investigated or who are under investigation by his Department.

  Mr. Nicholls
  No training managers in employment training are under investigation by the Training Agency. All training managers are subject to financial and operational monitoring by Training Agency officials.

  Vocational Qualifications
  Mr. Sean Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when the National Council for Vocational Qualifications will define the levels of competence and training above level 4; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Cope
  The National Council for Vocational Qualifications has reported good progress on involving the professions in the development of levels I to IV of the national vocational qualification framework. The Government and the council therefore agree that the time

  Section 4 Approvals

  Financial Year (£000s)

  RTB

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988 to January 1989

  Cumbria

  692

  617

  304

  699

  507

  469

  939

  East Anglia

  141

  551

  790

  815

  785

  502

  796

  East Midlands

  458

  898

  432

  2,241

  784

  759

  982

  Heart of England

  268

  609

  648

  457

  1,224

  1,049

  1,138

  London

  —

  841

  466

  14S

  166

  1,030

  120

  Northumbria

  615

  252

  445

  621

  644

  1,480

  642

  North West

  642

  1,542

  936

  780

  1,409

  2,062

  675

  South East

  79

  680

  1,309

  1,169

  1,227

  1,221

  659

  Southern

  231

  2,248

  756

  781

  1,515

  922

  933

  Thames and Chilterns

  30

  290

  455

  509

  430

  880

  262

  West Country

  951

  2,760

  1,934

  2,464

  3,519

  3,125

  2,217

  Yorkshire & Humberside

  1,501

  1,045

  1,569

  865

  1,744

  1,346

  1,740

  Totals

  5,608

  12,333

  10,044

  11,549

  13,954

  14,845

  11,103

  Working Conditions
  Mrs. Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list in the Official Report any general instructions issued by the Health and Safety Commission relating to improved conditions of health and safety,applying to both sexes, since the coming into force of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The list of regulations approved by Secretaries of State on the recommendation of the Health and Safety Commission and approved codes of practice issued by the Health and Safety Commission after 12 November 1975; applying to both sexes, is as follows:

  Statutory Instruments

  The Operations at Unfenced Machinery (Amendment) Regulations 1976.

  Health and Safety Inquiries (Procedure) (Amendment) Regulations 1976.

  The Health and Safety (Agriculture) (Miscellaneous Repeals) and Modifications) Regulations 1976.

  The Fire Certificate (Special Premises) Regulations 1976.

  The Fire Precautions Act 1971 (Modifications) Regulations 1976.

  The Safety Representatives and Safety Committees Regulations 1977.

  The Health and Safety (Enforcing Authority) Regulations 1977.

  258
  is now right for the council's remit to be extended to include standards and qualifications above level 1V. We have therefore asked the council to proceed with work above level IV in those sectors where all the significant professional bodies are willing to be involved on a voluntary basis. However, whilst the council will therefore now take this work forward with the relevant organisations, we have made clear that the council's first priority must continue to be the establishment of the framework up to level IV.

  Tourism
  Mr. Gregory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how much funding under the Development of Tourism Act 1969, section 4, has been approved for each regional tourist board for each year since 1983; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lee
  The total assistance offered by the English tourist board under section 4 of the Development of Tourism Act 1969, for each year since 1983 in the area covered by each regional tourist board is as follows:

  The Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 (Application outside Great Britain) Order 1977.

  The Health and Safety (Genetic Manipulation) Regulations 1978.

  The Factories (Standards of Lighting) (Revocation) Regulations 1978.

  The Health and Safety (Leasing Arrangements) Regulations 1980.

  The Petroleum (Consolidation) Act 1928 (Conveyance by Road Regulations Exemptions) Regulations 1980. The Control of Lead at Work Regulations 1980.

  The Safety Signs Regulations 1980.

  Diving Operations at Work Regulations 1981.

  The Health and Safety (First-Aid) Regulations 1981.

  The Health and Safety (Dangerous Pathogens) Regulations 1981.

  The Dangerous Substances (Conveyance by Road in Road Tankers and Tank Containers) Regulations 1981.

  The Petroleum-Spirit (Plastic Containers) Regulations
  1982.

  The Hydrogen Cyanide (Fumigation of Buildings) (Amendment) Regulations 1982.

  The Notification of Installations Handling Hazardous Substances Regulations 1982.

  The Notification of New Substances Regulations 1982. Health and Safety (Emissions into the Atmosphere) Regulations 1983.

  The Classification and Labelling of Explosives Regulations 1983.

  The Asbestos (Licensing) Regulations 1983.

  259

  The Agriculture (Tractor Cabs) (Amendments) Regulation 1984.

  The Poisonous Substances in Agriculture Regulations 1984.

  The Classification, Packaging and Labelling of Dangerous Substances Regulations 1984.

  The Freight Containers (Safety Convention) Regulations 1984.

  The Control of Industrial Major Accident Hazards Regulations 1984.

  The Asbestos (Prohibitions) Regulations 1985.

  The Ionising Radiations Regulations 1985.

  The Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1985.

  The Notification of New Substances (Amendment) Regulations 1986.

  The Classification, Packing and Labelling of Dangerous Substances (Amendment) Regulations 1986.

  The Road Traffic (Carriage of Dangerous Substances in Packages etc.) Regulations 1986.

  The Dangerous Substances in Harbour Areas Regulations 1987.

  The Control of Asbestos at Work Regulations 1987.

  The Asbestos (Prohibitions) (Amendment) Regulations 1988. The Classification, Packaging and Labelling of Dangerous Substances (Amendment) Regulations 1988.

  The Health and Safety (Training for Employment) Regulations 1988.

  The Control of Industrial Major Accident Hazards (Amendment) Regulations 1988.

  The Loading and Unloading of Fishing Vessels Regulations 1988.

  The Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 1988 (Coming into force 1 October 1989).

  The Quarries (Explosives) Regulations 1988 (Coming into force 1 January 1990).

  The Docks Regulations 1988.

  Approved Codes of Practice

  Safety representatives and safety committees.

  Time off for the training of Safety Representatives.

  Control of lead at work.

  Work with asbestos insulation and asbestos coating 1981.

  Health and Safety (First-Aid) Regulations 1981.

  Classification of dangerous substances for conveyance in road tankers and tank containers.

  Petroleum-Spirit (Plastic Containers) Regulations 1982.

  Requirements for testing and marking or labelling.

  Principles of good laboratory practice. Notification of New Substances Regulations 1982.

  Methods for the determination of ecotoxicity. Notification of New Substances Regulations 1982.

  Methods for the determination of physico—chemical properties. Notification of New Substances Regulations 1982.

  Methods for the determination of toxicity. Notification of New Substances Regulations 1982.

  British Standards BS 697: 1977 "Specification for Rubber Gloves for Electrical purposes".

  British Standards BS 1870 Part 1: 1979 "Specification for Safety Footwear other than all-rubber and all-plastic moulded types".

  British Standard BS 5426: 1976 "Specification for Workwear".

  British Standard BS 5169: 1975 "Specification for Fusion welded steel air receivers".

  Operational provisions of the Dangerous Substances (Conveyance by road in Road Tankers and Tank Containers) Regulations 1981.

  British Standards BS 1870 Part 2: 1976 Specification for lined Rubber Safety Boots.

  British Standards BS 1870 part 3: 1981 Specification for Polyvinyl Chloride Moulded Safety Footwear.

  Packaging of dangerous substances for conveyance by road. Classification, Packaging and Labelling of Dangerous Substances regulations 1984.

  Classification and labelling of substances dangerous for supply and/or conveyance by road. Notification of New
  Substances Regulations 1982. Classification, Packaging
  and Labelling of Dangerous Substances regulations 1984.

  Road Tanker Testing. Examination, testing and certification of the carrying tankers and of tank containers used for the
  260
  conveyance of dangerous substances by road.

  Zoos—Safety, Health and Welfare standards for Employers and Persons at Work.

  The protection of persons against ionising radiation arising from any work activity.

  Operational Provisions of the Road Traffic (Carriage of Dangerous Substances in Packages etc.) Regulations 1986. Dangerous substances in harbour areas Regulations 1987.

  Standards of training in safe gas installation.

  Classification and Labelling of dangerous substances for conveyance by road in tankers, tank containers and packages. Dangerous Substances (Conveyance by Road in Road Tankers and Tank Containers) Regulations 1981. Classification, Packaging and Labelling of Dangerous Substances Regulations 1984.

  The control of asbestos at work. The Control of Asbestos at Work Regulations 1987. Work with asbestos insulation, asbestos coating and asbestos insulating board.

  Part 3: Exposure to radon. The Ionising Radiations Regulations 1985.

  Preventing accidents to children in agriculture.

  Rider Operated lift trucks—operator training.

  Safety in Docks—Docks Regulations 1988 and Guidance. Control of Carcinogenic Substances—Control of Substances Hazardous to Health.

  Control of Vinyl Chloride at Work—Control of Substances Hazardous to Health.

  Control of Substances Hazardous to Health in Fumigation Operations—Control of Substances Hazardous to Health.

  Mrs. Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list in the Official Report the changes in statutes since the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 which have the effect of shortening working hours or improving working conditions for both sexes.

  Mr. Nicholls
  In the legislation for which my Department is responsible there have not been any changes in statutes which are known to have had the direct effect of shortening working hours. All new regulations made under the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 are intended to improve working conditions.

  Employment Training (Child Care Allowance)
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment why the ET child care allowance is not available to married women.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Child care payments can be made available for married women on employment training provided they are lone parents. Help with child care costs is available to all lone parents regardless of their sex or marital status.

  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many women have taken up the child care allowance on ET.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Comprehensive information is not yet available. Information on the number of trainees from whom child care payments are made will be regularly collected from March and the first results will be available at the end of April 1989. Early indications suggest that over 2,000 lone parents have joined employment training and many of these people will have received help with child care costs.

  Working Hours
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what information he has on the restrictions on the working hours of 16 and 17-year-olds in(a) France and (b) Greece.
  261
  Mr. Nicholls
  According to the International Labour Office "Conditions of Work Digest", volume 5, 2/1986,these are as follows.

  In France persons under the age of 18 can work amaximum eight-hour day and 39-hour week and their hours must not exceed the normal daily and weekly hours of adult workers in the establishment. Five extra hours a week can however be allowed in certain circumstances. Young persons must also be allowed time for requirements of vocational courses and they cannot work more than four and a half hours without a break. They must have 12 consecutive hours nightly rest and they cannot be employed on statutory public holidays except on work that is continuous. Sixteen and 17-year-olds are also subject to the restrictions on hours of work applying to all workers.

  In Greece nightwork is prohibited for young workers up to the age of 17 in industrial enterprises, although there are a few exceptions. There are also restrictions on hours of work applying to all workers.

  Employment Protection Act
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will consider seeking to amend the terms of the Employment Protection Act 1975 to protect individuals who are refused employment because of information given about their political views before being formally appointed.

  Mr. Nicholls
  No.

  Job Clubs
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish in the Official Report the latest figures held by his Department (a) on the number of people finding jobs as a result of attending jobcentre job clubs, (b) on the numbers of people finding jobs as a result of attending an agency job club, (c) on the average number of people going through each jobcentre job club and (d) on the average number of people going through each agency job club.

  Mr. Lee
  The latest figures held by the employment service are as follows:

  (a) during 1987–88, a total of 35,371 people found jobs as a result of attending a jobcentre job club. The 1988–89 figure (up to December 1988) is 29,102;

  (b)) during 1987–88, a total of 21,709 people found jobs as a result of attending an agency job club. The 1988–89 figure (up to December 1988) is 24,262;

  (c) during 1987–88 the average number of people going through a jobcentre job club each year was 114. The latest average figure for 1988–89 is 96, and

  (d) during 1987–88 the average number of people going through an agency job club each year was 67. The latest average figure for 1988–89 is 69.

  Training Programmes
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the targets against which he proposes to measure quality in the monitoring of training programmes in the "Training for Employment" White Paper.

  Mr. Nicholls
  [holding answer 10 January 1989]Quality monitoring on employment training is based on three complementary approaches. First, training agents and training managers are required to achieve approved 262
  training organisation status; secondly, their performance will be measured against a range of specific indicators; and thirdly, inspections will be carried out by the training standards advisory service. The quantifiable performance indicators are currently being developed by the Training Agency and will be published once they have been agreed.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  NATO
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what are the posts, ranks and responsibilities of United Kingdom representatives designated to form part of the staff of the NATO central supply agency in transition to war and in war.

  Mr. Newton
  This information is classified.

  Hearing Aid Council
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster which bodies he consults when making appointments to the Hearing Aid Council.

  Mr. Forth
  My Department consults the Society of Hearing Aid Audiologists and the Hearing Aid Industry Association about the appointment of members representing dispensers. The following organisations are consulted about the appointment of members representing the interests of the hard of hearing or who have specialised technical knowledge of deafness or audiological technical knowledge:

  The British Association of the Hard of Hearing

  British Association of Teachers of the Deaf

  The National Deaf Children's Society

  The Royal National Institute for the Deaf

  Age Concern

  Help the Aged

  British Association of Audiological Physicians

  British Association of Otolaryngologists

  Institute of Laryngology and Otology

  British Association of Audiological Scientists

  British Society of Audiology

  Department of Health

  In addition, it is open to any member of the public with genuine involvement in the dispensing of hearing aids or with the hearing impaired or who has specialised technical knowledge of deafness to make nominations. All
  nominations are considered on their merits.

  Mail Order Catalogues
  Mr. McWilliam
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will introduce legislation requiring mail order companies to take all reasonable steps to ensure that persons applying for catalogues are over 18 years of age.

  Mr. Forth
  No.

  Trade Marks Office
  Dr. Goodson-Wickes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he expects to hear from the trade marks office committee of the EEC regarding the outcome of London's bids to host the European Community trade marks office.

  Mr. Forth
  The European Commission produced a short list of four possible locations (including London) for
  263
  the Community trade marks office in 1987. The final choice will be made in the regulation setting up the Community trade marks system which rests with the Council of Ministers. The decision requires unanimity and it is not possible to say when it is likely to be reached.

  Business Shops Pilot Scheme
  Mr. French
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what are the criteria used in deciding which towns and cities participate in the Government's business shops pilot scheme.

  Mr. Maude
  In choosing locations, we decided on a range particularly to cover urban areas, and to give wide experience of different areas with different new business profiles. We also included locations which would enable pilot studies to be undertaken in a variety of organisations which already provide services to business, in order to build, wherever possible, on existing provision and avoid potential duplication and confusion.

  The locations chosen, with the host organisation in parenthesis, are as follows:

  1. Glasgow (Scottish Development Agency)

  2. Merthyr Tydfil/Aberdare (MADE—Merthyr-Aberdare Development Enterprise)

  3. Manchester (Small Firms Centre)

  4. Newcastle (joint venture—ENTRUST and local city council)

  5. Reading (Small Firms Centre)

  6. Doncaster (DonBAC—Doncaster Business Advice Centre and Enterprise Agency)

  Funerals
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1) if he will take steps to require funeral directors to make their price lists readily available and, in particular, to supply them to those who come into immediate contact with bereaved people so that bereaved families have ready access to comparative information;

  (2) what action he is taking about the recommendation of the Office of Fair Trading that there should be made generally available maximum information on what is or might be involved in arranging funerals;

  (3) what action he is taking about the recommendation of the Office of Fair Trading that the National Association of Funeral Directors should indicate, within six months from the date of the report, the specific steps it proposes to take in order to achieve greater compliance with its code of practice;

  (4) if he will take steps to require all funeral directors to publicise the availability of a simple basic funeral;

  (5) what action he is taking about the recommendation of the Office of Fair Trading that the National Association of Funeral Directors should redefine the specifications of the basic simple funeral, and then publicise its availability;

  (6) if he will take steps to require all funeral directors to provide accounts which specify individual charges for the main services provided;

  (7) what action he is taking about the recommendation of the Office of Fair Trading that the code of practice of the National Association of Funeral Directors should require funeral accounts to specify the individual charges for the main services provided;

  (8) what action he is taking about the recommendation of the Office of Fair Trading that funeral directors should provide doctors, hospitals, registrars and others who come into immediate contact with bereaved people with a supply of their price lists.
  264
  Mr. Forth
  The right hon. Member refers to recommendations made in the recent report by the Office of Fair Trading on funerals. The recommendations are addressed primarily to the industry and the director general will be discussing their implementation with the National Association of Funeral Directors.

  I look forward to learning the outcome of these discussions in due course.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to what factors the Office of Fair Trading attributes its findings that people over 65 years arranging a funeral were offered a basic funeral less often than others, received less advice and were more likely to receive no price information at all, and that widows and widowers also received less advice and were less likely to be given written estimates.

  Mr. Forth
  This is a matter for the Director General of Fair Trading. I will ask him to write to the right hon. Member.

  Company Records
  Mr. Caborn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what are the particular grounds he uses to assess whether to agree to an application from a company to withhold information on any foreign subsidiaries from its public records, according to schedule 5(10) to the Companies Act 1985.

  Mr. Maude
  The criterion against which the Secretary of State considers application for exemption from disclosure is whether the disclosure of the information would be prejudicial to exports or to overseas earnings.

  Mr. Caborn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many companies he has granted permission to withhold information from their public records on subsidiaries registered in South Africa or subsidiaries whose business is in South Africa in each year since the passage of the Companies Act 1985.

  Mr. Maude
  In order to protect the information for which the provisions for non-disclosure were made, and for reasons of commercial confidentiality, I do not consider it appropriate to provide a breakdown of the published statistics relating to these applications.

  Mr. Caborn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many companies have applied to him for permission to withhold information from their public records on any of their foreign subsidiaries on the ground that presentation of this information would be harmful to the business of the company, according to the provision of schedule 5(10) to the Companies Act 1985, and how many companies have received such permission in each of the years since the passage of the Act.

  Mr. Maude
  Statistics of applications made under schedule 5 to the Companies Act 1985 are published annually in the report laid before Parliament in accordance with section 729 of the Act. Copies are available in the Library.

  Cash limits
  Mr. Hanley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether any changes will be made to his Department's cash limit and running costs limit for 1988–89.
  265
  Mr. Newton
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimates, the cash limit for class V, vote 3 (administration, regulation of domestic trade and industry, and consumer protection) will be increased by £2,169,000 from £189,436,000 to £191,605,000. The increase will be offset by savings in class V, vote 2 (support for industry) of £2,128,000 and class IX, vote 2 (Department of the Environment: miscellaneous administration and housing grants) of £41,000. The increase in the cash limit for vote 3 has been partly offset by a decrease of £16,000 to reflect the transfer of costs for recruitment under the direct entry grade 7 Competition 1988 to the office of the Minister for the Civil Service (class XX, vote 1) and by £106,000 which has been made available to class VII, vote 2 (Department of Employment: administration) for a special employment service initiative in Sunderland. Overall, the cash limit for class V, vote 2 will be reduced by £2,128,000 from £568,256,000 to £566,128,000. The running costs limit for the Department has been reduced by £794,000 from £287,968,000 to £287,174,000.

  In addition, the cash limit on class V, vote IX has been reduced from £2,417,000 to £1,000. Downward adjustments to the estimates of stamp duty and stamp duty reserve tax payable on the sale of shares in Rolls-Royce plc mean that receipts appropriated in aid will be sufficient to cover expenditure incurred.

  These changes will not add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  Ministerial Advisers (Salaries)
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what was the total expenditure on salaries of ministerial advisers in his Department for each completed year since 1979; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  [holding answer 31 January 1989]I have nothing to add to the information I gave in my reply to the hon. Member on 27 January 1989 at column 765–66.

  Electricity Consumers Council
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what remuneration is made to the chair of the Electricity Consumers Council.

  Table: NHS Paid Medical Staff by Grade and nature of contract at 30 September 1987: Numbers

  England

  Trent Region

  Nottingham District

  Grade

  Wholetime

  Maximum Part-time1

  Other Part-time

  Wholetime

  Maximum Part-time1

  Other Part-time

  Wholetime

  Maximum Part-time1

  Other Part-time

  (a)

  (b)

  (c)

  (d)

  (e)

  (f)

  (g)

  (h)

  (i)

  (j)

  NHS Hospital Service

  Consultant

  6,616

  4,663

  1,254

  653

  387

  41

  90

  76

  13

  Associate Specialist

  513

  —

  278

  48

  —

  11

  3

  —

  3

  Senior Registrar2

  2,333

  —

  218

  211

  —

  20

  —

  —

  —

  Registrar

  5,345

  —

  166

  497

  —

  14

  101

  —

  3

  Senior House Officer

  9,279

  —

  127

  916

  —

  14

  174

  —

  1

  House Officer

  2,770

  —

  11

  269

  —

  —

  45

  —

  —

  Other Grades3

  13

  —

  78

  2

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  Hospital Practitioner

  —

  —

  894

  —

  —

  63

  —

  —

  7

  Appointment under Paragraph 94 (Clinical Assistant)

  —

  —

  6,603

  —

  —

  516

  —

  —

  73

  Community Health Services

  Senior Clinical Medical Officer4

  583

  —

  549

  50

  —

  43

  7

  —

  8

  Clinical Medical Officer4

  623

  —

  1,088

  41

  —

  84

  1

  —

  3

  Other Medical Officer4

  2

  —

  2,688

  —

  —

  272

  —

  —

  31

  1Maximum part-time contracts are available to NHS paid consultant staff only.

  2 Contracts of Senior Registrars are held only by regional health authorities and the special health authorities for the London postgraduate teaching hospitals.

  3 Includes senior hospital medical officer.

  4 Figures for part-lime staff include part-time sessional staff.

  266
  Mr. Forth
  [holding ansiver 27 January 1989]The chairman of the Electricity Consumers Council—the national body—receives a salary of £10,742 per annum. The chairmen of the 12 area electricity consultative councils in England and Wales are paid a salary of £10,024 per annum.

HEALTH

  Exhaust Fumes
  Mr. Bidwell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether his Department has any figures of deaths due to inhaling exhaust fumes, other than suicides.

  Mr. Freeman
  The table shows the number of deaths registered in England and Wales which had an underlying cause of death assigned to the inhalation of exhaust fumes, for the latest year available.

  Deaths due to inhaling exhaust fumes (excluding suicide), England and Wales 1987

  Deaths due to inhaling exhaust fumes (excluding suicide), England and Wales 1987

  Numbers

  Cause

  Male

  Female

  Accidental poisoning by motor-vehicle exhaust gas ICD E868·21

  24

  2

  Motor-vehicle exhaust gas undetermined whether accidentally or purposely inflicted ICD E982·01

  56

  7

  1 International Classification of Diseases (ICD) 9th Revision.

  Doctors
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many doctors by grade are employed(a) in the National Health Service exclusively., (b) in the private sector exclusively and (c) in both sectors (i) in Nottingham regional health authority, (ii) in Trent regional health authority and (iii) in the country as a whole.

  Mr. Mellor
  Information is not available about the number of doctors in practice in the private sector. Information about National Health Service medical staff is set out in the table.

  NHS Staff (Discipline)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what current procedures are in force concerning disciplinary action against National Health Service staff who pass information to hon. Members.

  Mr. Mellor
  This is a matter for the employing health authority.

  Nurses' Pay
  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the median level of earnings for nurse

  All Qualified Nurses2

  NHS Employees1Staff Nurses

  Ward Sister

  All Employees Average Gross Earnings3

  £ pa

  £ pa

  £ pa

  £ pa

  1983–84

  7,368

  6,733

  8,812

  8,306

  1984–85

  7,970

  7,422

  9,474

  8,916

  1985–86

  8,555

  7,938

  10,175

  9,631

  1986–87

  9,440

  8,981

  11,208

  10,371

  1987–88

  10,625

  9,768

  12,855

  11,388

  1 Source: DHSS—Figures exclude London Weighting and London Supplements.

  2 Excludes Nursing Auxiliaries and Student/Pupils.

  3 Source: Department of Employment—New Earnings Survey (for April in each year). Figures relate to all full time employees on adult rates, excluding those whose pay was affected by absence.

  Midwives
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list those health authorities in England which anticipate a shortage of midwives over the next five years; what is the estimated shortage; and what measures he is proposing to overcome it.

  Mr. Mellor
  We do not collect the information in the form requested centrally. There are reported difficulties in some localities, but there is no evidence that there is a national problem. The results of the 1987 regional health authority chairman's survey undertaken for the nurses pay review body showed that at March 1987 about 4·;2 per cent. of midwives' posts had been vacant for at least three months compared with the average of 3·5 per cent. for all nursing and midwifery staff.

  Nationally the number of midwives has increased by 11·4 per cent. since 1981. Action is being taken centrally where appropriate to improve recruitment and retention of such staff. For example, the new clinical grading structure was designed to recognise and reward the skills and expertise of, and provide improved career opportunities for, both nurses and midwives. The results of the regrading exercise show that at both staff midwife and midwifery sister level much larger numbers have gone into the higher grades than has been the case with nurses. As a result, the average increases for midwives this year is over 20 per cent. and for staff midwives it is over 25 per cent. We are also discussing with the English National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting ways of stimulating more interest in direct entry midwifery courses. Health authorities have also been asked to organise campaigns to attract back nurses and midwives who have left the service and to provide more opportunities for flexible working and job sharing.

  Smoking
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the cost of treatment of smoking related diseases in the National Health Service in 1987–88.268
  sexpressed as a proportion of average earnings in each year from 1983–84 to the most recent available date, laid out in the same form as that given in the answer to the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) on 18 December 1987, Official Report, column 833.

  Mr. Mellor
  Information on the median level of earnings is not available centrally. Information on the mean level of earnings up to 1987–88 is set out in the table. From this date the grades of staff nurse and ward sister became obsolete.

  Mr. Mellor
  The annual cost to the National Health Service of treating smoking-related diseases is estimated at about £500 million.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he has received an application for funding from the International Disabled Travellers Club Ltd.

  Mr. Mellor
  We have no record of receiving an application for funding from this organisation, but we will follow this matter up with the organisation concerned.

  Basingstoke and North Hampshire Health Authority
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what census figures have been used in determining funding for the Basingstoke and North Hampshire health authority for 1988–89.

  Mr. Mellor
  The 1985-based population projections for mid-1988 were used in determining regional health authorities' allocations for 1988–89. It is for regions to decide what data to employ in making allocations to district health authorities.

  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many consultants have been employed in 'he Basingstoke and North Hampshire health authority district in each year since the formation of that health authority.

  Mr. Mellor
  We do not hold centrally information in the form requested. The hon. Member may like to contact the chairman of the Wessex regional health authority for the information that he seeks.

  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement, supported by statistics, on waiting lists for out-patient appointments and surgery in the Basingstoke and North Hampshire health authority district and at other hospitals in the Wessex region.
  269
  Mr. Mellor
  The latest figures show that, at March 1988, there were 3,300 patients on the in-patient waiting list in Basingstoke and North Hampshire district and 43,700 for Wessex region as a whole. Provisional figures, currently being validated, indicate that these waiting lists reduced in the six months to September 1988.

  We do not collect information centrally about waiting times for out-patient appointments or individual hospitals.

  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the level of recruitment of paramedical and clerical staff by the Basingstoke and North Hampshire health authority.

  Mr. Mellor
  We do not hold this information centrally. My hon. Friend may like to contact the chairman of the Basingstoke and North Hampshire health authority for the information that he seeks.

  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the financial and managerial running of health centres in the Basingstoke and North Hampshire health authority.

  Mr. Mellor
  The Basingstoke and North Hampshire health authority is responsible for the funding and management of health centres within its district. My hon. Friend may like to contact the chairman of the health authority for the information that he seeks.

  Medical Physicists
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what advice he has given to health authorities about staffing levels appropriate for medical physics, radiation physics or other supporting disciplines to radiotherapy; what steps he has taken to ensure any such advice has been acted upon; and if he will place the text of such advice in the Library.

  Mr. Mellor
  I have placed in the Library a copy of circular HC(78)32, paragraphs 21 to 25 of which give guidance to health authorities on factors relevant to the staffing of radiotherapy departments. Specific staffing levels are a matter for individual authorities to determine. Reference to this advice is made wherever appropriate in the course of normal communications between authorities and the Department.

  Medical Physicists pay rates

  1986

  1987

  Grade

  Minimum £

  Maximum £

  Minimum £

  Maximum £

  Basic Probationer

  7,452

  9,360

  7,825

  9,828

  Basic Post Probationer

  7,716

  9,996

  8,102

  10,496

  Senior

  10,632

  13,896

  11,164

  14,591

  Principal

  13,704

  18,948

  14,389

  19,895

  Top Grade

  19,080

  22,836

  20,034

  23,978

  Top Grade (with greater responsibility)

  21,588

  25,356

  22,667

  26,624

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many posts were designated head of radiation physics within the National Health Service in(a) 1983 and (b)

  Mr. Mellor
  We do not hold this information centrally.
  270
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many medical physicists have been employed within the National Health Service in each of the last five years;

  (2) how many physicists were working within the National Health Service in (a) 1983 and (b)

  Mr. Mellor
  The only relevant information which we hold centrally is for staff in post at 30 September as set out in the table; figures for 1988 are not yet available.

  Year

  NHS physicists (whole time equivalent)

  1983

  660

  1984

  700

  1985

  720

  1986

  770

  1987

  790

  Source: Department of Health Annual Census of NHS Non-Medical Manpower.

  Note: All figures are independently rounded to the nearest ten (10) whole-time equivalents.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what information he has requested from health authorities or the Whitley council about the problems of recruitment of medical physicists, and on what dates;

  (2) what information he has requested from health authorities or the Whitley council about the turnover of medical physicists, and on what dates.

  Mr. Mellor
  None. I understand that the management Side of the Scientific and Professional Staffs Council has requested information from health authorities to assist a working party which it set up to investigate recruitment and retention of physicists and other scientists.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what were the pay bands for each grade of medical physicist in 1986, 1987 and 1988.

  Mr. Mellor
  The information is set out in the table. April 1987 rates are under review and increases will take effect from 1 April 1988.

  Radiotherapy
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) whether he has asked the National Radiological Protection Board, or any other agency, to prepare scientific standards for the calibration of radiation machines;
  271
  (2) on what dates within the last five years his Department circulated health authorities with advice on the calibration and dose standards of radiation machines; and if he will place the texts of such advice in the Library.

  Mr. Mellor
  In December 1985 we issued to health authorities health circular HC(85)31 which informed them of their responsibilities as employers for ensuring compliance with the Ionising Radiation Regulations 1985 (SI 1985 No. 1333). In May 1988 executive letter EL(88)P/64 was issued covering a more detailed and technical document; "Guidance Notes for the Protection of Persons against Ionising Radiations arising from Medical and Dental Use", prepared under the joint auspices of the National Radiological Protection Board, the Health and Safety Executive and the health Departments. This replaces a code of practice first published in 1957 and most recently revised in 1972. Pages 29 and 30 of the guidance notes deal specifically with calibration and maintenance. The executive letter indicated that the guidance notes provided a guide to good practice and asked managers to bring them to the attention of all relevant staff. All these documents have been placed in the Library.

  In December 1988 the Institute of Physical Sciences in Medicine (IPSM) issued to its members further advice augmenting that in the guidance notes. Having consulted relevant professional bodies on the content of the IPSM advice, we shall shortly include it in consolidated guidance to health authorities on the use of ionising radiations.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many consultant radiotherapist posts were funded within the National Health Service; and in which hospitals these posts are or were located in(a) 1983 and (b)

  Mr. Mellor
  Information about medical staffing is collected by employing authority and not in relation to the hospital in which a doctor is working. The employing autorities for consultants are regional health authorities, district health authorities designated for teaching purposes and special health authorities for the London postgraduate teaching hospitals. The latest available informantion about consultant radiotherapists by employing authority is set out in the table.

  Table: permanent paid consultants in radiotherapy: by regional health authority and teaching district health at 30 September each year

  1983

  1986

  number

  WTE

  number

  WTE

  England

  182

  177·7

  181

  175·2

  Northern RHA

  9

  8·0

  10

  8·8

  Newcastle upon Tyne DHA

  6

  4·4

  6

  4·3

  Yorkshire RHA

  14

  10·4

  12

  9·4

  Leeds Western DHA

  8

  6·0

  8

  6·3

  Trent RHA

  15

  14·5

  17

  15·4

  Leicestershire DHA

  3

  3·0

  3

  3·0

  Nottingham DHA

  4

  3·0

  4

  3·0

  Sheffield DHA

  5

  4·4

  6

  5·4

  East Anglian RHA

  8

  8·0

  10

  10·0

  Cambridge DHA

  4

  3·0

  5

  3·9

  North West Thames RHA

  15

  11·6

  11

  9·1

  Paddington and North Kensington DHA

  3

  1·6

  1

  0·5

  272

  1983

  1986

  number

  WTE

  number

  WTE

  Riverside DHA

  6

  5·0

  4

  3·8

  North East Thames RHA

  26

  22·9

  21

  19·4

  Hampstead DHA

  2

  1·8

  1

  0·5

  Bloomsbury DHA

  6

  3·5

  5

  3·7

  City and Hackney DHA

  4

  3·1

  3

  2·8

  Tower Hamlets DHA

  3

  2·8

  3

  2·9

  South East Thames RHA

  17

  15·1

  18

  17·1

  West Lambeth DHA

  4

  3·4

  3

  3·0

  Camberwell DHA

  2

  2·0

  2

  2·0

  Lewisham and North Southwark DHA

  3

  2·1

  3

  2·3

  South West Thames RHA

  10

  6·5

  9

  6·5

  Wandsworth DHA

  4

  2·1

  3

  2·1

  Wessex RHA

  9

  8·6

  12

  9·9

  Southampton and South West Hants DHA

  4

  4·0

  4

  4·0

  Oxford RHA

  12

  9·9

  12

  10·7

  Oxfordshire DHA

  4

  3·8

  5

  4·7

  South Western RHA

  16

  14·8

  16

  14·1

  Bristol and Weston DHA

  7

  5·7

  7

  5·1

  West Midlands RHA

  15

  14·0

  15

  13·9

  Central Birmingham DHA

  5

  3·9

  6

  4·7

  Mersey RHA

  8

  7·1

  7

  6·5

  Liverpool Central DHA

  8

  1·0

  7

  1·7

  North Western RHA

  17

  15·6

  17

  15·6

  Central Manchester DHA

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  South Manchester DHA

  16

  15·4

  16

  15·5

  Salford DHA

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  Special Health Authorities (LPGTHs)

  Hospital for Sick Children

  0

  0·0

  1

  0·2

  Hospitals for Nervous Diseases

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  Moorfields Eye Hospital

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  Bethlem and Maudsley

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  National Heart and Chest

  1

  0·1

  1

  0·1

  Royal Marsden

  5

  3·9

  5

  4·0

  Hammersmith and Queen Charlottes

  7

  5·4

  5

  3·9

  Eastman Dental

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  Notes:

  1.Regional health authority figures include all consultant staff employed within the region including the numbers for individual authorities cited.

  2.For the England total, staff holding two or more appointments whether with the same or different regions are counted once only. Differences in the sum of numbers of staff for all regions are due to the duplication of staff holding appointments in more than one region. Such are included in each region. This duplication does not occur in the WTE component.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he has taken to ensure that each radiaion machines has(a) a calibration logbook, (b) a maintenance logbook and (c) a patient logbook; and on what dates such steps were taken.

  Mr. Mellor
  This is for individual health authorities to decide. Recommendations for record keeping are given in "Guidance Notes for the Protection of Persons against Ionising Radiations arising from Medical and Dental Use", which we drew to the attention of all health authorities in executive letter EL(88)P/64 in May 1988. This replaced "Code of Practice for the Protection of
  273
  Persons against Ionizing Radiations arising from Medical and Dental Use" which, originally printed in 1957, and subsequently revised in 1968 and 1972, similarly advised health authorities.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the sources of guidance for the maintenance standards of radiation machines he expects health authorities to adopt; on what dates such standards were drawn to the authorities' attention within the last five years; and if he will place the text of letters drawing attention to such standards in the Library.

  Mr. Mellor
  Existing departmental guidance to health authorities, bearing on the safe use and maintenance of equipment delivering radiation doses, is in the form of:

  (a) Health Circular HC(85)31, issued in December 1985, which informs authorities of their responsibilities as employers for ensuring compliance with the Ionising Radiations Regulations 1985.

  (b)Health Equipment Information Booklet HE1 98, updated in August 1984, on management of equipment;

  (c)Health Notice HN(87)22, issued in 1987, which sets out advice on decontamination procedures, where necessary for inspection or maintenance purposes;

  (d)Executive Letter EL(88)P/64, issued in May 1988, covered issued of a detailed document, "Guidance Notes for the Protection of Persons Against Ionising Radiations Arising from Medical and Dental Use";

  (e)Health Circular HC(88)29, issued in June 1988, which informed authorities of their responsibilities under the Ionising Radiation (Protection of Persons Undergoing Medical Examination or Treatment) Regulations 1988;

  (f) Executive Letter EL(88)P/127, issued to Regional General Managers in December 1988, which reminded authorities of their responsibility to ensure that they and their staff observe their obligations to protect people against any harmful effect from ionising radiations and to ensure safe and effective operation of all their departments.

  I have arranged for copies of the guidance specified to be placed in the Library.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the sources of guidance for the calibration and dose control standards of radiation medicines which he expects health authorities to implement, and the particular sections of such sources which particularly refer to calibration and dose standards; and if he will place all such guidance in the Library.

  Mr. Mellor
  In May 1988 executive letter EL(88)P/64 was issued to all health authorities, covering the guidance notes for the protection of persons against ionising radiations arising from medical and dental use, which replaced a code of practice first published in 1957, and most recently revised in 1972. Section 10.46 et seq of the guidance notes deal specifically with calibration and dose standards regarding radioactive substances, (which includes what you refer to as radiation medicines).

  The executive letter indicated that the guidance notes provided a guide to good practice and asked managers to bring them to the attention of all relevant staff. All these documents have been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he has asked for all the incidents of radiation overdosage within the National Health Service to be reported to him; and on what dates such a request was issued to regions or districts.

  Mr. Mellor
  In 1972 we contributed to a revision of the code of practice for the protection of persons against 274
  ionising radiations arising from medical and dental use, which was issued to all health authorities. That code called for reporting of instances in which patients had received in excess of a prescribed dose of radiation.

  The Ionising Radiations Regulations 1985 sent to all health authorities along with health circular HC(85)31, made it mandatory for the Health and Safety Executive to be notified, by the employer, of any incident in which a person undergoing a medical exposure was exposed to ionising radiation, to an ex tent much greater than that intended. The guidance notes for the protection of persons against ionising radiations arising from medical and dental use published in 1988, to replace the code of practice, gave further guidance on the interpretation of the Ionising Radiations Regulations 1985, and made it clear that all radiation accidents or serious defects involving equipment should be notified immediately to the Department. This document, under cover of executive letter EL(86)P/64, was also distributed to all health authorities.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many consultant radiotherapists are actually working in the National Health Service in each of the last five years; and what percentage of such consultants are full time within the National Health Service.

  Mr. Mellor
  The available information is set out in the table. Consultants with whole-time NHS contracts are not required to spend the whole of their professional time on NHS work. The number of consultant staff working exclusively in the NHS is not known and, therefore, the percentage given is that for consultants holding whole-time contracts.

  Table: Consultants in Radiotherapy (at 30 September each year)

  England

  Numbers

  Year

  All staff1

  Whole-time

  Percentage whole-time

  1983

  199

  115

  57·8

  1984

  195

  107

  54·9

  1985

  199

  106

  53·3

  1986

  202

  104

  51·5

  1987

  204

  100

  49·0

  1 Includes permanent paid and honorary staff, but excludes locum staff.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what support he has given, or proposes to give, to the nationwide survey of the quality of radiation dosimetry being carried out by the Institute of Physical Sciences in Medicine;

  (2) why he has refused financial support to the Institute of Physical Sciences in Medicine's nationwide survey of the quality of radiation dosimetry.

  Mr. Mellor
  In 1984 a decision was taken not to support this project from central research and development funds. In terms of its research and development merits it was not of as high priority as competing projects. However, its merits as a quality assurance aid to NHS management was full recognised and the Institute of Physical Sciences in Medicine was advised to seek support from health authorities on this basis.

  A number of hospitals have subsequently participated in the survey, including the Royal Devon and Exeter hospital where, in 1988, it played a role in revealing an error in the radiotherapy department.

  Any further proposals for central funding will be considered on their merits.

  Broadmoor Special Hospital (Deaths)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list for the last five years the number of deaths that have occurred at Broadmoor special hospital, the cause of death and the number of deaths that were investigated by a public inquiry; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  Deaths of patients at Broadmoor hospital in the five years ended 31 December 1988 are listed in the table. That which occurred on 6 July 1984 was investigated by a public inquiry. But the circumstances of all deaths arising from other than natural causes are fully considered by hospital management to see whether any lessons can be learned.

  Date of death

  Cause of death

  20 January 1984

  Inhalation of stomach contents

  10 May 1984

  Stroke/heart attack

  6 July 1984

  Inhalation of stomach contents

  2 August 1984

  Pulmonary thrombo-embolism/carcinoma of colon/acute peritonitis

  23 November 1984

  Pneumonia

  8 March 1985

  Suicide (hanging)

  23 August 1985

  Heart attack

  29 April 1986

  Heart attack

  6 July 1986

  Heart attack

  26 July 1986

  Suicide (hanging)

  14 September 1986

  Heart attack

  11 November 1986

  Peritonitis/pneumonia

  20 May 1987

  Heart attack

  21 May 1987

  Pneumonia/lung cancer

  11 July 1987

  Suicide (hanging)

  10 September 1987

  Choked on food

  29 October 1987

  Heart attack

  28 January 1988

  Heart attack

  8 April 1988

  Cancer of the stomach

  29 April 1988

  Respiratory arrest/Cardio myopathy (HIV positive)

  23 August 1988

  Inhalation of stomach contents/cardio-respiratory failure associated with Chlorpromazine therapy

  7 October 1988

  Pneumonia associated with emphysema

  Year

  Total cost

  Estimated salaries

  Employers super-annuation

  Travelling

  1983–84

  917

  690

  138

  89

  1984–85

  1,051

  796

  159

  96

  1985–86

  1,229

  958

  192

  79

  1986–87

  1,335

  1,035

  207

  93

  1987–88

  1,455

  1,121

  224

  110

  It is not possible to provide figures for equipment, accommodation and rentals because these are subsumed in other departmental budgets and cannot easily be identified.

  Mr. Sean Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the average number of weeks worked per year by all dental reference officers in each of the years between 1983 and 1988, excluding sick leave, leave, study leave and attendance at courses.

  Mr. Freeman
  The information requested is as follows:

  Audiology Technicians
  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to ensure an adequate supply of audiology technicians for health authorities in the south-east of England.

  Mr. Mellor
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave on 29 November to the right hon. Member for Stoke on Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) at column 197.

  Dentists
  Mr. Sean Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether any additional accountancy fees arising from time taken to answer questions from the dental rates study group are to be fully reimbursed to the dentists concerned.

  Mr. Freeman
  General dental practitioners' practice expenses, including accountancy fees in connection with NHS work, are reimbursed indirectly through fees paid for NHS dental treatment. These fees are based on the recommendations of the dental rates study group.

  Mr. Sean Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether British dentists will be free after 1992 to practice within the EEC without further accreditation.

  Mr. Freeman
  Any United Kingdom dentist with a recognised qualification already has the right to practice within any member state of the EC under directives adoped in 1978.

  Dental Reference Service
  Mr. Sean Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the cost of the dental reference service in each year from 1983 to 1988; and whether he will give separate figures for salaries, travelling, pension contributions, purchase of equipment, accommodation costs, and rental of premises within that overall figure.

  Mr. Freeman
  The information requested is set out in the table. All figures relate to the financial year and are in £000s.

  Year

  Number of weeks

  1984

  42·6

  1985

  42·1

  1986

  42·3

  1987

  42·6

  1988

  40·8

  Information in respect of 1983 is not available.

  Health Authority Chairmen
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will take steps to produce a register of interests for chairmen of district and regional health authorities.
  277
  Mr. Mellor
  No, it is not necessary. The statutory position on this is quite clear. Under regulation 14 (1) of the NHS (Regional and District Health Authorities Membership and Procedure) Regulations 1983 a chairman or member of a health authority is required to declare any pecuniary interest, direct or otherwise, in any contract or other matter which is the subject of consideration by the health authority. He may not then take part in any consideration or discussion of the contract (or other matter) or vote in any question in respect of it.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish the names of all British regional and district health authority chairmen indicating the length of time in which these persons have held office.

  Mr. Mellor
  The information requested for regional and district health authority chairmen in England has been placed in the Library. The appointment of health authority chairmen in Scotland is the responsibility of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, and in Wales and Northern Ireland, of my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Wales and Northern Ireland.

  Meningitis
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what was the total number of cases of meningitis recorded in the last year for which figures are available;

  (2) how many fatalities were recorded as a result of meningitis for the last year in which figures are available.

  Mr. Freeman
  Meningitis can be caused by a number of different organisms. The hon. Member may be particularly interested in meningococcal meningitis. The table shows the number of notifications received for this, plus for all forms of acute meningitis, together with the number of deaths registered with meningococcal meningitis (International Classification of Diseases 9th Revision 036.0) assigned as the underlying cause of death. Notification data for 1988 are as yet uncorrected and provisional, whilst cause of death data are available only for the first three quarters and are similarly provisional. Final data for 1987 are therefore also given.

  Number of notifications of all forms of acute meningitis and meningococcal meningitis; and death registrations of meningococcal meningitis (ICD 9 036.0)

  England and Wales 1987–88

  1987

  1988

  Notifications

  Acute meningitis2

  2,542

  33,001

  Meningococcal meningitis

  1,080

  31,309

  Deaths1

  Meningococcal meningitis

  37

  3 431

  1 Plus 28 days and over.

  2 From 1 October 1988 this became known simply as "meningitis".

  3 Provisional: to allow for corrected disease notifications/death registrations.

  4 January to September only.

  Blood Transfusions
  Mrs. Rosie Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether there are any plans to seek to change the law to enable doctors to perform life-saving operations, including the use of blood transfusions where necessary, to save the lives of children whose parents refuse consent on religious grounds.
  278
  Mr. Mellor
  No, there are no plans to change the law in this area. In an emergency the administration of life-saving procedures on any patient without obtaining consent is a matter for the clinical judgment of the doctor concerned.

  Dalkon Shields (Compensation)
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will request all health regions which have not already done so to seek out those women who were prescribed Dalkon shields and inform them that it is still possible to claim compensation if they were damaged by it;

  (2) what steps he intends to take to publicise the fact that the date for filing late Dalkon shield compensation claims has been extended to 31 July.

  Mr. Freeman
  We have no plans for Government intervention in relation to this matter of litigation in the United States courts. For the initial claims deadline, the court itself directed, and approved, publicity by the Dalkon shield manufacturers. Further extensions of the deadline have received independent media publicity. It is for individual health authorities to decide whether they wish to direct their resources to specific activity on this matter. Our longstanding advice has been that they should be as helpful as possible with regard to the release of information.

  Hospitals
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the name and health authority of each hospital with more than 250 beds.

  Mr. Mellor
  The information requested has been placed in the Library.

  Perinatal Deaths
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the number of perinatal deaths in(a) England, (b) the north-west and (c) Bolton during 1978 and 1988.

  Mr. Freeman
  Annual figures for 1988 for perinatal deaths are not yet available, so the table shows statistics for 1978 and 1987.

  Perinatal mortality (stillbirths and deaths in the first week of life): numbers and rates per 1,000 total live and still births. Usual residents of England, north-west standard region and Bolton metropolitan county district (MCD).

  Area of usual residence

  1978

  1987

  England

  Number

  8,766

  5,742

  Rate

  15·4

  8·9

  North West Region

  Number

  1,363

  837

  Rate

  17·0

  9·4

  Bolton MCD

  Number

  68

  29

  Rate

  19·4

  7·7

  AIDS
  Mr. Grylls
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what safeguards health authorities take to ensure that no one shown by tests to be HIV positive or to have AIDS is allowed to work in National Health Service kitchens.

  Mr. Mellor
  I am advised that the human immunodeficiency virus is not transmitted through food. There is therefore no reason why people who are HIV positive but otherwise well should not work in National Health Service kitchens. People who are HIV positive or have AIDS who acquire other infections which could be transmitted through food would be subject to the same restrictions on food handling as any other staff with such infections.

  Drug Warnings
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many drug companies have appealed to the Committee on Safety of Medicines against drug warnings which the committee wished to publish; which companies and which drugs were involved; and what were the results of the appeals.

  Mr. Mellor
  Under the Medicines Act 1968, companies have a right of appeal to the Committee on Safety of Medicines (CSM) in respect of CSM's advice to the licensing authority on licensing matters. They have no right of appeal to the CSM about a decision of that committee to issue information or guidance on licensed medicinal products to doctors, dentists and pharmacists.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will seek to amend the Medicines Act so that drug companies are not able to block the publication by the Committee on Safety of Medicines of warning notices about the safety of drugs by an injunction.

  The new clinical grading structure for nursing, midwifery and health visitor staff Numbers of old clinical grades assimilated to each of the new clinical grades on the basis of duties and responsibilities on 1 April 1988

  Numbers transferred to each new clinical grade

  Previous grade

  Staff1 (W.T.E.)

  A

  B

  C

  D

  E

  F

  G2

  H

  I

  Trent region

  Nursing Auxiliary

  9,076·50

  8,209·54

  856·96

  10·00

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Staff Nursery Nurse

  217·92

  —

  208·36

  9·56

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Enrolled Nurse3

  6,379·63

  —

  —

  2,749·84

  3,129·68

  499·11

  1·00

  —

  —

  —

  Enrolled District Nurse3

  340·97

  —

  —

  —

  338·97

  2·00

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Senior Enrolled Nurse3

  371·99

  —

  —

  4·40

  223·29

  142·09

  2·21

  —

  —

  —

  Staff Nurse3

  6,632·21

  —

  —

  —

  1,544·90

  4,649·31

  438·00

  —

  —

  —

  Staff Midwife3

  701·90

  —

  —

  —

  115·14

  577·67

  9·09

  —

  —

  —

  Deputy Sister3

  395·20

  —

  —

  —

  —

  81·84

  305·90

  6·46

  1·00

  —

  Nursing Sister II3

  3,801·63

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,726·45

  1,956·47

  114·71

  4·00

  Midwifery Sister II3

  873·51

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  261·20

  609·81

  2·50

  —

  District Nurse (Sister II)3

  1,066·06

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2·45

  1,054·61

  9·00

  —

  Nursing Sister I

  57·99

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3·37

  23·82

  26·80

  4·00

  Midwifery Sister I

  19·00

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1·00

  18·00

  —

  —

  Health Visitor

  878·35

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  870·75

  7·60

  —

  Senior Nurse 8

  331·48

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2·00

  59·13

  177·35

  93·00

  Senior Nurse 8 (Midwife)

  38·00

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  12·00

  13·00

  13·00

  Senior Nurse 7

  300·40

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  5·00

  37·60

  257·80

  Senior Nurse 7 (Midwife)

  36·93

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  13·00

  23·93

  Clinical Teacher

  154·56

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3·00

  151·56

  —

  Fieldwork Teacher

  121·65

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1·00

  0·53

  120·12

  —

  Practical Work Teacher

  157·80

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3·00

  154·80

  —

  Tutor

  197·93

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1·00

  196·93

  Tutor Midwife

  45·16

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  45·16

  Post basic students

  Enrolled

  282·00

  —

  —

  282·00

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Staff Nurse

  936·50

  —

  —

  —

  882·50

  44·00

  2·00

  10·00

  —

  —

  280
  Mr. Mellor
  I have no plans to do so.

  Trent Regional Health Authority
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people have died of lung cancer in the Trent health region in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Freeman
  The information is shown in the table; 1987 is the latest year available.

  Number of death registrations with malignant neoplasm of trachea, bronchus and lung (ICD 162)1 as underlying cause of death to usual residents of Trent regional health authority, 1979–1987

  Year

  Number of deaths

  1979

  2,938

  1980

  3,047

  1981

  3,186

  1982

  3,046

  1983

  3,137

  1984

  3,203

  1985

  3,340

  1986

  3,166

  1987

  3,191

  1 International classification of diseases; 9th revision.

  Nurses' Grading
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if, further to his reply of 26 January, he will make available to the hon. Member for Nottingham, North, the grading returns received from the Trent region and Nottingham district authorities.

  Mr. Mellor
  The grading returns specify the number of nursing and midwifery staff in each old grade that have been assimilated to each of the new clinical grades. This information is given in the tables.
  281

  Numbers transferred to each new clinical grade

  Previous grade

  Staff1 (W·T·E·)

  A

  B

  C

  D

  E

  F

  G2

  H

  I

  Deputy Sister

  8·00

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4·00

  4·00

  —

  —

  —

  Sister II

  16·00

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  15·00

  1·00

  —

  —

  Others

  28·11

  3·27

  1·80

  —

  0·64

  4·21

  0·74

  7·45

  2·00

  8·00

  Totals

  33,469·38

  8,212·81

  1,067·12

  3,055·80

  6,235·12

  6,004·23

  2,775·41

  4,641·03

  832·04

  645·82

  Nottingham DHA

  Nursing Auxiliary

  1,263·58

  1,147·18

  114·40

  2·00

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Staff Nursery Nurse

  34·50

  —

  32·00

  2·50

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Enrolled Nurse3

  799·75

  —

  —

  131·96

  652·83

  14·96

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Enrolled District Nurse3

  27·30

  —

  —

  —

  26·30

  1·00

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Senior Enrolled Nurse3

  103·45

  —

  —

  1·40

  83·55

  18·00

  0·50

  —

  —

  —

  Staff Nurse3

  1,045·30

  —

  —

  —

  215·53

  788·18

  41·59

  —

  —

  —

  Staff Midwife3

  120·82

  —

  —

  —

  23·00

  97·82

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Deputy Sister3

  50·13

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2·00

  48·13

  —

  —

  —

  Nursing Sister II3

  590·90

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  260·86

  328·04

  2·00

  —

  Midwifery Sister II3

  153·10

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  23·13

  129·97

  —

  —

  District Nurse (Sister II)3

  112·04

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  112·04

  —

  —

  Nursing Sister I

  6·00

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  6·00

  —

  —

  Midwifery Sister I

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Health Visitor

  124·45

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  123·45

  100

  —

  Senior Nurse 8

  71·60

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2·00

  39·60

  27·00

  3·00

  Senior Nurse 8 (Midwife)

  7·00

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  7·00

  —

  —

  Senior Nurse 7

  45·00

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  5·00

  8·00

  32·00

  Senior Nurse 7 (Midwife)

  10·93

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  9·00

  1·93

  Clinical Teacher

  26·16

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  26·16

  —

  Fieldwork Teacher

  14·00

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  14·00

  —

  Practical Work Teacher

  24·00

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  24·00

  —

  Tutor

  38·03

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  38·03

  Tutor Midwife

  8·00

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  8·00

  Post basic students

  Enrolled

  35·00

  —

  —

  35·00

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Staff Nurse

  183·00

  —

  —

  —

  183·00

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Deputy Sister

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Sister II

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Others

  2·00

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2·00

  Totals

  4,896·04

  1,147·18

  146·40

  172·86

  1,184·21

  921·96

  376·21

  751·10

  111·16

  84·96

  1 Staff in post plus vacancies.

  2 Excludes some additional 'G' posts which health authorities have indicated they intend to create in future on existing two-sister wards.

  3 Excludes Post Basic Students.

  Medical Equipment Management
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many different categories of National Health Service staff are employed in the maintenance of patient-connected equipment; how many people are employed in each category; and what the change has been in the distribution and usage of these various categories since the Department of Health and Social Security issued its guidance on the management of medical equipment, HEI98, in January 1982.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 25 January 1989]: There are usually three categories of staff: physicists, technicians and, in some cases, works staff. We do not collect information centrally on the numbers of staff in these categories who are engaged in this type of maintenance work. We have no indication of any changes in usage patterns since the publication of HEI98.

  Medical Physics Technicians
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many individual health authorities employ medical physics technicians, codes F807–F814.
  282
  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 25 January 1989]: At 30 September 1987, the latest date for which figures are available, 148 of the 191 district health authorities had medical physics technicians in post and five of the 14 regional health authorities had medical physics technicians in post.

  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many individual variation orders have been issued to medical physics technicians over the last three years on a monthly basis.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 25 January 1989]: The number of variation orders issued in respect of staff employed in the medical physics technician grades in the last three years ending 31 December 1988 is as follows:

  1986

  1987

  1988

  January

  1

  —

  —

  February

  1

  1

  2

  March

  1

  1

  —

  April

  —

  1

  —

  May

  1

  —

  1

  June

  —

  1

  2

  July

  1

  —

  —

  August

  1

  —

  —

  September

  —

  —

  —

  283

  1986

  1987

  1988

  October

  —

  —

  —

  November

  —

  1

  2

  December

  —

  —

  —

  Medicines Committees
  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he will review the membership of the Medicines Commission and Committee on Safety of Medicines in view of the recent revelations of close personal financial links between several members and pharmaceutical companies.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 30 January 1989]: No. I refer the hon. Member to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. McLoughlin) on 13 December 1988, at columns 557–58.

  No-fault Compensation
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will initiate discussions with the Association of British Pharmaceutical Industry and organisations representing doctors and patients regarding a no-fault drug damage compensation scheme.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 31 January 1989]: We have no plans to do so.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received supporting no-fault compensation for those people damaged by prescribed drugs or those given under medical supervision.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 31 January 1989]: Only those in which the right hon. Member himself has taken part.

  Drugs (Side Effects)
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what current procedures are used to ensure that those prescribing drugs are aware of recent findings which may indicate possible side effects or the need for precautions in the use of drugs.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 31 January 1989]: The Committee on Safety of Medicines (CSM) sends its publication "Current Problems" to all doctors, dentists, and pharmacists in the United Kingdom about three times a year. This covers a wide range of current drug safety issues, and often includes advice and recommendations to prescribers. The CSM also provides occasional articles and letters for medical journals. Particularly urgent issues are notified direct to prescribers using CSM "Dear Doctor" letters.

  The Department also funds the distribution to prescribers of a variety of independent publications, including the "British National Formulary", "Drug and Therapeutics Bulletin", "Adverse Drug Reactions Bulletin" and Prescribers' Journal, all of which provide guidance on the prescribing and use of drugs.

  Prescribers can also consult product data sheets which contain detailed information about known side effects, contra-indications and other precautions.

  Drug Addiction
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients are being treated within the Mersey regional health authority area for drug addiction; and what treatment facilities are available.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 31 January 1989]: In 1986, the latest year for which figures are available centrally, there were 354 admissions with a drug related main diagnosis to NHS mental illness hospitals and units in the Mersey RHA. Also, in the same year, there were 7,506 attendances at NHS drug addiction out-patient clinics.

  These figures do not represent the number of people involved since an individual could be admitted to hospital or attend an out-patient clinic several times in one year. In any case, most drug misusers are treated in the community for which information is not available centrally.

  There are 10 out-patient drug dependency services and two in-patient units in the region. There are also 12 syringe exchange schemes run by health authorities. These services are supported by a number of voluntary sector services including two residential centres and more than 10 providing counselling services to drug misusers and users' families.

  Midwives (Regrading)
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many midwives in the Mersey regional health authority area have appealed against their regrading; and when the appeals will be heard.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 31 January 19891: We do not hold this information centrally.

  Private Hospitals
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will list the occasions on which he has received reports of infringements of the NAHA code of conduct for private hospitals; what actions he has taken since its inception; and what further inspections were held;

  (2) what sanctions are available to his Department against private hospitals failing to comply with their statutory duty to provide and maintain adequate medical, surgical and nursing equipment; how often, following inspections by the appropriate district health authority, and an adverse report, he has acted against private hospitals, in the last three-year period; and what action he proposes to take;

  (3) if he will give the dates in 1985–86, 1986–87, 1987–88 and 1988–89 when the following private hospitals were inspected (a) the Wellington Humana, (b) the London clinic, (c) the BUPA hospital, Harpenden, Hertfordshire, (d) the Lister hospital, (e) the Cromwell hospital, Cromwell road and (f) the Portland hospital; and whether any of the reports were adverse.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 31 January 1989]: Registration and inspection of private hospitals and nursing homes is wholly delegated to district health authorities who must be satisfied that the statutory requirements are being met. We do not collect centrally details of their inspections. Authorities have power to cancel registration if the statutory requirements are not being observed. No private hospital has been added to the Department's national list of cancelled registrations.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Tax-Benefit Tables
  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are the reasons for changing the manner of expressing the former earnings of unemployed persons on the tax/benefit tables from whole number decimal places in such a way as to make direct year by year comparisons of tax/benefit more difficult.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The tables reflect the tax, national insurance, and benefit structures in particular financial years. Nominal earnings levels in any one year cannot be compared directly with the same nominal levels in another because of changes in price levels. The first gross wage level in table II of both the 1986 and 1987 editions gives the precise upper level of former wages which is consistent with the receipt of maximum family income supplement. Higher earnings levels are then shown in £1 steps. In earlier editions, the initial level of former earnings in table II was rounded to the nearest £1. The 1988 tables revert to this presentation. These differences in convention reflect no more than the degree of rounding chosen.

  Income Support
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the most recently available figure for the income support live load of each of his Department's offices.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The information is as follows:

  Income Support Load—30 November 1988 Midlands Manual Count

  Office

  Total live load

  Birmingham (Bradford Street)

  9,487

  Birmingham (Edgbaston)

  15,793

  Birmingham (Erdington)

  14,128

  Birmingham (Handsworth)

  17,094

  Birmingham (Ladywood)

  11,185

  Birmingham (Northfield)

  13,487

  Birmingham (Perry Bar)

  12,357

  Birmingham (Ravenhurst)

  8,577

  Birmingham (South Yardley)

  18,576

  Birmingham (Sparkhill)

  7,408

  Birmingham (Washwood Heath)

  13,330

  Boston

  7,103

  Burton-on-Trent

  5,414

  Cannock

  7,655

  Chesterfield

  16,462

  Corby

  4,304

  Coventry (East)

  18,336

  Coventry (West)

  14,762

  Derby (Becket Street)

  11,393

  Derby (Heritage Gate)

  6,148

  Derby (London Road)

  12,382

  Dudley (North)

  16,264

  Dudley (South)

  8,189

  Grantham

  5,393

  Hereford

  9,045

  Ilkeston

  6,664

  Kidderminster

  8,238

  Leamington

  9,641

  Leicester (Burley's Way)

  7,175

  Leicester (Lower Hill Street)

  10,752

  Leicester (Norton Street)

  13,137

  Leicester (Yeoman Street)

  13,936

  Lichfield

  9,270

  Lincoln (Newland)

  9,022

  Lincoln (Orchard Street)

  11,662

  286

  Office

  Total live load

  Loughborough

  7,945

  Mansfield

  13,022

  Newcastle (Staffs)

  8,016

  Northampton

  15,786

  Nottingham (Castlegate)

  11,878

  Nottingham (David Lane)

  10,834

  Nottingham (Shakespeare Street)

  13,269

  Nottingham (Station Street)

  14,220

  Nuneaton

  11,070

  Redditch

  8,795

  Rugby

  4,655

  Shrewsbury

  12,759

  Skegness

  4,672

  Smethwick

  15,970

  Stafford

  5,508

  Stoke-on-Trent (North)

  15,365

  Stoke-on-Trent (South)

  9,107

  Sutton-in-Ashfield

  7,437

  Telford

  13,145

  Walsall (East)

  11,346

  Walsall (West)

  13,024

  Wellingborough

  10,752

  West Bromwich

  17,158

  Wolverhampton (North)

  16,337

  Wolverhampton (South)

  16,224

  Worcester

  12,902

  Worksop

  8,599

  Income Support Load—30 November 1988 North West Manual Count

  Office

  Total live load

  Accrington

  6,978

  Ashton-under-Lyne

  10,575

  Barrow-in-Furness

  7,716

  Birkenhead (North)

  15,931

  Birkenhead (South)

  9,712

  Blackburn

  13,624

  Blackpool (North)

  18,255

  Blackpool (South)

  8,895

  Bolton

  20,039

  Burnley

  14,245

  Bury

  12,999

  Buxton

  1,904

  Carlisle

  7,667

  Chester

  9,178

  Crewe

  9,411

  Ellesmere Port

  6,209

  Farnworth

  8,751

  Hyde

  9,772

  Kendal

  2,470

  Lancaster

  10,836

  Leigh

  8,595

  Liverpool (Belle Vale)

  9,694

  Liverpool (Bootle)

  12,290

  Liverpool (Breckfield)

  15,314

  Liverpool (City)

  7,880

  Liverpool (Crosby)

  10,054

  Liverpool (Edgehill)

  14,734

  Liverpool (Garston)

  8,635

  Liverpool (Huyton)

  14,832

  Liverpool (Kirkby)

  15,277

  Liverpool (Norris Green)

  7,490

  Liverpool (Toxteth)

  14,408

  Liverpool (West Derby)

  4,449

  Macclesfield

  3,932

  Manchester (Central)

  4,881

  Manchester (Cheetham)

  11,527

  Manchester (Chorlton)

  9,494

  Manchester (Failsworth)

  11,855

  Manchester (Longsight)

  11,051

  Manchester (Middleton)

  8,080

  Manchester (Openshaw)

  10,603

  Manchester (Rusholme)

  11,548

  287

  Office

  Total live load

  Manchester (Sale)

  13,272

  Manchester (Withenshawe)

  12,016

  Northwich

  5,299

  Oldham

  15,854

  Penrith

  1,569

  Preston (North)

  12,838

  Preston (South)

  10,507

  Rochdale

  11,328

  Rossendale

  4,527

  Salford (North)

  14,951

  Salford (South)

  10,248

  Skelmersdale

  9,155

  Southport

  9,440

  St. Helens

  17,363

  Stockport (North)

  10,654

  Stockport (South)

  9,686

  Wallasey

  11,552

  Warrington

  15,857

  Whitehaven

  4,221

  Widnes

  14,015

  Wigan

  16,716

  Wilmslow

  2,967

  Workington

  5,504

  Income Support Load—30 November 1988 North East Manual Count

  Office

  Total live load

  Ashington

  6,703

  Barnsley (East)

  9,620

  Barnsley (West)

  7,248

  Berwick-upon-Tweed

  1,909

  Bishop Auckland

  12,418

  Blyth

  7,604

  Bradford (East)

  12,866

  Bradford (South)

  11,639

  Bradford (West)

  11,843

  Bridlington

  5,432

  Castleford

  4,991

  Chester-Le-Street

  6,047

  Darlington

  12,652

  Dewsbury

  12,681

  Doncaster (East)

  10,164

  Doncaster (West)

  12,951

  Durham

  5,749

  Eston

  7,599

  Gateshead

  20,643

  Goole

  4,276

  Grimsby

  20,588

  Halifax

  14,156

  Harrogate

  6,457

  Hartlepool

  11,137

  Hemsworth

  4,099

  Hexham

  2,615

  Houghton-Le-Spring

  4,118

  Huddersfield

  14,801

  Hull (East)

  22,414

  Hull (West)

  19,332

  Jarrow

  7,240

  Keighley

  8,213

  Leeds (East)

  15,198

  Leeds (North West)

  12,994

  Leeds (North)

  14,778

  Leeds (South)

  8,448

  Leeds (West)

  10,790

  Middlesborough

  20,555

  Newcastle (East)

  14,269

  Newcastle (St. James)

  14,336

  Newcastle (West)

  10,031

  North Shields

  10,183

  Northallerton

  4,762

  Peterlee

  6,215

  Pontefract

  5,553

  Redcar

  8,531

  288

  Office

  Total live load

  Rotherham (North)

  4,858

  Rotherham (South)

  16,218

  Scarborough

  8,737

  Scunthorpe

  10,870

  Seaham

  2,813

  Sheffield (North East)

  18,632

  Sheffield (North West)

  16,069

  Sheffield (South East)

  11,679

  Sheffield (South West)

  14,516

  Skipton

  2,265

  South Shields

  12,054

  Stanley

  9,473

  Stockton

  17,528

  Sunderland (North)

  18,169

  Sunderland (South)

  14,776

  Wakefield

  10,077

  Wallsend

  7,787

  Wath-On-Dearne

  7,118

  York

  13,501

  Income Support Load—30 November 1988 London South Manual Count

  Office

  Total live load

  Aldershot

  7,633

  Andover

  3,482

  Ashford

  4,422

  Basingstoke

  4,704

  Bognor Regis

  6,352

  Bracknell

  6,014

  Brighton

  14,907

  Canterbury

  8,196

  Chatham

  8,545

  Chichester

  3,990

  Crawley

  6,414

  Dover

  6,084

  Eastbourne

  9,932

  Epsom

  4,175

  Fareham

  8,417

  Folkestone

  5,820

  Gravesend

  5,320

  Guildford

  7,202

  Hastings

  11,896

  Havant

  6,583

  Hove

  8,268

  Isle of Wight

  10,265

  Lewes

  6,183

  London (Balham)

  11,596

  London (Battersea)

  11,888

  London (Bexley)

  9,953

  London (Bloomsbury)

  4,457

  London (Brixton)

  9,859

  London (Bromley)

  6,854

  London (Camberwell)

  10,095

  London (Chelsea)

  10,272

  London (City)

  2,695

  London (Croydon)

  15,179

  London (Crystal Palace)

  9,872

  London (Dartford)

  5,293

  London (Eltham)

  2,448

  London (Greenwich Park)

  12,863

  London (Hither Green)

  3,623

  London (Hounslow)

  12,903

  London (Kennington Park)

  9,010

  London (Kensington)

  7,638

  London (Kingston)

  6,794

  London (Lewisham)

  11,488

  London (Mitcham)

  6,428

  London (Orpington)

  4,527

  London (Oval)

  9,952

  London (Peckham)

  8,467

  London (Southwark)

  10,696

  London (Streatham)

  9,620

  London (Surbiton)

  3,922

  289

  Office

  Total live load

  London (Sutton)

  4,555

  London (Thames South)

  1,411

  London (Twickenham)

  4,646

  London (Wandsworth)

  8,309

  London (Westminster)

  4,356

  London (Wimbledon)

  6,923

  London (Woolwich)

  15,826

  Maidstone

  7,647

  New Forest

  6,759

  Newbury

  3,641

  Portsmouth (North)

  9,275

  Portsmouth (South)

  8,581

  Reading

  9,591

  Redhill

  5,969

  Rochester

  4,068

  Sittingbourne

  6,871

  Slough

  10,971

  Southampton

  19,357

  Thanet

  12,384

  Tunbridge Wells

  8,010

  Winchester

  4,377

  Woking

  7,673

  Worthing

  9,841

  Income Support Load—30 November 1988 North East Scotland Manual Count

  Office

  Total live load

  Aberdeen (North)

  9,187

  Aberdeen (South)

  9,388

  Airdree

  6,895

  Arbroath

  6,319

  Ayr

  13,738

  Bathgate

  12,321

  Bellshill

  5,948

  Campbeltown

  1,475

  Clydebank

  6,527

  Coatbridge

  6,414

  Cowdenbeath

  4,133

  Cumbernauld

  9,319

  Dumbarton

  7,586

  Dumfries

  7,490

  Dundee (East)

  11,529

  Dundee (West)

  10,557

  Dunfermline

  5,407

  East Kilbride

  5,301

  Edinburgh (City)

  10,009

  Edinburgh (East)

  10,363

  Edinburgh (North)

  9,904

  Edinburgh (South)

  9,928

  Edinburgh (West)

  10,073

  Elgin

  6,022

  Falkirk

  12,282

  Fort William

  2,448

  Galashiels

  5,852

  Glasgow (Anniesland)

  10,624

  Glasgow (Bridgeton)

  8,083

  Glasgow (City)

  8,748

  Glasgow (Craigton)

  11,715

  Glasgow (Cranston Hill)

  2,138

  Glasgow (Laurieston)

  14,436

  Glasgow (Maryhill)

  9,416

  Glasgow (Parkhead)

  11,046

  Glasgow (Patrick)

  7,539

  Glasgow (Provan)

  12,700

  Glasgow (Rutherglen)

  13,121

  Glasgow (Southside)

  12,385

  Glasgow (Springburn)

  13,334

  Greenock

  11,423

  Hamilton

  14,305

  Inverness

  11,232

  Irvine

  11,459

  Johnstone

  7,056

  Kilmarnock

  8454

  290

  Office

  Total live load

  Kirkcaldy

  10,465

  Lerwick

  1,035

  Leven

  4,978

  Motherwell

  10,766

  Oban

  1,879

  Paisley

  15,274

  Perth

  7,919

  Peterhead

  4,209

  Port Glasgow

  4,708

  Stirling

  10,118

  Stornoway

  4,366

  Stanraer

  2,823

  Wick

  4,328

  Income Support Load—30 November 1988 Wales/South West Manual Count

  Office

  Total live load

  Aberdare

  5,920

  Abertillery

  2,791

  Aberystwyth

  4,149

  Ammanford

  2,970

  Anglesey (Llangefni)

  2,990

  Bargoed

  4,735

  Barnstaple

  8,450

  Barry

  6,613

  Bath

  9,538

  Blackwood

  3,631

  Bournemouth

  15,242

  Bridgend

  10,066

  Bridgewater

  6,515

  Bristol (Central)

  9,425

  Bristol (East)

  13,894

  Bristol (Horfield)

  5,520

  Bristol (South)

  12,451

  Bristol (West)

  6,168

  Caernarfon

  5,480

  Caerphilly

  5,587

  Carmarthen

  3,634

  Cardiff (Central)

  9,343

  Cardiff (East)

  12,797

  Cardiff (West)

  10,771

  Cheltenham

  8,510

  Chippenham

  5,102

  Colwyn Bay

  7,433

  Cwmbran

  11,331

  Deeside

  5,093

  Devonport

  10,708

  Dolgellau

  1,610

  Ebbw Vale

  6,318

  Exeter

  17,571

  Gloucester

  11,388

  Haverfordwest

  5,793

  Holyhead

  3,582

  Launceston

  5,026

  Llanelli

  7,677

  Merthyr Tydfil

  6,798

  Morriston

  7,719

  Neath

  5,786

  Newport (Gwent)

  17,171

  Newton

  4,406

  Pembroke Dock

  3,859

  Penzance

  7,279

  Plymouth

  15,512

  Pontypridd

  6,326

  Poole

  11,519

  Port Talbot

  5,438

  Porth

  4,626

  Porthmadoc

  2,979

  Rhondda (West)

  5,613

  Rhyl

  12,484

  Salisbury

  5,841

  St. Austell

  8,911

  Stroud

  6,758

  291

  Office

  Total live load

  Swansea

  17,678

  Swindon

  10,589

  Taunton

  9,193

  Torbay

  19,977

  Trowbridge

  4,270

  Truro

  11,174

  Weston-Super-Mare

  7,520

  Weymouth

  7,632

  Wrexham

  13,148

  Yeovil

  6,303

  Income Support Load—30 November 1988 London North Manual Count

  Office

  Total live load

  Aylesbury

  7,145

  Banbury

  4,711

  Basildon

  16,965

  Bedford

  10,465

  Braintree

  7,602

  Bury St. Edmunds

  8,487

  Cambridge

  12,241

  Chelmsford

  7,311

  Clacton-on-Sea

  6,347

  Colchester

  9,876

  Diss

  2,726

  Dunstable

  4,211

  Grays

  8,611

  Great Yarmouth

  9,183

  Harlow

  6,528

  Hemel Hempstead

  4,879

  Hertford

  6,785

  High Wycombe

  7,312

  Ipswich

  14,921

  King's Lynn

  14,453

  London (Acton)

  12,359

  London (Barking)

  13,344

  London (Barnet)

  5,878

  London (Canning Town)

  4,953

  London (Cricklewood)

  7,297

  London (Ealing)

  12,869

  London (Edgware)

  6,746

  London (Edmonton)

  14,574

  London (Euston)

  10,416

  London (Finsbury Park)

  16,503

  London (Hackney)

  14,524

  London (Harlesden)

  10,450

  London (Harrow)

  9,476

  London (Hendon)

  8,589

  London (Highgate)

  16,339

  London (Hoxton)1

  11,130

  London (Ilford)

  13,522

  London (Leytonstone)

  9,006

  London (Neasden)

  11,882

  London (Notting Hill)

  8,884

  London (Paddington)

  12,131

  London (Plaistow)

  10,239

  London (Poplar)

  13,670

  London (Romford)

  11,037

  London (Shoreditch)

  9,217

  London (Southall)

  9,359

  London (Stepney)

  8,404

  London (Stoke Newington)

  8,468

  London (Thames North)

  1,503

  London (Tottenham)1

  15,067

  London (Uxbridge)

  6,603

  London (Walthamstow)

  11,641

  London (Watford)

  6,926

  London (Wood Green)

  7,513

  London (Woodgrange Park)

  13,701

  Lowestoft

  7,218

  Luton

  12,256

  Milton Keynes

  9,702

  Norwich (Chantry)

  12,834

  292

  Office

  Total live load

  Norwich (Mountergate)

  13,618

  Oxford

  15,842

  Peterborough

  17,432

  Southend-on-Sea

  15,673

  St. Albans

  5,844

  Stevenage

  9,396

  1 Data are provisional and subject to amendment.

  Young People (Benefits)
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the changes since 1979, and the dates when they occurred (i) in the conditions of entitlement to supplementary benefit and income support of persons aged 19 years in non-advanced education and (ii) in the circumstances in which extra-statutory payments in lieu of benefit can be made to such persons.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [pursuant to his reply, 23 January 1989, c.415–17]: I regret the answer was incomplete. I should add that from 11 April 1988, on the introduction of income support, extra-statutory payments were made in additional circumstances to certain 19-year-olds in full-time education. Payments were available on application to young people of age 19 who either had no parents or were estranged or separated from them, and who had been receiving supplementary benefit on that basis immediately before the introduction of income support. The payments from the transitional payments unit in Glasgow were made at the rate of supplementary benefit previously paid, and continued up to the end of the 1988 school year or age 20, in the same way as supplementary benefit would have done. These special payments relating to the transition from supplementary benefit to income support are not available to young people who reached age 19 on or after 11 April 1988.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of the total population of each standard planning region of the United Kingdom was dependent upon income support or its predecessor benefits in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I regret that this information could be provided only by social security region and only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people are claiming income support in each standard planning region of the United Kingdom; what were the corresponding figures for each year since 1979; and what was the percentage increase over 1979.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Information about supplementary benefit or income support claimants is not collected by standard planning region. Information by social security region is as follows:

  Table 1 Number of claimants in receipt of Supplementary Benefit in a week in November/December: 1979 to 1981

  Thousands

  Social Security Region

  1979

  1980

  1981

  Northern

  200

  218

  255

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  277

  312

  374

  East Midlands and East Anglia

  244

  272

  324

  London North

  260

  287

  346

  293

  Social Security Region

  1979

  1980

  1981

  London South

  294

  312

  364

  London West

  218

  235

  272

  South Western

  210

  221

  255

  West Midlands

  274

  312

  389

  North Western—Manchester

  204

  226

  273

  Merseyside

  215

  233

  278

  Wales

  172

  186

  221

  Scotland

  286

  304

  371

  Table 2 Number of claimants in receipt of Supplementary Benefit or Income Support in a week1: 1982 to 1988

  Thousands

  Social Security Region

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1986

  1987

  19882

  North Eastern

  692

  714

  756

  794

  777

  701

  London North

  660

  669

  710

  774

  755

  644

  London South

  579

  582

  626

  680

  664

  581

  Wales and South Western

  541

  548

  582

  624

  607

  545

  Midlands

  728

  732

  769

  821

  818

  715

  North Western

  644

  664

  698

  739

  738

  670

  Wales

  253

  260

  275

  291

  287

  259

  Scotland

  423

  440

  468

  506

  535

  499

  1 A week in November or December up to 1984, February 1986 and in May 1987.

  2 Figures for 1988 are provisional and subject to amendment.

  Note: Due to the restructuring of the Regional Organisation in 1982 it is not possible to estimate the percentage increase over 1979.

  Sources for both tables:

  1979–1987 Annual Statistical Inquiry.

  1988 May Quarterly Statistical Inquiry.

  Single Parents
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what has been the results to date of the pilot exercises being carried out by officers from his Department at Eastbourne and Leicester benefit offices on single parents' reliance on social security benefits; if he will list the benefits being claimed and by sex; what consideration in the exercise is being given to child care provision and job training; whether this exercise will be carried out at other offices; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Independent research exploring the motivations and perceptions of lone parents receiving benefit has been commissioned. It will look at a wide range of lone parents' circumstances including child care arrangements and job training.

  A pilot of the design of the study is currently under way in Sittingbourne and Leicester. A sample of lone parents receiving income support have been selected at random and invited to participate in the study. The results from this pilot, which is scheduled for completion on 24 February, will be used to ensure that the main study is effective.

  The national study will begin in April 1989 in 44 locations across the country and will include lone parents receiving income support or one-parent benefit only. The final report is due in May 1990.

  Mr. Simon Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he has any plans to introduce monitoring procedures for one-parent benefit.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  One-parent benefit is paid to 670,000 claimants and estimated expenditure on it in 1988–89 is £169 million. There is at present no procedure for reviewing entitlement to the benefit. Procedures for postal 294
  review of claims exist for a number of other social security benefits such as income support and invalidity benefit. We have therefore decided that arrangements for postal review of claims to one-parent benefit should be introduced. A postal review of existing claims will be conducted, starting in February. In addition a procedure for regular postal review of new claims will be introduced and this will begin in 1990.

  Funeral Costs
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will ease the criteria for social security payment of funeral costs in the light of the findings of the Office of Fair Trading that the estate of a deceased person or insurance payments fails to meet the full cost of the funeral in 28 per cent. of cases, and social security payments contribute in 3 per cent. of cases.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The introduction of social fund funeral payments in April 1987 extended help with meeting the cost of a simple funeral, which had previously been available only to people receiving supplementary benefit, to all on low incomes, whether in work or out of it. People who are in receipt of income support, family credit or housing benefit are eligible. We plan to lay regulations before the House shortly to extend eligibility for funeral payments, as from April 1989, to people in Scotland who receive a community charge rebate and, from April 1990, to those in England, Wales and Scotland who receive a community charge benefit. We believe that it is right to concentrate help in this manner and that a family who can afford to pay funeral costs which cannot be met from the deceased's estate should be expected to do so.

  One-parent Families
  Sir Ian Gilmour
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish figures showing expenditure on social security benefits for one-parent families in 1969, 1970, 1980 and each year thereafter, at constant 1988–89 prices and as percentages of all social security benefit expenditure for families with children in each year.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Data on a consistent basis are available only for the years from 1981–82. The information requested is given for the years 1981–82 to 1988–89.

  £ million, Great Britain

  Social security1 expenditure on lone parents2 (1988–89 prices)

  Expenditure as percentage of total social security expenditure on families with children3

  1981–82

  1,860

  28

  1982–83

  2,090

  30

  1983–84

  2,300

  32

  1984–85

  2,420

  32

  1985–86

  2,640

  35

  1986–87

  2,920

  37

  1987–88

  3,110

  40

  1988–89

  3,390

  43

  1 Benefits included are: One parent benefit, supplementary benefit/income support, housing benefit, child benefit, maternity benefit and family income supplement/family credit.

  2 Excludes widows with children.

  3 Family benefits are those paid on account of family responsibilities. Benefits included in the definition are: Child benefit, one parent benefit, family income supplement/family credit, maternity benefit and supplementary benefit/income support and housing benefit paid to lone parent families.

  Widows' Benefits
  Mr. Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will take steps to remove the anomaly whereby a widow may claim a range of benefits on the death of her husband the level of which is dependent on his contribution record, whereas a widower is not eligible for any such benefits although his wife's earnings may have contributed equally or solely to the family's income.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  A draft European Community directive which aims to complete the process of implementing the principle of equal treatment for men and women in statutory and occupational social security schemes is currently under consideration. This directive, if implemented in its present form, would require the application of equal treatment to benefits for survivors.

  Poverty Line
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage of the adult working population he assesses as being below the poverty line; and what percentage was below the poverty line in 1984 and 1979.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  There is no official definition of "poverty" and no generally agreed way in which to qualify it. Nor has there ever been any suggestion or acceptance by any Government, irrespective of party, that it is possible to draw any simple poverty line.

  Pensions
  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what action he will be taking following receipt of the report from the Occupational Pensions Board on the balance of interests between employers and occupational scheme members.

  Mr. Moore
  I have today laid before Parliament the report by the Occupational Pensions Board on the balance of interests between employers and occupational scheme members. The report is being published today as Cm. 573, "Protecting Pensions: Safeguarding Benefits in a Changing Environment". We are considering the recommendations, and will find it valuable to know the views of interested organisations and individuals to inform that process.

  I am therefore, today, launching a three-month consultation exercise to seek the general reaction to the report. Responses should be sent by 30 April to: DSS, Room 429, Friars House, 157–168 Blackfriars Road, London, SE1 8EU.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Arbuthnot
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will announce the revised allocation of social fund budgets for the offices at Rhyl and Deeside following the transfer of responsibility for Bagillt from Rhyl to Deeside.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  On 30 January 1989 the area of Bagillt previously served by the office at Rhyl became the responsibility of the office at Deeside. Accordingly the allocations to Rhyl and Deeside have been adjusted. The new allocations are as follows:296

  Grants budget (£)

  Loans budget (£)

  Period of allocation

  Rhyll

  108,524

  250,048

  11 April 1988 to 31 March 1989

  Deeside

  54,380

  128,567

  123 May 1988 to 31 March 1989

  1 Deeside office opened on 23 May 1988.

SCOTLAND

  Metered Water
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received concerning the increased charges for metered water supplies.

  Mr. Rifkind
  I have received representations on behalf of six trade associations and four companies.

  Ferries
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress has been made in the transferring to the private sector of the Gourock-Dunoon and Wemyss Bay-Rothesay routes.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The possible transfer of the Gourock-Dunoon and Wemyss Bay-Rothesay routes to the private sector will be a matter for the new board of Caledonian MacBrayne to consider once it has been appointed by my right hon. and learned Friend.

  Constitutional Convention
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has received any request from those organising the constitutional convention for the use of the old high school buildings in Edinburgh; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Rifkind
  Responsibility for use of the buildings rests primarily with my learned Friend, the Lord Advocate, whose Department occupies them. I understand that no such request has been received.

  Rating Reform
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received concerning the criteria for relief from the poll tax for disabled people.

  Mr. Lang
  My right hon. and learned Friend has received a number of representations about the reliefs from liability to pay the full community charge that may be available for disabled people.

  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received regarding the community charge from the police forces in Scotland.

  Mr. Lang
  None.

  Mr. Patnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what average level of community charge in Scotland he is now estimating for 1989–90; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the levels of poll tax declared by the regions and districts in Scotland for the year 1988–89.
  297
  Mr. Lang
  The average level of community charge in Scotland in 1989–90, including community water charge will be £301, as compared with the average charge of £267, which would have been required had authorities budgeted only to increase their spending in line with inflation. It is clear that many authorities have budgeted to increase their spending by well over the rate of inflation, and I expect that their community charge payers will call them to account in due course.

  Mr. Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will seek to remove the anomaly in the community charge regulations whereby people with a severe mental impairment have been given exemption from paying the community charge whereas people with degenerative brain disorders such as Alzheimer's disease will not quality for exemption.

  Mr. Rifkind
  The question whether people with degenerative brain disorders should be exempt from liability to pay the community charge was considered in detail during the parliamentary stages of the community charge legislation. It was recognised that considerable difficulties and potential for unfairness would be involved in assessing precisely when such a person reached a level of impairment at which an exemption would be appropriate. I remain satisfied that there are no grounds for extending the present exemptions for people who are severely mentally impaired to include those with degenerative brain disorders.

  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his latest assessment of the effect of the poll tax on medically and socially disadvantaged groups.

  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his latest assessment of the effect of the poll tax on medically and socially disadvantaged groups.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his latest assessment of the effect of the poll tax on medically and socially disadvantaged groups.

  Mr. Lang
  The community charge rebate scheme will ensure that nobody will be required to pay more community charge than they are able to afford. It is estimated that over 1 million people in Scotland will benefit from the scheme. The calculation of people's eligibility for rebate takes account of a wide range of circumstances including their financial circumstances and whether they are disabled. In addition, the community charge provides for exemption from the community charge for certain groups of people, including those with severe mental impairment and long-stay patients in hospitals, residential care homes, nursing homes or hostels.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what account he took in reaching his estimate of the 1989–90 average poll tax levy for each regional and district authority of demand for education, housing and other services that these authorities are responsible for and of the likely increase of the cost of providing such services.

  Mr. Lang
  Our estimates were based on local authorities' own budgeted relevant current expenditure for 1988–89, plus 6 per cent., plus allowances for the additional costs of community charge administration and school boards. Most housing costs fall on the housing revenue account and do not directly affect the levels of community charges.
  298
  Mr. Ernie Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received on the use of computer tagging to assist with the community charge.

  Mr. Lang
  Representations that a personal identifier would be required for each individual liable for the personal community charge were made by local authority practitioners during the passage of the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987. Following those representations a requirement for all such individuals to supply registration officers with their date of birth was inserted into the Act. A number of individuals and organisations made representations against the proposal. The development of computer systems is a matter for individual local authorities and my right hon. and learned Friend has made no recommendation to them on whether personal identifiers should be used and, if so, on what basis.

  Mr Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what sanctions he takes against a regional council that is printing and distributing official forms which describe the community charge as a poll tax; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  I strongly deprecate the use by a local authority of the term "poll tax" in relation to the community charge. It is misleading to do so because it implies, quite wrongly, that there is a connection between liability to pay the community charge and the right to vote. The community charges register and the electoral register are drawn up on different criteria for quite separate purposes.

  Mr. Ron Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has received recent representations from the Scottish Trades Union Congress about the community charge in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  My right hon. and learned Friend has received no recent representations from the Scottish Trades Union Congress on the community charge. The matter was not raised wth me by the STUC during my meeting with them on 27 January.

  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what would be the cost of extending the exemption from the poll tax to people who are severely physically handicapped.

  Mr. Lang
  The Government do not intend to extend the exemptions from the community charge to include people who are physically handicapped and no assessment of the cost of such an extension has therefore been made.

  Mr Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will exempt from the standard community charge owners of properties certified by them to be unsuitable for habitation.

  Mr. Lang
  Judgments about the habitability of properties are the responsibility of the community charges registration officer. His decisions are subject to appeal in the usual way. A system whereby such judgments were left to the owners of the properties concerned would be unworkable. The standard community charge is not payable on houses subject to closing or demolition orders or which are incapable of being lived in because they are being repaired, improved or reconstructed. Caravans,
  299
  huts, sheds, bothies or other similar structures which are intended to be used for residential purposes but are not, for any reason habitable throughout the year will remain subject to rating and will not be liable for the standard charge.

  Mr. Robert Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has had with Alzheimers, Scotland, about the application of the community charge.

  Mr. Lang
  My right hon. and learned Friend has received a number of representations from sufferers of Alzheimer's disease regarding payment of the community charge. A response to the points raised in these representations has recently been issued.

  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what figures he has available for the number of persons who have thus far not registered for payment of the community charge.

  Mr. Lang
  Responsibility for the compilation of community charges register rests with individual community charges registration officers and precise information about the levels of registration are not available. Initial indicators suggest, however, that the average level of registration throughout Scotland is around 99 per cent. of those liable to pay the community charge. This clearly demonstrates the failure of those campaigning against the community charge to make any impact.

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next intends to meet the Scottish Society for the Mentally Handicapped to discuss the implications of the poll tax.

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

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what regulations he has issued for community charge registration officers concerning residential care homes.

  Mr. Lang
  Schedule 1A to the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987, as amended by the Local Government Finance Act 1988, defines a "residential care home" and exempts someone who is solely or mainly resident in such a home from personal community charge liability.

  The Abolition of Domestic Rates (Domestic and Part Residential Subjects) (Scotland) Regulations 1988, which were laid before the House on 24 August 1988, determine the extent to which a residential care home will be treated as a domestic subject for the purposes of section 2 of the 1987 Act.

  The Standard and Collective Community Charges (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 1988, which were laid on 9 September 1988, provide for exemption from the standard community charge for persons who are exempt from the personal community charge by virtue of being solely or mainly resident in a residential care home.

  Mr. McKelvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he intends to meet representatives of Scottish students to discuss community charge rebates.

  Mr. Lang
  My right hon. and learned Friend has no plans to do so.
  300
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will issue advice to local authorities about how best to estimate the proportion of their theoretical maximum poll tax income which will not be collected, taking into account all known factors including deliberate evasion of the registration process; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  No. This is a matter for the local authorities themselves. The success of the registration process so far suggests that non-collection through evasion will not be a major problem.

  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many students in Scotland will be liable to pay the poll tax.

  Mr. Lang
  It is estimated that about 96,000 full-time students will be required to pay the 20 per cent. contribution towards the personal community charge and personal community water charge for which such students are liable.

  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will agree to meet a deputation from the Scottish Trades Union Congress to discuss its views on the poll tax; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  My right hon. and learned Friend will as always consider any requests from the Scottish Trades Union Congress for a meeting. No request for a meeting about the community charge has, however, been received. I met the general council of the STUC on Friday 27 January when the issue of the community charge was not raised.

  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will consider seeking to amend the community charge legislation, to exempt individuals with degenerative brain disorders from paying the poll tax.

  Mr. Lang
  The question whether people with degenerative brain disorders should be exempt from liability to pay the community charge was considered in detail during the parliamentary stages of the community charge legislation. It was recognised that considerable difficulties and potential for unfairness would be involved in assessing precisely when such a person reached a level of impairment at which an exemption would be appropriate. I remain satisfied that there are no grounds for extending the present exemptions for people who are severely impaired to include those with degenerative brain disorders.

  Mr. Galloway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has had from the National Union of Students, Scottish area, about the impact of the community charge on Scottish students; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  The National Union of Students was consulted about a number of sets of regulations concerning students which have been made under the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987 and its comments were taken fully into account. It has also been consulted on a draft information leaflet about the community charge which is to be made available to students, and its comments are being considered.
  301
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects the community charge register to be available for public inspection in Strathclyde and every other region in Scotland.

  Mr. Lang
  On 1 April 1989.

  Mr. McAvoy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the number of mentally handicapped people in Scotland; and how many of them are eligible for exemption from payment of the poll tax.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  It is not possible to give exact figures or reliable estimates of the total number of people with mental handicap in Scotland since reported prevalence rates for milder degrees of mental handicap show wide variation.

  People with severe mental handicap may be eligible for exemption from liability to pay the community charge if they are severely mentally impaired within the meaning of the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987 as amended and meet the qualifying conditions.

  The joint Scottish Home and Health Department—social work services group consultation document of 22 October 1987 on proposals for exempting people with severe mental handicap indicated that an estimated three per 1,000 of the population suffered from severe mental handicap and that the figure included those who were in-patients in mental handicap hospitals and those under 18 years of age.

  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will introduce legislation to stop warrant sales being used against people who refuse to pay the poll tax or fines associated with the poll tax.

  Mr. Lang
  No. I am satisfied that existing debt collection procedures are appropriate for the collection of community charge arrears and of associated civil penalties.

  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his estimate of the total number of retirement pensioners in Scotland who will not have to pay the full amount of the poll tax; and what percentage of the total number of retirement pensioners in Scotland this figure represents.

  Mr. Lang
  There are approximately 1,014,000 persons aged 60 or more in Scotland. It is estimated that over 50 per cent. of these will not have to pay the full amount of the community charge.

  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list all the Scottish local authorities who have written to him supporting the poll tax.

  Mr. Lang
  No local authority has made written representations to my right hon. and learned Friend recently about the policy of introducing the community charge.

  Farm Woodland Grant
  Mr. Mans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress is being made with regard to the farm woodland grant scheme.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  There has been considerable interest in this scheme in Scotland. Since the scheme 302
  opened at the beginning of October, the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland has received 102 applications containing proposals for planting almost 1,200 hectares of land.

  Council House Sales
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about progress with sales of council houses and flats under the right-to-buy legislation.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Almost 92,000 council houses and flats in Scotland were sold under the right-to-buy legislation from October 1980 to end September 1988. This is clear evidence of the success of the Government's right-to-buy policy and has made a major contribution to the diversification of ownership in Scotland.

  Mr. Knox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many council houses have been sold to sitting tenants in Scotland since May 1979.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The number of dwellings sold by Scottish local authorities to sitting tenants in the period from April 1979 to September 1988 was 95,075.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many council properties have been sold to their tenants in Scotland since 1979; and what proportion of Scottish houses are now in owner-occupation.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The number of dwellings sold by Scottish local authorities to sitting tenants in the period from April 1979 to September 1988 was 95,075. Over 44 per cent. of Scottish houses are now in owner-occupation.

  Industrial Rating
  Mr. Lambie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has met representatives of the Chemical Industry Association to discuss the proposals on industrial rating contained in its recent representations to him; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  I met representatives of the Chemical Industries Association in Glasgow on 13 January. We had a useful discussion on the proposals for reform of the industrial rating system in Scotland put forward by that association in its recent briefing paper "Scottish Industrial Rates: The Need for Change". The association's representatives accepted that radical change was not possible before the 1990 revaluation, but I was able to assure them that we are giving serious consideration to the prescription of decapitalisation rates north and south of the border for 1990, and to moving to a common approach on the treatment of plant and machinery as soon as possible after that. I also assured the association of our commitment to achieving harmonisation, and to moving to a common non-domestic rate in all areas.

  Competitive Tendering
  Mr. Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress is being made by local health authorities in Scotland with regard to competitive tendering.
  303
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  By the end of December, Scottish health boards had awarded 43 contracts for domestic and catering services producing estimated savings, for reinvestment in direct patient care, of nearly £15·4 million over the next three years. Further blocks of services are now being put out to tender.

  Rating Valuation
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the progress being made in harmonising rating valuation practices in Scotland with England and Wales.

  Mr. Lang
  The task of harmonisation is a complex one, but significant progress is being made and the full extent of this will become apparent in 1990. Our commitment to fairness for business ratepayers north and south of the border is not in doubt, and we intend to see through the programme of reform on which we have embarked.

  Scottish TUC
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any plans to meet the general secretary of the Scottish Trades Union Congress; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  I met the general council of the Scottish Trades Union Congress on 27 January. I drew its attention to the impressive performance of the Scottish economy in 1988, which saw major advances in manufacturing, construction and services; continuing successes in inward investment; a fall of 42,000 in seasonally-adjusted unemployment; and evidence of increased business optimism and investment intentions.

  Teachers
  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he has taken to enhance the skills and standing of the teaching profession.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  It is primarily for education authorities to ensure that the skills of their teaching force are sustained and extended. The Government strongly support programmes that foster professional commitment and provide means to improve qualifications and expertise. To that end, my right hon. and learned Friend established the Scottish committee for staff development in education in 1987 to promote the development of in-service training and to encourage its uptake by the profession. In that year the pay and conditions settlement which followed the teachers' dispute stipulated that five days should be set aside each year for in-service training and up to 50 hours for planned activities. The Government also fund the equivalent of 190 academic staff at colleges of education as a national resource available for the provision of in-service training and for assisting central training programmes. It is also supporting at a cost of £1 million per annum a major new initiative for the management training of headteachers.

  Unemployment
  Sir Hector Monro
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has had recent discussions with the Confederation of British Industry about the level of unemployment in Scotland.
  304
  Mr. Rifkind
  I am in frequent touch with the Confederation of British Industry on a range of issues affecting the Scottish economy. I am sure that the CBI shares my satisfaction that seasonally-adjusted unemployment in Scotland fell by 42,000 last year and is now at its lowest level since October 1981.

  Employment (Springburn)
  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to increase employment levels in Glasgow, Springburn.

  Mr. Lang
  The Scottish Development Agency and St. Rollox industrial development enterprise (STRIDE), the job creation enterprise set up by British Rail, are jointly commissioning consultants to identify employment, training and business development opportunities and the role of STRIDE within a wider economic initiative for Springburn. Additionally, the agency has under consideration a training and employment grants scheme aimed at the long-term unemployed and is actively pursuing with a housing development company, proposals for housing refurbishment within the Springburn area which would involve local construction jobs.

  School Boards
  Mr. Ward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what further representations he has received regarding school boards.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  A total of 35 formal responses have been received to consultation on draft regulations and guidance.

  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has had with regard to the voting system for school boards.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Twenty-two formal responses have been received to consultation on draft guidance on electoral procedure. In considering the content of the guidance to be issued, my right hon. and learned Friend will take these carefully into account, along with the views expressed during debate on the School Boards (Scotland) Bill by hon. Members from both sides of the House in favour of a single election system throughout Scotland and against any form of proportional representation.

  Civil Service Dispersal
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what benefits have accrued to Scotland arising from recent Civil Service dispersal; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Rifkind
  Since 1979 some 2,000 civil service posts have been dispersed to Scotland, representing 35 per cent. of the total moved. Some 70 per cent. of these posts have been filled by local recruitment, providing many valuable employment opportunities, particularly for young people and school leavers. Local economies have also benefited from the creation of additional jobs in services. The momentum of dispersal is being maintained, and I particularly welcome the recent decision of the Department of Social Security to move 430 posts to Glasgow as part of its programme of relocating work out of London.

  Employment Training
  Mr. Oppenheim
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how the Government's employment training scheme is progressing in Scotland; and how many people have taken up places on the scheme.

  Mr. Lang
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) earlier today.

  Tree Planting
  Mr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how far the Government's commitment to 33,000 hectares of new tree planting per annum is being met.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  In the year ended 31 March 1988, new planting by the Forestry Commission and by the private sector in respect of which grants were paid totalled 28,773 hectares. The figure for the current year is likely to be somewhat higher.

  Woodland
  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proportion of land in Scotland is covered by woodland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Just under 14 per cent. of Scotland is covered by woodland.

  Newbattle Abbey College
  Mr. Eadie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what reply he has sent to the submission made to him on or around 23 December 1988 regarding the future of Newbattle Abbey college, Dalkeith.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  My right hon. and learned Friend is considering the submission made by the board of governors of Newbattle Abbey college about continued Government funding for the college. He will respond shortly.

  Flagship Schools
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any proposals for the creation of flagship schools as centres of excellence; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  We have already announced our intention to proceed with the establishment of technology academies in Scotland to provide practical examples of high standards and expectations for pupils, parents and teachers.

  Skye Road Bridge
  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the proposed construction of a road bridge to the Isle of Skye.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I refer to the answer I gave to the hon. Member on Wednesday 25 January.

  Scottish Bus Group
  Mr. David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received with regard to the promotion of management-employee buy-outs in the Scottish Bus Group; and if he will make a statement.
  306
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. and learned Friend has received a number of representations on this subject from individual Scottish Bus Group subsidiaries and other interests. He has made it clear that he is keen to encourage management-employee buy-outs. The basis on which assistance will be given towards financial advice has already been announced to the House during the Second Reading of the Transport (Scotland) Bill on 14 December 1988 at columns 978–79.

  Rate Rebates
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his estimate of the number of people who currently receive a full rate rebate.

  Mr. Lang
  Figures for the number of people receiving the maximum rebate in 1988–89 are not available.

  European Single Market
  Mr. Roger King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress the committee looking into the implications and opportunities for Scotland of the single market in Europe is making; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  The single market committee of the Scottish Economic Council has been formed and held its first meeting on 13 January 1989. The committee members cover a wide range of interests including manufacturing industry, financial services, local authorities and trade unions and many of them have direct, practical experience of conducting business in Europe on behalf of both the private and public sectors. I am confident that with such a range of expertise on which to draw, the committee is very well placed to take an overview of activity in Scotland, and will be able to bring forward practical recommendations from which Scotland as a whole will benefit.

  Forests
  Mr. Couchman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the projected output from Scottish forests over the next 10 years.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The latest timber production estimates are as follows:

  Year commencing 1 April

  Estimated Production (000 cm)

  1989

  2,435

  1990

  2,520

  1991

  2,605

  1992

  2,690

  1993

  2,775

  1994

  2,930

  1995

  3,085

  1996

  3,240

  1997

  3,395

  1998

  3,550

  1999

  3,730

  Heating Costs
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the average annual cost of heating a standard three-bedroom house in Scotland by electricity.
  307
  Mr. Rifkind
  Estimated average annual costs for heating a standard three-bedroom, semi-detached house by electricity in central Scotland are as follows:

  Well insulated £

  Some loft insulation and draught-proofing £

  Minimal insulation £

  Space heating only

  235

  360

  425

  Space heating and water heating

  325

  450

  515

  Notes:

  1. Costs are calculated on the same basis as the last published (February 1986) Monergy Guides with tariffs updated to the levels operated by the South of Scotland Electricity Board from April 1988.

  2. No standing charges or maintenance costs are included.

  3. The calculations are based on all day heating (16 hours) using modern storage radiators and the figures are adjusted for outside temperatures prevailing in central Scotland.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people in Scotland are in full-time employment; and what are the average annual figures for full-time employment in Scotland for each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Rifkind
  The table gives the available information for each of the last 10 years on the number of employees in employment and the self-employed. It does not include participants on work-related Government training programmes.

  Since it is not possible to obtain estimates of the number of male employees in full-time employment in Scotland for each of the 10 years, the figures for employees in employment include a small number of part-time male employees. For the years 1978, 1981 and 1984 the censuses of employment record some 0·06 million part-time employees in employment. The employee estimates may be revised when the results of the 1987 census of employment becomes available.

  It is not possible to exclude those working part-time from the estimate of total self-employed in Scotland. The vast majority are likely to have been in full-time employment (in Great Britain about one sixth of the self-employed now work part time).

  million

  Employees in employment in Scotland: males (full-time and part-time) plus females (full-time only) annual averages

  Self-employed in Scotland (full-time and part-time) June

  1978

  1·75

  0·15

  1979

  1·76

  0·16

  1980

  1·73

  0·15

  1981

  1·65

  0·15

  1982

  1·59

  0·16

  1983

  1·56

  0·18

  1984

  1·55

  0·19

  1985

  1·54

  0·20

  1986

  1·51

  0·20

  1987

  1·49

  0·19

  19881

  1·50

  0·20

  1 September 1988 figures: not adjusted for seasonal variation.

  Manufacturing
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the productivity growth figures in manufacturing industry in Scotland for the last year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Lang
  Over the year to March 1988, output per head in Scottish manufacturing industry was 9·8 per cent. higher than a year earlier. This compares with an increase of 7·3 per cent. in the United Kingdom as a whole.

  Business (Overseas Investment)
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the total amount of overseas investment attracted by Scottish businesses for each of the last three years.

  Mr. Lang
  There are no figures available for the total amount of overseas investment attracted by Scottish businesses. Figures for investment and jobs associated with offers of regional selective assistance projects by overseas-owned companies for the last three financial years are as follows:

  Assoicated investment (£m)

  Associated jobs created and safeguarded

  1985–86

  646·8

  4,380

  1986–87

  316·6

  4,360

  1987–88

  240·2

  5,820

  Earnings
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the current average earnings rate in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  The average gross weekly earnings of full-time employees on adult rates in Scotland in April 1988 are estimated in the Department of Employment's new earning survey to have been £204·50. Scotland continues to rank highly among the GB standard regions, and was behind only the south-east and north-west in April 1988.

  Single Parent
  Mr. Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will make a statement on the application by the Scottish Council for Single Parents for renewal of funding for its training unit under section 9 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1988; and whether he will make it his policy to take into account the work already being done by this and similar organisations on the reliance of single parents on social security.

  Mr. Rifkind
  Decisions on the large number of applications received for funding under section 9 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 will be announced shortly. The contribution made by applicant organisations in their respective areas of social work provision is one of a number of factors taken into account in reaching a decision on funding.

  Alcohol
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many alcohol-related offences were reported to children's panels in each year since 1979.
  309
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information is available only for 1987 and for three social work authorities. Referrals for drunkenness and liquor licensing offences in that year were:

  Number

  Central

  9

  Grampian

  6

  Strathclyde

  145

  They accounted for 0·9 per cent. of offence referrals in those areas. No information is available on offences where alcohol was a contributory factor.

  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will meet representatives of the Scottish Football Association to discuss the issue of alcohol abuse involving persons under 18 years of age and to seek their assistance in banning all advertising at football grounds throughout Scotland of alcoholic drinks.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  No. The codes of practice relating to the advertising of alcohol generally have recently been strengthened, particularly in their requirements about advertising and young people. The ministerial group on alcohol misuse, which initiated the review of the codes, intends to monitor the effects of the changes.

  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from Scottish councils concerning alcohol abuse and the consumption of alcohol in public places.

  Persons under 18 buying exciseable liquor or consuming alcohol in licensed premises

  Year

  Number of persons proceeded against

  Number of persons with a charge proved

  Number of persons fined

  Average amount of fine (£)

  1979

  602

  588

  509

  13·16

  1980

  465

  450

  375

  15·50

  1981

  317

  310

  256

  15·65

  1982

  173

  159

  130

  15·71

  1983

  140

  136

  112

  19·87

  1984

  114

  103

  82

  23·74

  1985

  83

  77

  56

  26·95

  1986

  120

  116

  77

  29·31

  1987

  131

  130

  92

  30·82

  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many children were taken into care where alcohol abuse was involved in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will seek to make it an offence for a person under the age of 18 years to consume alcohol in public places.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I have no present plans to do so, but I am consulting the Association of Chief Police Officers (Scotland) and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to seek their views on those problems and on whether changes in legislation might assist in dealing with them and will take their views into account.

  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will support the request from a number of Scottish councils to impose a bye/law to prohibit the consumption of alcohol in designated public places; and if he will make a statement.
  310
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Three district councils have written concerning the possible use of byelaws to prohibit consumption of alcohol in specified public places and one has written to express support for a Bill to control under-age drinking in public.

  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from the Scottish Police Federation about the problem of alcohol abuse

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. and learned Friend has had no recent discussions with representatives of Scottish churches or any request for such a discussion on the problem of alcohol abuse.

  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how many prosecutions there were for the offence of drinking under age in Scotland in each year since 1979; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what was the average fine for the offence of drinking under age in each year since 1979; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The available information is given in the table. Persons under 18 consuming exciseable liquor in a bar are not separately identifiable from persons under 18 purchasing such liquor.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  To date only one council has requested agreement to the making of a byelaw that would prohibit the consumption of alcohol in designated public places. In that case I have indicated that in its particular circumstances it may be possible to achieve the desired objective by the use of a management rule. As two other councils have also indicated interest in making such a byelaw, I am consulting the Association of Chief Police Officers (Scotland) and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to seek their views on the need for such byelaws and on their likely effectiveness in dealing with the problems commonly associated with drinking in public. Once I have had an opportunity to study their replies I shall decide whether it may be possible to approve such byelaws as part of an experimental scheme of limited duration.

  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from the Scottish Police Federation about the problem of alcohol abuse by persons under the age of 18 years; and if he will make a statement.
  311
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  None.

  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met the chief constable of Strathclyde; and whether he discussed the problem of alcohol abuse involving persons under the age of 18 years.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. and learned Friend last met the chief constable of Strathclyde police at the Lockerbie memorial service on 4 January when this topic was not discussed.

  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how many convictions for the offence of breach of the peace where alcohol was directly or indirectly involved there were in each year since 1979; and if he will make a statement; (2) if he will give details of the number of convictions of persons under the age of 18 years, for violent crime where alcohol has been directly or indirectly involved.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested is not available.

  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give details of representations made to him on the problem of persons under the age of 18 years consuming alcohol in public; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Only three representations have been received, one from a district council and two from community councils, specifically on the problems associated with persons under 18 years drinking alcohol in public. While the consultation paper we issued on the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1986 did not include this particular topic, some 60 respondents expressed concern about underage drinking in general. I am consulting the Association of Chief Police Officers (Scotland) and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to seek their views on these problems and on whether changes in legislation might assist in dealing with them.

  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how many retailers were convicted of selling alcohol to persons under the age of 18 years in each year since 1979;

  (2) how many people were convicted of being agents in the sale of alcohol to persons under the age of 18 years in each year since 1979.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The available information is given in the table. Retailers are not separately identifiable, but in general, licensees are legally responsible for the actions of their agents in this matter.

  Sale of drink to persons under 18

  Year

  Number of persons with a charge proved

  1979

  69

  1980

  88

  1981

  91

  1982

  65

  1983

  75

  1984

  114

  1985

  90

  1986

  106

  1987

  113

  Children in Care
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many children have been taken into care in Scotland in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The number of children admitted into care in Scotland, excluding Strathclyde, in each year between 1979 and 1987 is given in the table.

  Year ending 31 March

  Number of children admitted into care

  1979

  3,306

  1980

  3,105

  1981

  3,093

  1982

  3,016

  1983

  2,758

  1984

  2,556

  1985

  2,692

  1986

  2,891

  1987

  2,664

  Comparable information for Strathclyde is not available for years before 1987 when 5,390 children were admitted into care in the region.

  Aluminium
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what consultations he has had with Scottish water authorities about pollution from aluminium contained in drinking water.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Scottish Development Department is in frequent contact with the water authorities about the quality of drinking water supplies, to monitor compliance with EC standards. Aluminium is one of the substances concerned. The Department keeps closely in touch with research on aluminium in drinking water and provides guidance to the water authorities on the findings of such research as and when necessary.

  National Farmers Union
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met representatives of the National Farmers Union; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  My right hon. and learned Friend and my noble Friend have regular meetings with union representatives to discuss issues of current concern; most recently my noble Friend met the president and other representatives on 30 January to discuss the reform of the EC beef regime.

  Salmonella
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations have been made to him by groups or individuals about the effects of salmonella from eggs; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  As at 30 January, my right hon. and learned Friend had received three letters from hon. Members expressing concern about the implications of salmonella from eggs. In addition officials have received one letter from an individual and about 70 telephone inquiries, largely on the cooking implications.

  European Commission
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met representatives of the European Commission; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  My right hon. and learned Friend last met representatives of the European Commission on 4 October 1988 when he led a mission to Brussels organised by Scottish Financial Enterprise. The mission consisted mainly of representatives of financial sector companies but included representatives of manufacturing industry, local govern-ment and the Scottish Trades Union Congress. The purposes of the mission were to allow the participants to learn about the likely effects of the completion of the single European market on their areas of interest and to ensure that the Commission was fully aware of the distinctive charac-teristics and potential of the Scottish financial community.

  Cold Weather
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met representatives of pensioners; and whether he discussed fuel poverty and cold weather payments for the elderly.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  My noble Friend Lord Glenarthur, then Minister of State, Scottish Office, met representatives of Age Concern in 1987. I understand that fuel poverty and cold weather payments were not raised at that meeting.

  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give details of deaths recorded in Scotland each year since 1979 from cold weather-related illnesses.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Information is available on deaths from hypothermia. This is as follows:

  Deaths with any mention of hypothermia, Scotland, 1979–88

  Year

  Total

  1979

  259

  1980

  199

  1981

  254

  1982

  196

  1983

  179

  1984

  176

  1985

  232

  1986

  209

  1987

  153

  11988

  123

  1Provisional figure.

  Coal Imports
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what tonnage of imported coal is presently stocked by the South of Scotland electricity board; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  I am advised by the South of Scotland electricity board that coal from different sources is not stocked separately at the power stations.

  Body

  Appointment

  Remuneration

  Preliminary Review Committee for Life Sentence Prisoners

  Chairman and 4 members

  As for Parole Board for Scotland

  Appeals Tribunal Panel under Section 64 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968

  12 members

  £98 per day

  Advisory Group on Breast Cancer Screening

  Chairman and 15 members

  Expenses only

  The Single Market Committee of the Scottish Economic Council

  Chairman and 11 members

  Expenses only

  St. Andrew's Links Trust

  Chairman

  Expenses only

  Ministers' Offices
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give details of expenditure on the refurbishment of his and other Ministers' offices at the Scottish Office, Edinburgh, since 1979.

  Mr. Rifkind
  There has been no expenditure on refurbishing my office in Edinburgh or those of my ministerial colleagues since 1979 other than that incurred in the recent removal to St. Andrew's house. Final costs of that removal are not yet available, but are likely to be in the order of £150,000.

  Appointments
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list all the appointments within his control as Secretary of State and all appointments made by him since June 1987, with salaries and expenses.

  Mr. Rifkind
  The list of non-departmental public bodies to which I make appointments is contained in the Cabinet Office publication "Public Bodies", a copy of which is available in the Library. The list includes information about the numbers of appointments and the remuneration paid to members. One major body has been set up since the publication of "Public Bodies 1988". This is Scottish Homes to which I have appointed a chairman (remuneration £27,600 per annum) and eight members (£3,775 per annum).

  While a list of all appointments made since June 1987 could be provided only at disproportionate cost, a list (correct at 5 December 1988) of all the members of the bodies listed in "Public Bodies" was placed in the Library in response to a Question from the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) answered on 7 December 1988 at column 211.

  I also make appointments jointly with other Ministers. The majority of these are shown in the appropriate chapters in "Public Bodies". Other bodies in this category are:

  Potato Marketing Board

  Remuneration determined byWool

  Wool Boards Marketing Board

  Boards

  Intervention Board for

  Chairman ?4,920 per annum

  Agricultural Produce

  J Members expenses only

  I make appointments of two members to each of:

  Board

  Scottish Milk Marketing Board

  Remuneration determined by Boards

  Aberdeen and District Milk Marketing Board

  North of Scotland Milk Marketing Board

  Other appointments for which I am responsible are:
  315

  Body

  Appointment

  Remuneration

  Post Qualification Education Board for NHS Pharmacists in Scotland

  Chairman and 10 members

  Expenses only

  Consumer Committee for Scotland under the Agricultural Marketing Act 1958

  Chairman

  Expenses only

  Committee of Investigation for Scotland under the Agricultural Marketing Act 1958

  Chairman

  Expenses only

  Coal Industry
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) when he last met Mr. Albert Wheeler; and whether he discussed the future of the Scottish coal industry;

  (2) when he last met representatives of the National Union of Mineworkers to discuss the Scottish coal industry.

  Mr. Lang
  Government responsibility for the coal industry in Great Britain, including Scotland, rests with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has therefore not discussed the industry with Mr. Wheeler or the National Union of Mineworkers.

  Electricity
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what consultations he has had with Scottish voluntary consumer groups about the setting up of consumer committees responsible for the electricity supply industry.

  Mr. Lang
  The existing electricity consultative councils for the north and south of Scotland, which operate under

  SSEB

  NSHEB

  Increase

  Average consumption

  Increase

  Average consumption

  £/pa

  KWh/pa

  £/pa

  KWh/pa

  Domestic tariff

  10·96

  3,800

  13·41

  4,921

  Domestic white meter tariff

  19·55

  11,400

  19·99

  12,589

  The effect of these increases will remain the same for each year up to 2002, assuming that the average consumptions and patterns of usage remain the same.

  An Comunn Gaidhealach
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he hopes to respond to An Comunn Gaidhealach's structure plan for 1987 to 1991.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  In March 1987 my Department asked An Comunn Gaidhealach to present a financial plan setting out its policies and expenditure proposals for the period 1987 to 1991. The plan was intended to inform decisions on grant aid to An Comunn for 1988–89 and generally to help with the assessment of the Society's aims, objectives and capabilities. This is the approach followed with non-departmental public bodies and other organisa-tions requesting financial assistance. My officials have discussed the plan with An Comunn on several occasions, and will continue to do so.

  Special Branch
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much from the total police budget was allocated to the special branch for each year from 1979 to the current date.
  316
  the provisions of the Electricity (Scotland) Act 1979 and which have been in existence broadly in their present form since 1947, include representatives nominated by voluntary consumer groups. The councils have been consulted by the Scottish Office about the Government's proposed regulatory regime for the electricity supply industry after privatisation, including the setting up of consumer committees which will be responsible to the Director General of Electricity Supply (DGES) in Scotland.

  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the estimated average additional cost to the Scottish consumer of the recent increase in electricity prices yearly until 2002.

  Mr. Lang
  I am advised by the South of Scotland electricity board and the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board that the estimated average additional costs to electricity consumers within their areas of the most recent increase in tariffs, which took effect on 1 April 1988, are as set out in the table.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  This information is not held centrally. The allocation of expenditure on special branch activities is a matter for the chief constable of the force concerned.

  New Towns
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the bodies and organisations which have responded to the consultation document "The Scottish New Towns—Maintaining the Momentum".

  Mr. Lang
  The information requested by the hon. Member is as follows:

  Abronhill Community Council (Cumbernauld)

  Ayrshire Chamber of Industries

  Broomlands and Bourtreehill Residents Association

  Calderwood Community Council

  Church of Scotland Department of Ministry and Mission

  Coleman Ballantine Architects, Glasgow

  Condorrat Community Council

  Cumbernauld Development Corporation

  Cumbernauld and District Trades Council

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth District Council

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth Enterprise Trust

  Cumbernauld Theatre Trust Ltd.

  Deans Community High School (Livingston)

  Dedridge Community Council

  Dundee and Tayside Chamber of Commerce and Industry Fife Branch

  East Kilbride Chamber of Commerce

  East Kilbride Christian Council

  317

  East Kilbride Citizens Advice Bureau

  East Kilbride Development Corporation

  East Kilbride Fabian Society

  East Kilbride Residents Federation

  Fraser and Partner, Business Managers, Glenrothes

  Girdle Toll and Bourtreehill Community Council

  Glenrothes Enterprise Trust

  Glenrothes Residents Council

  Housing Architects Group Irvine Development Corporation

  Irvine Development Corporation

  Kirkcaldy District Council

  Livingston Ecumenical Parish

  Livingston Voluntary Organisations Council

  Murieston Residents Association (Livingston)

  National and Local Government Officers Association (NALGO)

  Neighbourhood Care Networks (Livingston)

  Scottish Churches Industrial Mission

  Scottish Local Authorities with New Towns (SLANT)

  Scottish National Party

  Scottish Old Age Pensions Association

  Scottish Society of Directors of Planning

  Sealand Industries PLC Cumbernauld

  Sixth Year Cumbernauld High School

  The Building Societies Association

  Whinnyknowe and Balgeddie Meadows Residents Association

  Housing Estates (Sale)
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has been notified of any approaches for buying estates owned by the Scottish Special Housing Association.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sillars) on 10 January at columns 558–60.

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what is his instruction to Scottish Homes over the sale of housing estates, or their transfer outside the public sector;

  (2) what is his policy towards permitting the sale of housing estates that are currently part of the Scottish Special Housing Association and consultation with tenants.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Scottish Homes will have a central role in implementing the Government's housing policy including arrangements to diversify tenure in public sector housing to give tenants a wider choice of housing. In certain circumstances, therefore, it will be appropriate for Scottish Homes to consider proposals by other landlords for the voluntary transfer of houses in its ownership. A number of such proposals have been submitted to the Scottish Special Housing Association and I have announced that it will be for Scottish Homes to respond formally to these proposals after 1 April 1989. The Government have said that Scottish Homes will apply to any such proposals the principles underlying the statutory safeguards for proposed sales by local authorities set out in the Housing Act 1988. Scottish Homes has been invited to draw up detailed procedures which follow closely relevant aspects of the guidelines, issued in September 1988, to local authorities on the voluntary transfer of housing to private bodies together with supplementary guidance which is relevant to disposals by Scottish Homes. A copy of the supplementary guidance will be placed in the House of Commons Library as soon as possible. The procedures to be adopted by
  318
  Scottish Homes will be published when they have been agreed with my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State.

  My right hon. and learned Friend announced on 30 January 1989 that he has agreed a number of basic principles to be adopted by Scottish Homes in handling these matters after 1 April 1989. In particular proposals will in the first instance be assessed rapidly by Scottish Homes and those not rejected will be made public immediately. Scottish Homes will then consider the proposals in greater detail and, where these are judged to be practicable, tenants and other interested organisations such as local authorities will be consulted. My right hon. and learned Friend has agreed Scottish Homes' proposal that in all cases tenants' views will be ascertained by means of a postal ballot. Only where a majority of tenants replying are in favour of the proposals will Scottish Homes approve proposals and submit them for my right hon. and learned Friend's consent.

  My right hon. and learned Friend will not consent to any proposals submitted by Scottish Homes unless he is satisfied that they are in the public interest and in particular that the tenants' interests are properly safeguarded, that the proposals constitute good value for money, and that the arrangements for consulting tenants were properly handled.

  Rents
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the increase in average rents for(a) council houses and (b) Scottish Special Housing Association houses since 1979; and what is his estimate of likely increases from 1989 to 1992.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Between 1979–80 and 1988–89, the average annual council house rent in Scotland increased by £587·35. The increase in council house rents for future years is a matter for the local authorities concerned.

  Between 1979–80 and 1988–89, the average rent for Scottish Special Housing Association houses increased by £716·80. The increase for 1989–90 in such rent will be £84·80. The increase in 1990–91 and 1991–92 will be for Scottish Homes to determine.

  Housing Waiting Lists
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his latest estimate of the numbers on council house, new town and Scottish Special Housing Association waiting lists.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Reliable and consistent information on council house waiting list figures is not available centrally. I must therefore refer the hon. Member directly to the local authorities in which he is interested.

  With regard to new towns, figures supplied by the development corporations to the Industry Department for Scotland show that waiting list numbers at 31 December were as follows:

  New town

  Number

  East Kilbride

  14,272

  Glenrothes

  1,017

  Cumbernauld

  1,188

  Livingston

  686

  Irvine

  729

  319

  New town

  Number

  —

  Total

  7,892

  1Common waiting list with East Kilbride District Council.

  The Scottish Special Housing Association does not maintain waiting lists for its general needs houses. When such houses become vacant the local district council is normally invited to nominate tenants. There are 4,081 names on the association's direct waiting list which covers areas where local authorities have such nomination facilities. The latest available figures show 1,628 names at present on the waiting list for economic expansion housing.

  Sub-standard Houses
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many homes in Scotland he estimates to be sub-standard.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Scottish Development Department does not make such estimates. Latest estimates by local authorities of the number of houses below the tolerable standard in their areas were published in SDD statistical bulletin HSU No. 3 "Housing Trends in Scotland—Quarter ended 31 March 1988".

  SSHA Homes
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his latest figure for the number of Scottish Special Housing Association homes.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  As at 20 January 1989, the number of SSHA homes was 77,856.

  Radiation (Rannoch)
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the most up-to-date figures for the level of air and land radiation for the Rannoch area of north Tayside; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Air sampling, which is appropriate only immediately after an incident, has not been undertaken in the Rannoch area. Soil and vegetation sampling has been undertaken throughout Scotland as part of a comprehensive research programme com-missioned by the Department of the Environment and the Scottish Development Department.

  The measured level of caesium 137 in the upper 7·5 cm of the soil sample taken in the Rannoch area of north Tayside in 1987 was 2,200 bec/sq m, although levels in an adjoining area were as high as 20,000 bec/sq m.

  Final reports on the work are in the course of preparation and when published will be placed in the Library.

  Rate Support Grant
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the levels of support grant to each local authority in Scotland for each year since 1979, and the percentage increase or decrease above the level of inflation these represented.

  Mr. Lang
  The information requested is set out in the table.
  320

  Total grant paid in 1979–80 Percentage increase or decrease above inflation

  £

  Per cent.

  Regional Authorities

  Borders

  21,581,290

  -4·8

  Central

  44,271,194

  -1·4

  Dumfries and Galloway

  28,377,239

  -4·4

  Fife

  59,500,707

  -1·0

  Grampian

  86,144,289

  -3·5

  Highland

  51,692,321

  -5·2

  Lothian

  134,114,764

  -2·4

  Strathclyde

  529,306,137

  -2·1

  Tayside

  74,104,660

  -0·8

  Islands Councils

  Orkney

  4,866,164

  -1·6

  Shetland

  6,138,120

  -16·1

  Western Isles

  14,002,134

  -1·0

  District Councils

  Berwickshire

  427,857

  -8·9

  Ettrick and Lauderdale

  626,045

  -21·6

  Roxburgh

  959,527

  -7·4

  Tweeddale

  263,686

  -3·3

  Clackmannan

  1,073,211

  -11·0

  Falkirk

  1,782,186

  -9·1

  Stirling

  1,702,113

  18·2

  Annandale and Eskdale

  764,614

  6·2

  Nithsdale

  880,531

  -11·0

  Stewartry

  389,399

  -1·2

  Wigtown

  547,534

  -11·1

  Dunfermline

  2,479,811

  -7·2

  Kirkcaldy

  3,200,956

  9·0

  North East Fife

  1,488,534

  25·5

  Aberdeen City

  3,911,386

  5·6

  Banff and Buchan

  1,786,865

  -1·2

  Gordon

  2,225,179

  4·9

  Kincardine and Deeside

  823,516

  -3·2

  Moray

  1,873,225

  -4·9

  Badenoch and Strathspey

  162,288

  10·1

  Caithness

  813,144

  6·5

  Inverness

  864,751

  -9·8

  Lochaber

  558,017

  -17·5

  Nairn

  206,863

  -2·5

  Ross and Cromarty

  1,651,312

  -15·1

  Skye and Lochalsh

  287,836

  14·4

  Sutherland

  549,786

  -9·3

  East Lothian

  1,784,862

  7·0

  Edinburgh City

  7,546,703

  -6·0

  Midlothian

  2,296,228

  -12·2

  West Lothian

  3,018,067

  -10·3

  Argyll and Bute

  2,329,202

  5·2

  Bearsden and Milngavie

  1,163,524

  16·4

  Clydebank

  2,520,810

  -6·9

  Clydesdale

  1,582,386

  11·8

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth

  1,575,131

  9·7

  Cumnock and Doon Valley

  1,945,759

  5·3

  Cunninghame

  3,153,396

  -5·1

  Dumbarton

  1,790,003

  -8·3

  East Kilbride

  1,711,841

  -9·4

  Eastwood

  1,229,165

  -2·4

  Glasgow City

  34,223,429

  7·3

  Hamilton

  4,182,077

  -2·9

  Inverclyde

  3,323,776

  -0·4

  Kilmarnock and Loudoun

  2,702,857

  6·3

  Kyle and Carrick

  2,673,670

  -4·8

  Monklands

  4,958,907

  -2·7

  Motherwell

  4,660,786

  4·7

  Renfrew

  6,079,119

  2·2

  Strathkelvin

  2,711,463

  15·7

  Angus

  2,048,583

  -5·7

  Dundee City

  4,795,408

  -11·1

  Perth and Kinross

  2,393,657

  12 5

  Scotland

  1,194,800,000

  -21

  321

  Total grant paid in 1980–81 Percentage increase or decrease above inflation

  £

  Per cent.

  Regional Authorities

  Borders

  26,226,070

  3·1

  Central

  54,436,336

  4·5

  Dumfries and Galloway

  33,785,126

  0·6

  Fife

  71,656,681

  2·0

  Grampian

  102,997,291

  1·1

  Highland

  62,019,477

  1·5

  Lothian

  157,675,681

  -0·9

  Strathclyde

  653,091,151

  4·9

  Tayside

  88,525,497

  1·0

  Islands Councils

  Orkney

  6,378,095

  12·6

  Shetland

  8,029,932

  12·4

  Western Isles

  17,064,827

  3·4

  District Councils

  Berwickshire

  465,460

  -9·7

  Ettrick and Lauderdale

  745,418

  0·6

  Roxburgh

  933,552

  -21·2

  Tweeddale

  293,250

  -7·2

  Clackmannan

  1,342,725

  6·7

  Falkirk

  2,831,784

  40·4

  Stirling

  2,162,477

  8·6

  Annandale and Eskdale

  891,165

  -1·9

  Nithsdale

  1,212,745

  19·3

  Stewartry

  493,808

  8·4

  Wigtown

  687,765

  7·2

  Dunfermline

  2,834,934

  -4·1

  Kirkcaldy

  4,015,864

  7·0

  North East Fife

  1,666,870

  -6·5

  Aberdeen City

  4,967,556

  8·6

  Banff and Buchan

  2,697,572

  32·5

  Gordon

  2,687,028

  2·3

  Kincardine and Deeside

  994,995

  2·4

  Moray

  1,880,060

  -18·1

  Badenoch and Strathspey

  192,838

  0·4

  Caithness

  840,984

  -15·0

  Inverness

  974,097

  -5·8

  Lochaber

  574,064

  -15·6

  Nairn

  254,003

  4·3

  Ross and Cromarty

  2,508,073

  33·4

  Skye and Lochalsh

  354,360

  4·7

  Sutherland

  601,462

  -9·0

  East Lothian

  1,856,611

  -14·4

  Edinburgh City

  10,504,053

  20·7

  Midlothian

  2,854,738

  5·9

  West Lothian

  3,382,467

  -6·4

  Argyll and Bute

  2,694,535

  -2·8

  Bearsden and Milngavie

  1,367,892

  -0·9

  Clydebank

  2,791,401

  -7·7

  Clydesdale

  1,947,175

  4·6

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth

  1,951,184

  5·4

  Cumnock and Doon Valley

  2,201,494

  -5·3

  Cunninghame

  3,418,404

  -10·0

  Dumbarton

  2,041,079

  -4·4

  East Kilbride

  2,285,307

  15·1

  Eastwood

  1,438,422

  -1·4

  Glasgow City

  41,885,822

  3·9

  Hamilton

  4,725,774

  -5·4

  Inverclyde

  3,739,539

  -5·9

  Kilmarnock and Loudoun

  3,011,727

  -7·0

  Kyle and Carrick

  2,934,973

  -8·7

  Monklands

  5,419,430

  -9·2

  Motherwell

  5,308,621

  -4·5

  Renfrew

  7,722,134

  8·6

  Strathkelvin

  3,221,002

  0·3

  Angus

  2,411,806

  -0·7

  Dundee City

  4,940,768

  -15·4

  Perth and Kinross

  2,952,569

  4·9

  Scotland

  1,451,000,000

  3·0

  322

  Total grant paid in 1981–82 Percentage increase or decrease above inflation

  £

  per cent.

  Regional authorities

  Borders

  28,795,588

  -0·1

  Central

  58,378,777

  -2·6

  Dumfries and Galloway

  37,088,029

  -0·1

  Fife

  78,142,350

  -0·8

  Grampian

  114,556,409

  1·4

  Highland

  66,797,713

  -2·1

  Lothian

  135,272,211

  -24·1

  Strathclyde

  692,412,194

  -3·8

  Tayside

  96,813,483

  -0·5

  Islands Councils

  Orkney

  6,837,859

  -2·6

  Shetland

  9,011,131

  2·4

  Western Isles

  19,228,832

  2·8

  District councils

  Berwickshire

  466,268

  -9·7

  Ettrick and Lauderdale

  817,092

  -0·2

  Roxburgh

  1,075,397

  5·3

  Tweeddale

  305,890

  -5·5

  Clackmannan

  1,549,886

  5·6

  Falkirk

  3,109,452

  0·0

  Stirling

  1,289,718

  -50·2

  Annandale and Eskdale

  889,915

  -10 0

  Nithsdale

  1,385,228

  4·4

  Stewartry

  548,299

  1·2

  Wigtown

  707,562

  -7 0

  Dunfermline

  2,910,267

  -7·2

  Kirkcaldy

  4,562,713

  3·8

  North East Fife

  1,638,714

  -11 5

  Aberdeen City

  5,357,922

  -2 0

  Banff and Buchan

  2,674,718

  -10 7

  Gordon

  2,107,224

  -31·4

  Kincardine and Deeside

  1,080,686

  -1·2

  Moray

  2,189,321

  6·6

  Badenoch and Strathspey

  197,329

  -7·5

  Caithness

  826,878

  -11·5

  Inverness

  961,842

  -1l·l

  Lochaber

  618,428

  -2 1

  Nairn

  282,506

  1·4

  Ross and Cromarty

  1,506,544

  -49 8

  Skye and Lochalsh

  374,547

  -4 2

  Sutherland

  572,566

  -14 7

  East Lothian

  1,794,561

  -13 2

  Edinburgh City

  11,488,575

  -0·5

  Midlothian

  2,844,899

  -10 2

  West Lothian

  3,281,197

  -12 8

  Argyll and Bute

  2,605,154

  -13·2

  Bearsden and Milngavie

  1,333,251

  -12·4

  Clydebank

  3,057,463

  -0·3

  Clydesdale

  1,907,458

  -11·9

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth

  2,396,196

  13·0

  Cumnock and Doon Valley

  2,553,808

  6·2

  Cunninghame

  4,065,487

  9·1

  Dumbarton

  1,980,462

  -12·8

  East Kilbride

  2,069,188

  -19·3

  Eastwood

  1,455,741

  -8·6

  Glasgow City

  38,194,654

  -18·7

  Hamilton

  5,316,156

  2·6

  Inverclyde

  3,460,521

  -17·3

  Kilmarnock and Loudoun

  3,112,042

  -6·5

  Kyle and Carrick

  2,958,415

  -9·1

  Monklands

  5,508,401

  -8·2

  Motherwell

  6,055,236

  4·2

  Renfrew

  7,643,205

  -10 9

  Strathkelvin

  3,480,128

  -1·8

  Angus

  2,656,151

  0·3

  Dundee City

  4,595,431

  -16·8

  Perth and Kinross

  3,144,732

  -3·3

  Scotland

  1,512,300,000

  -5·6

  323

  Total Grant paid in 1982–83 Percentage increase or decrease above inflation

  £

  per cent.

  Regional Authorities

  Borders

  30,986,224

  0·5

  Central

  61,052,396

  -2·6

  Dumfries and Galloway

  40,508,482

  2·1

  Fife

  80,078,245

  -4·7

  Grampian

  115,947,587

  -5·9

  Highland

  72,301,222

  1·1

  Lothian

  170,026,909

  18·5

  Strathclyde

  738,940,868

  -0·4

  Tayside

  100,607,472

  -3·2

  Islands Councils

  Orkney

  6,930,737

  -5·8

  Shetland

  10,038,689

  4·3

  Western Isles

  22,144,076

  8·0

  District Councils

  Berwickshire

  518,427

  4·0

  Ettrick and Lauderdale

  877,434

  0·2

  Roxburgh

  1,299,871

  13·7

  Tweeddale

  333,090

  1·7

  Clackmannan

  1,382,715

  -17·9

  Falkirk

  3,019,299

  -10·0

  Stirling

  2,191,560

  62·8

  Annandale and Eskdale

  974,147

  2·3

  Nithsdale

  1,450,812

  -2·4

  Stewarty

  623,963

  6·7

  Wigtown

  748,236

  -1·4

  Dunfermline

  3,063,632

  -1·9

  Kirkcaldy

  4,078,883

  -17·7

  North East Fife

  1,842,609

  5·3

  Aberdeen City

  4,915,522

  -15·4

  Banff and Buchan

  2,703,450

  -6·1

  Gordon

  2,687,112

  20·4

  Kincardine and Deeside

  1,257,533

  9·2

  Moray

  1,946,822

  -18·2

  Badenoch and Strathspey

  198,249

  -6·7

  Caithness

  962,639

  9·3

  Inverness

  984,029

  -4·8

  Lochaber

  497,303

  -26·7

  Nairn

  296,737

  -2·1

  Ross and Cromarty

  2,259,009

  42·8

  Skye and Lochalsh

  432,042

  8·2

  Sutherland

  630,589

  3·0

  East Lothian

  2,143,608

  12·3

  Edinburgh City

  10,540,566

  -15·4

  Midlothian

  3,077,237

  1·0

  West Lothian

  4,142,533

  19·1

  Argyll and Bute

  2,792,900

  0·1

  Bearsden and Milngavie

  1,426,542

  -0·1

  Clydebank

  3,360,487

  2·8

  Clydesdale

  2,263,012

  11·5

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth

  2,328,945

  -10·0

  Cumnock and Doon Valley

  2,641,153

  -3·7

  Cunninghame

  5,049,666

  17·1

  Dumbarton

  1,914,863

  -10·5

  East Kilbride

  2,322,585

  5·1

  Eastwood

  1,750,212

  13·1

  Glasgow City

  43,609,579

  7·0

  Hamilton

  6,274,289

  10·9

  Inverclyde

  3,728,594

  0·6

  Kilmarnock and Loudoun

  3,865,296

  17·1

  Kyle and Carrick

  3,506,698

  11·4

  Monklands

  5,551,383

  -6·4

  Motherwell

  5,158,225

  -22·0

  Renfrew

  8,221,340

  0·4

  Strathkelvin

  3,980,291

  7·2

  Angus

  2,987,014

  5·3

  Dundee City

  5,314,003

  8·5

  Perth and Kinross

  3,410,356

  1·3

  Scotland

  1,633,100,000

  0·8

  324

  Total Grant Paid in 1983–84 Percentage increase or decrease above inflation

  £

  per cent.

  Regional Authorities

  Borders

  32,807,800

  1·3

  Central

  64,302,036

  0·8

  Dumfries and Galloway

  43,181,615

  2·0

  Fife

  85,677,107

  2·4

  Grampian

  127,053,993

  5·0

  Highland

  76,986,615

  1·9

  Lothian

  175,503,279

  -1·3

  Strathclyde

  770,962,609

  -0·2

  Tayside

  106,210,640

  1·0

  Islands Councils

  Orkney

  8,978,195

  25·0

  Shetland

  10,018,271

  -4·8

  Western Isles

  23,020,866

  -0·6

  District Councils

  Berwickshire

  614,968

  14·1

  Ettrick and Lauderdale

  1,014,404

  11·1

  Roxburgh

  1,523,459

  12·6

  Tweeddale

  360,048

  3·5

  Clackmannan

  1,545,711

  7·2

  Falkirk

  3,427,455

  9·0

  Stirling

  2,319,922

  1·3

  Annandale and Eskdale

  1,056,964

  4·9

  Nithsdale

  1,592,524

  5·2

  Stewarty

  692,435

  6·4

  Wigtown

  858,163

  10·1

  Dunfermline

  3,422,719

  7·2

  Kirkcaldy

  4,461,301

  4·8

  North East Fife

  1,977,936

  2·8

  Aberdeen City

  5,414,188

  5·6

  Banff and Buchan

  2,426,112

  -14·8

  Gordon

  2,265,114

  -20·3

  Kincardine and Deeside

  1,231,828

  -6·6

  Moray

  2,152,392

  6·0

  Badenoch and Strathspey

  221,170

  7·0

  Caithness

  1,043,031

  3·8

  Inverness

  940,530

  -9·0

  Lochaber

  585,103

  13·1

  Nairn

  368,136

  19·5

  Ross and Cromarty

  1,222,874

  -50·4

  Skye and Lochalsh

  471,331

  4·5

  Sutherland

  690,373

  4·9

  East Lothian

  2,290,990

  2·3

  Edinburgh City

  11,376,195

  3·4

  Midlothian

  3,595,130

  12·3

  West Lothian

  4,494,540

  3·9

  Argyll and Bute

  2,991,665

  2·6

  Bearsden and Milngavie

  1,456,337

  -2·5

  Clydebank

  3,676,878

  4·9

  Clydesdale

  2,361,702

  -0·2

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth

  2,453,305

  0·8

  Cumnock and Doon Valley

  2,844,565

  3·1

  Cunninghame

  5,235,683

  -0·9

  Dumbarton

  2,423,431

  22·0

  East Kilbride

  2,433,455

  0·2

  Eastwood

  1,705,181

  -7·1

  Glasgow City

  44,577,718

  -2·3

  Hamilton

  6,014,988

  -8·7

  Inverclyde

  4,018,478

  3·2

  Kilmarnock and Loudoun

  4,023,583

  -0·5

  Kyle and Carrick

  3,693,058

  0·8

  Monklands

  6,019,852

  3·9

  Motherwell

  6,255,498

  16·7

  Renfrew

  8,476,165

  -1·5

  Strathkelvin

  4,339,181

  4·5

  Angus

  3,294,522

  5·7

  Dundee City

  5,804,560

  4·7

  Perth & Kinross

  3,781,123

  6·3

  Scotland

  1,718,250,000

  0·7

  325

  Total grant paid in 1984–85 Percentage increase or decrease above inflation

  £

  Per cent.

  Regional authorities

  Borders

  33,030,795

  -4·4

  Central

  67,000,492

  -0·9

  Dumfries and Galloway

  43,261,859

  -4·9

  Fife

  78,865,242

  -13·0

  Grampian

  126,680,881

  -5·4

  Highland

  76,009,222

  -6·3

  Lothian

  171,223,135

  -7·5

  Strathclyde

  749,482,523

  -7·8

  Tayside

  104,637,194

  -6·5

  Islands councils

  Orkney

  7,718,539

  -19·1

  Shetland

  10,277,310

  -2·5

  Western Isles

  24,345,501

  0·7

  District councils

  Berwickshire

  606,712

  -6·4

  Ettrick and Lauderdale

  1,089,413

  2·3

  Roxburgh

  1,477,456

  -8·1

  Tweeddale

  343,981

  -9·5

  Clackmannan

  1,417,921

  -13 3

  Falkirk

  3,048,781

  -16·1

  Stirling

  1,760,126

  -29·2

  Annandale and Eskdale

  1,068,550

  -4·8

  Nithsdale

  1,550,261

  -7·7

  Stewartry

  642,658

  -12·2

  Wigtown

  819,632

  -9·5

  Dunfermline

  2,864,233

  -21·4

  Kirkcaldy

  3,799,695

  -19·9

  North East Fife

  1,798,851

  -14·1

  Aberdeen City

  5,539,036

  -2·8

  Banff and Buchan

  2,220,635

  -13·5

  Gordon

  1,793,519

  -25·9

  Kincardine and Deeside

  1,147,300

  -11·9

  Moray

  2,094,780

  -7·7

  Badenoch and Strathspey

  205,923

  -12·0

  Caithness

  1,048,883

  -4·5

  Inverness

  798,941

  -20·1

  Lochaber

  573,541

  -7·0

  Nairn

  330,986

  -15 2

  Ross and Cromarty

  1,366,277

  6·7

  Skye and Lochalsh

  499,321

  0·9

  Sutherland

  674,821

  -7·3

  East Lothian

  2,207,621

  -8·7

  Edinburgh City

  6,601,217

  -47·0

  Midlothian

  3,304,520

  -13·1

  West Lothian

  4,542,900

  -4·0

  Argyll and Bute

  3,159,751

  0·6

  Bearsden and Milngavie

  1,339,245

  -13·1

  Clydebank

  3,621,497

  -6·6

  Clydesdale

  2,405,152

  -3·2

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth

  2,310,508

  -10 9

  Cumnock and Doon Valley

  2,864,150

  -4·4

  Cunninghame

  4,587,496

  -17·4

  Dumbarton

  1,955,561

  -24·4

  East Kilbride

  2,370,373

  -7·7

  Eastwood

  1,427,984

  -21 3

  Glasgow City

  40,753,269

  -13·6

  Hamilton

  4,707,984

  -26·8

  Inverclyde

  4,134,690

  -2·2

  Kilmarnock and Loudoun

  4,231,330

  0·1

  Kyle and Carrick

  3,644,045

  -6·4

  Monklands

  6,193,154

  -2·2

  Motherwell

  6,293,516

  -4·5

  Renfrew

  8,451,958

  -5·3

  Strathkelvin

  4,558,260

  0·0

  Angus

  3,049,962

  -12 5

  Dundee City

  5,550,137

  -9·4

  Perth and Kinross

  3,628,938

  -9·1

  Scotland

  1,671,010,144

  -7·8

  326

  Total grant paid in 1985–86 Percentage increase or decrease above inflation

  £

  Per cent.

  Regional Authorities:

  Borders

  34,489,423

  -1·0

  Central

  64,839,332

  -8·6

  Dumfries and Galloway

  43,910,410

  -3·9

  Fife

  83,524,161

  0–5

  Grampian

  130,973,564

  -2·0

  Highland

  79,043,951

  -1·4

  Lothian

  176,312,247

  -2·4

  Strathclyde

  782,704,963

  -1·0

  Tayside

  112,401,458

  2·0

  Islands Councils

  Orkney

  7,654,433

  -6·2

  Shetland

  10,203,064

  -6·1

  Western Isles

  24,773,943

  -3·6

  District Councils

  Berwickshire

  424,954

  -35·4

  Ettrick and Lauderdale

  701,988

  -41·0

  Roxburgh

  1,568,133

  0·7

  Tweeddale

  262,833

  -29·0

  Clackmannan

  449,840

  -73·7

  Falkirk

  1,621,947

  -52·2

  Stirling

  847,880

  -57·2

  Annandale and Eskdale

  675,260

  -42·2

  Nithsdale

  810,689

  -53·1

  Stewartry

  298,382

  -59·0

  Wigtown

  602,513

  -31·9

  Dunfermline

  1,335,903

  -58·8

  Kirkcaldy

  2,457,714

  -40·7

  North East Fife

  979,664

  -50·9

  Aberdeen City

  3,509,641

  -42·0

  Banff and Buchan

  734,240

  -72·3

  Gordon

  1,374,938

  -28·7

  Kincardine and Deeside

  650,300

  -48·7

  Moray

  1,015,137

  -56·9

  Badenoch and Strathspey

  97,124

  -58·2

  Caithness

  956,213

  -14·2

  Inverness

  488,571

  -44·2

  Lochaber

  412,082

  -33·5

  Nairn

  296,318

  -15·9

  Ross and Cromarty

  1,472,244

  2·4

  Skye and Lochalsh

  487,552

  -7·8

  Sutherland

  658,153

  -7·9

  East Lothian

  1,511,223

  -36·9

  Edinburgh City

  9,566,739

  39·5

  Midlothian

  3,087,535

  -12·0

  West Lothian

  3,511,267

  -28·1

  Argyll and Bute

  3,519,501

  6·0

  Bearsden and Milngavie

  672,575

  -55·2

  Clydebank

  3,989,938

  4·8

  Clydesdale

  2,046,789

  -20·3

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth

  1,751,656

  -29·6

  Cunnock and Doon Valley

  2,660,359

  -12 5

  Cunninghame

  3,975,770

  -18 7

  Dumbarton

  1,460,636

  -30·7

  East Kilbride

  1,534,009

  -40·7

  Eastwood

  922,733

  -40·8

  Glasgow City

  42,672,850

  -0·7

  Hamilton

  3,972,492

  -21·0

  Inverclyde

  3,175,679

  -28·6

  Kilmarnock and Loudoun

  3,335,643

  -26·6

  Kyle and Carrick

  2,381,596

  -40·0

  Monklands

  5,746,404

  -12 6

  Motherwell

  5,518,092

  -17 7

  Renfrew

  7,078,671

  -21 6

  Strathkelvin

  3,748,170

  -23·2

  Angus

  2,041,259

  -38·5

  Dundee City

  6,501,304

  11·7

  Perth and Kinross

  2,053,522

  -48·8

  Scotland

  1,704,457,574

  -3·4

  327

  Total grant paid in 1986–87 Percentage increase or decrease above inflation

  £

  per cent

  Regional Authorities

  Borders

  37,017,599

  0·0

  Central

  68,350,121

  0·0

  Dumfries and Galloway

  48,317,317

  0·1

  Fife

  84,382,536

  0·0

  Grampian

  134,867,000

  0·0

  Highland

  82,865,866

  0·0

  Lothian

  161,944,388

  -0·1

  Strathclyde

  730,719,793

  -0·1

  Tayside

  114,823,890

  0·0

  Islands Councils

  Orkney

  7,766,186

  0·0

  Shetland

  10,247,024

  0·0

  Western Isles

  27,600,451

  -0·1

  District Councils

  Berwickshire

  435,636

  0·0

  Ettrick and Lauderdale

  734,854

  0·0

  Roxburgh

  1,513,724

  -0·1

  Tweeddale

  280,130

  0·0

  Clackmannan

  1,029,877

  1·3

  Falkirk

  1,536,142

  -0·1

  Stirling

  15,730

  -1·0

  Annandale and Eskdale

  726,714

  0·0

  Nithsdale

  866,759

  0·0

  Stewartry

  412,478

  0·3

  Wigtown

  689,017

  0·1

  Dunfermline

  1,393,986

  0·0

  Kirkcaldy

  2,142,998

  -0·2

  North East Fife

  1,034,668

  0·0

  Aberdeen City

  2,733,534

  -0·3

  Banff and Buchan

  893,015

  0·2

  Gordon

  1,465,746

  0·0

  Kincardine and Deeside

  616,416

  -0·1

  Moray

  1,039,322

  0·0

  Badenoch and Strathspey

  109,680

  0·1

  Caithness

  946,318

  0·0

  Inverness

  627,653

  0·3

  Lochaber

  342,580

  -0·2

  Nairn

  286,250

  -0·1

  Ross and Cromarty

  1,268,285

  -0·2

  Skye and Lochalsh

  477,975

  -0·1

  Sutherland

  696,494

  0·0

  East Lothian

  1,453,969

  -0·1

  Edinburgh City

  6,253,718

  -0·4

  Midlothian

  2,930,051

  -0·1

  West Lothian

  3,547,628

  0·0

  Argyll and Bute

  3,562,556

  0·0

  Bearsden and Milngavie

  609,988

  -0·1

  Clydebank

  4,360,213

  0 1

  Clydesdale

  2,225,990

  0·1

  Cumbernauld & Kilsyth

  1,929, 063

  0·1

  Cumnock and Doon Valley

  2,789,604

  0·0

  Cunninghame

  3,701,546

  -0·1

  Dumbarton

  1,367,011

  -0·1

  East Kilbride

  1,376,747

  -0·1

  Eastwood

  900,512

  -0·1

  Glasgow City

  38,395,971

  -0·1

  Hamilton

  4,749,320

  0·2

  Inverclyde

  3,591,392

  0·1

  Kilmarnock and Loudoun

  3,605,741

  0·0

  Kyle and Carrick

  2,220,405

  -0·1

  Monklands

  5,751,250

  0·0

  Motherwell

  5,384,127

  -0·1

  Renfrew

  7,764,442

  0·1

  Strathkelvin

  4,131,531

  0·1

  Angus

  2,182,485

  0·0

  Dundee City

  6,398,730

  0·0

  Perth and Kinross

  2,014,517

  -0·1

  Scotland

  1,656,416,729

  -0·1

  328

  Total grant paid in 1987–88 Percentage increase or decrease above inflation

  £

  Per cent.

  Regional Authorities

  Borders

  41,191,111

  0·1

  Central

  78,811,014

  0·1

  Dumfries and Galloway

  54,582,723

  0·1

  Fife

  80,348,928

  -0·1

  Grampian

  145,489,162

  0·0

  Highland

  92,563,642

  0·1

  Lothian

  177,444,487

  0·0

  Strathclyde

  794,598,058

  0·0

  Tayside

  123,317,720

  0·0

  Islands Councils

  Orkney

  5,417,557

  0·2

  Shetland

  11,055,957

  0·0

  Western Isles

  29,916,547

  0·0

  District Councils

  Berwickshire

  488,518

  0·1

  Ettrick and Lauderdale

  772,411

  0·0

  Roxburgh

  1,603,453

  0·0

  Tweedale

  326,429

  0·1

  Clackmannan

  798,579

  -0·3

  Falkirk

  2,653,159

  0·7

  Stirling

  not applicable

  Annandale and Eskdale

  826,816

  0·1

  Nithsdale

  1,181,106

  0·3

  Stewartry

  471,499

  0·1

  Wigtown

  734,647

  0·0

  Dunfermline

  1,466,223

  0·0

  Kirkcaldy

  2,453,563

  0·1

  North East Fife

  1,052,899

  0·0

  Aberdeen City

  2,255,020

  -0·2

  Banff and Buchan

  1,361,246

  0·5

  Gordon

  2,146,706

  0·4

  Kincardine and Deeside

  820,163

  0·3

  Moray

  1,595,557

  0·5

  Badenoch and Strathspey

  118,125

  0·0

  Caithness

  1,122,950

  0·1

  Inverness

  664,472

  0·0

  Lochaber

  381,579

  0·1

  Nairn

  276,495

  -0·1

  Ross and Cromarty

  1,785,770

  0·4

  Skye and Lochalsh

  522,388

  0·0

  Sutherland

  707,179

  0·0

  East Lothian

  1,640,735

  0·1

  Edinburgh City

  12,473,104

  0·9

  Midlothian

  3,258,171

  0·1

  West Lothian

  4,224,795

  0·1

  Argyll and Bute

  3,763,451

  0·0

  Bearsden and Milngavie

  548,180

  -0·2

  Clydebank

  4,455,004

  0·0

  Clydesdale

  2,283,229

  0·0

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth

  1,770,208

  -0·1

  Cumnock and Doon Valley

  2,764,015

  -0·1

  Cunninghame

  3,243,330

  -0·2

  Dumbarton

  1,398,845

  0·0

  East Kilbride

  1,315,392

  -0·1

  Eastwood

  821,019

  -0·1

  Glasgow City

  40,893,573

  0·0

  Hamilton

  3,791,761

  -0·3

  Inverclyde

  3,825,136

  0·0

  Kilmarnock and Loudoun

  2,565,977

  -0·3

  Kyle and Carrick

  2,174,934

  -0·1

  Monklands

  5,424,097

  -0·1

  Motherwell

  4,192,131

  -0·3

  Renfrew

  7,047,611

  -0·1

  Strathkelvin

  3,419,048

  -0·2

  Angus

  2,544,307

  0·1

  Dundee City

  6,933,730

  0·0

  Perth and Kinross

  2,279,068

  0·1

  Scotland

  1,796,374,709

  0·0

  329

  Total grant paid in 1988–89 Percentage increase or decrease above inflation

  £

  Per cent.

  Regional Authorities

  Borders

  44,008,216

  0·0

  Central

  80,900,747

  0·0

  Dumfries and Galloway

  57,227,380

  0·0

  Fife

  106,804,608

  0·3

  Grampian

  158,613,663

  0·0

  Highland

  100,978,034

  0·0

  Lothian

  197,469,170

  0·1

  Strathclyde

  922,286,440

  0·1

  Tayside

  139,274,753

  0·1

  Islands Councils

  Orkney

  10,352,576

  0·0

  Shetland

  11,944,796

  0·0

  Western Isles

  31,898,625

  0·0

  District Councils

  Berwickshire

  516,632

  0·0

  Ettrick and Lauderdale

  737,307

  -0·1

  Roxburgh

  1,631,303

  0·0

  Tweeddale

  330,369

  -0·1

  Clackmannan

  1,349,697

  0·6

  Falkirk

  2,152,252

  -0·3

  Stirling

  972,546

  n/a

  Annandale and Eskdale

  894,199

  0·0

  Nithsdale

  1,170,825

  -0·1

  Stewartry

  507,271

  0·0

  Wigtown

  825,727

  0·1

  Dunfermline

  1,544,632

  0·0

  Kirkcaldy

  2,459,513

  -0·1

  North East Fife

  1,288,262

  0·2

  Aberdeen City

  4,347,741

  0·9

  Banff and Buchan

  1,039,537

  -0·3

  Gordon

  1,994,239

  -0·1

  Kincardine and Deeside

  835,883

  0·0

  Moray

  1,426,519

  -0·2

  Badenoch and Strathspey

  124,930

  0·0

  Caithness

  1,174,660

  0·0

  Inverness

  703,531

  0·0

  330

  £

  Per cent.

  Lochaber

  395,695

  0.0

  Nairn

  275,554

  -0.1

  Ross and Cromarty

  1,806,696

  -0.1

  Skye and Lochalsh

  588,505

  0.1

  Sutherland

  750,337

  0.0

  East Lothian

  1,471,136

  -0.2

  Edinburgh City

  13,764,414

  0.0

  Midlothian

  3,300,135

  0.0

  West Lothian

  4,083,334

  -0.1

  Argyll and Bute

  3,953,699

  0.0

  Bearsden and Milngavie

  634,379

  0.1

  Clydebank

  4,489,297

  -0.1

  Clydesdale

  2,474,692

  0.0

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth

  2,024,332

  0.1

  Cumnock and Doon Valley

  2,899,273

  0.0

  Cunninghame

  4,093,141

  0.2

  Dumbarton

  1,585,685

  0.1

  East Kilbride

  1,479,101

  0.1

  Eastwood

  974,303

  0.1

  Glasgow City

  47,179,249

  0.1

  Hamilton

  3,895,161

  0.0

  Inverclyde

  4,872,556

  0.2

  Kilmarnock and Loudoun

  3,342,451

  0.2

  Kyle and Carrick

  2,687,531

  0.2

  Monklands

  5,624,429

  0.0

  Motherwell

  4,955,961

  0.1

  Renfrew

  7,891,327

  0.1

  Strathkelvin

  3,653,821

  0.0

  Angus

  2,744,773

  0.0

  Dundee City

  7,812,200

  0.1

  Perth and Kinross

  2,440,250

  0.0

  Scotland

  2,037,930,000

  0.1

  n/a = Not available.

  Notes:

  1. The G.D.P. deflator has been used to calculate the inflation rate for each year.

  2. There has been no adustment made for grant penalties in 1988–89 since they will be restored if authorities bring their expenditure down to guideline at outturn.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Liverpool.

The Lord Bishop of Lichfield
Keith Norman, Lord Bishop of Lichfield—Was (in the usual manner) introduced between the Lord Bishop of Southwark and the Lord Bishop of Liverpool.

Doctors: Negligence Claims Insurance
2.40 p.m.
The Earl of Halsbury The Earl of Halsbury asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will take action to compensate doctors employed by the National Health Service for increased insurance premiums, having regard to the erratic character of damages awarded by the courts in actions for negligence.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Hesketh): My Lords, the rising cost of medical defence subscriptions has been of concern to doctors and to the Government for some years. In 1988 and 1989 the Government are reimbursing two-thirds of the cost of defence subscriptions to hospital doctors on whole-time contracts and to doctors on part-time contracts who work wholly for the NHS. This is an interim arrangement following the recommendation of the Doctors' and Dentists' Review Body in its report in 1988; we are considering what arrangements should be made in the longer term.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, in thanking the Minister for that helpful reply to my Question, perhaps I may congratulate him on the advancement by one stage of his parliamentary career and give him my good wishes.
Could not the pay review body give special attention—because it must be in existence for at least another round—to the fact that GMPs under contract to the National Health Service collect their expenses in full subject to a three year delay in reimbursement, which seems very excessive; and that whole-timers in the National Health Service receive only two-thirds, whereas part-timers, including the nine-elevenths maximum part-time consultants, to date do not receive anything at all? Does that not give an incentive to them to drop the nine-elevenths maximum part-time arrangements and go over to eight-elevenths and take on further private practice, with the loss to the National Health Service of three sessions a week?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, first, perhaps I may sincerely thank the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, for his very kind words.
1082
GPs are reimbursed on their subscriptions through the expenses system and the Doctors' and Dentists' Review Body each year receives the results of the survey of GPs and their expenses. I accept that that information is inevitably historical but the review body takes account of that in the evidence from the BMA and the health departments when estimating average practice expenses for the year ahead.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords. before we think of spending any more of the taxpayers' money on covering up a weakness, should we not concentrate on trying to remove or minimise what the question calls:
"the erratic character of damages awarded"?
Is that not where our attention should be directed rather than spending more money to cover it up?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I know that my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls will be disappointed but I fear it is not proper for me to comment on the decisions which judges have made in individual cases.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, as discussions are already under way within the department and in other departments of the Government which may be affected, can the Minister say whether, before any final decision is made, discussions will also take place with the BMA and the related professions?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, all interested parties are concerned in the discussions which are taking place.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, perhaps I also may congratulate the noble Lord on his new appointment. I hope that this will not be the last occasion on which he will answer health Questions in your Lordships' House. He has acquired an expertise in that sphere and it would be regrettable if he were snatched from us.
The noble Lord said that the Government were concerned about the increasing costs of these insurance premiums. It is clear that the more the Government have to pay, the more likely they are to be concerned and then perhaps do something about them. In answering the supplementary question, the noble Lord referred to the situation historically regarding general practitioners and how in the past the cost of these premiums was included in the expenses factor. Will the new arrangements under which general practitioners have a budget include amounts for these insurance premiums or will they not?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, first, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, for his kind remarks. In answer to the last part of his question, the discussion document will be published in the next one or two weeks. Part of the problem of the very fast rise in cost of the insurance premiums is that they reflect not the claims which are taking place today but the claims which might take place in future years. That is why the percentage rise, which has been very severe, does not reflect a disastrous state of affairs which has occurred or is occurring but the possibility that one may occur.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, perhaps I may endorse the congratulations and tribute to the noble Lord. Accepting that there is always a possibility, however small, that a doctor may make an error of judgment which causes damage to a patient and that insurance is an absolute necessity, would it not be far more equitable to introduce a system of no-fault liability? I should have thought that that would be fairer both to patients and to the medical profession. Knowing that the Government have their doubts about that, perhaps it could be an issue for discussion on the White Paper which was published yesterday prior to legislation.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the subject of no-fault insurance has been discussed before in your Lordships' House and one often hears of the examples of Sweden and New Zealand. However, I must draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that Sweden has a very different social security system, which provides a different starting point. If one looks at the case of Sweden one sees that the average payout on the no-fault liability is only £3,000, but that is because of their social security system, which is very different from that in the United Kingdom.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the other aspect of this problem is the increasingly large sums which are being awarded? Is my noble friend and his right honourable friend considering whether there should be a legal limit to the damages awarded in these cases? Is he aware that in America, as I understand it, no less than one-third of surgeons' annual fees are now devoted to insurance premiums because of the astronomical amounts which have been awarded there? Is he aware that we do not wish to follow that path here?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I fully appreciate the point made by my noble friend Lord Nugent, and I shall certainly draw it to the attention of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, have we not reached the point in which actions in tort for personal injuries are obsolete? Should we not have a system in which people who are injured or crippled through no fault of their own can claim upon the state, with the state being responsible for that? In view of the increases which we are seeing, I believe that that may be a good deal cheaper for the taxpayer and for everybody else.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, as always I am most interested in questions from the noble Lord, Lord Paget. However, it is fair to say that his question is slightly wide of the Question on the Order Paper.
Lord Morris: My Lords, does not my noble friend agree that, before deciding whether or not judgments are erratic, it is of critical importance to consider the whole of the judicial decision and not consider only the necessarily brief accounts that occasionally appear in the press?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am sure that there is a grain of truth in the point made by my noble friend Lord Morris.

British Rail: Digital Clocks
2.50 p.m.
Lord Moyne Lord Moyne asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will state, by regions, the amounts spent and to be spent by British Rail on the introduction of digital clocks in 1988, 1989 and 1990, and whether there are any plans to retain traditional clocks in railway stations.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, these are management matters for the Railways Board. I understand that Network South-East plans to install electronically controlled digital clocks at all its stations in order to help improve punctuality of trains. Old clocks which do not meet modern standards of accuracy will normally be removed, but I understand that British Rail will consider any suggestions as to alternative homes for them.
Lord Moyne: My Lords, in thanking my noble friend for his Answer, it is clearly no use to press him for figures since Her Majesty's Government seem to regard themselves, perhaps constitutionally, as unable to deal with the question of expenditure and the effect on fares. Therefore, may I ask my noble friend, in the general context of the merits of clocks, whether there is any hope that the clock at Andover will be repaired and retained?
As part of the same question, perhaps I may ask whether my noble friend is aware that at Liverpool Street British Rail has had the wisdom to put in dialled clocks with sweep second hands. Surely such clocks are the very best way of showing the exact time at a distance and at a glance.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for having given me notice of the two stations to which he referred; otherwise I would not be in a position to answer his supplementary question.
As regards the Andover clock, I am afraid that it is unreliable, difficult to maintain and repair, and, having two faces, it unfortunately often shows different times on each face, which can be rather confusing for passengers. I understand that British Rail may be prepared to consider giving the Andover clock to the local community, and no doubt that will be followed up.
In regard to Liverpool Street, I understand that the clock to which my noble friend referred is not a British Rail clock but is part of the development taking place at that station.
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, can the noble Lord say what British Rail's arrangements are for enabling drivers of trains approaching a station rather late to have a sight of the digital clock and thus ensure their punctuality, as the noble Lord thinks? If the noble Lord is also considering the future use of clocks, is he aware that the clock in the Gare d'Orsai in Paris is now a glorious centrepiece in a marvellous museum—the Musee d'Orsai? All the British Rail clocks could be offered to British museums.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: With all their faces. my Lords!
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the whole purpose of introducing the new clocks is to improve punctuality. It will be easier for drivers to see the clocks and, it is to be hoped, for the trains to run on time.
I take note of the noble Lord's suggestion on the use of the old clocks. It is of course for British Rail to decide. I understand that British Rail wishes to retain a few historic clocks, but they will not be thrown out. British Rail intends to make every effort to find good homes for them.
Lord Ferrier: My Lords, can the noble Lord assure the House that the Government will resist any attempt to alter the face of Big Ben to a digital form?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, though that question strays somewhat from the main Question, I think I can give the noble Lord the assurance that he seeks.

Scotland: Community Charge
2.55 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have yet discovered why figures for the standard community charge, to be introduced in April and now being considered and decided by local authorities in Northern Scotland, are considerably higher than those contained in the estimates published by the Scottish Office.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Sanderson of Bowden): My Lords, the figures that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland published in November were his estimates of the community charge that each local authority would require, if it increased its spending next year only so far as was necessary to take account of inflation and of unavoidable extra expenditure on school boards and on community charge collection. The details of local authority budgets have still to be analysed, but in general where authorities have fixed charges higher than my right honourable friend's estimates it is simply because they are increasing the volume of their spending.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that Answer. Since he appears to confirm that the Scottish Office estimates were based on reasonable expenditure and any reasonable increases, can these discrepancies be explained by councils using this radical change which is to occur in only two months' time in Scotland, thus doing away for ever with domestic rates—as a pretext for considerably enlarging their budgets?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that observation. Our figures show the level at which community charges could be set if moderate spending policies are followed. The fact
1086
that some councils have made large expenditure increases—I think my noble friend's own Highland region is one—and set higher community charges in no way invalidates our estimates of what those figures should be.
Lord McNair: My Lords, is it not a fact that there is at present a rate subsidy of 50 per cent. to encourage people to live in the remoter parts of Scotland? Will not the disappearance of that subsidy be relevant to the noble Lord's Question?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, that is not the case. What we are doing in Scotland, as has happened previously, is to remove the safety net arrangements by degrees. The charge that Strathclyde benefits as opposed to the Highland, Grampian or rural areas is perfectly valid up to a point. However, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has made it clear that the safety net arrangement will be phased out over a period of up to five years.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, is the Minister aware I am sure he must be—and concerned that the outrun figures for most local authorities, including Conservative controlled local authorities, have come out well above the estimates put forward by the Secretary of State in November? Can the Minister tell the House whether any previous Secretary of State has issued estimates for local rates ahead of the time that the local authorities announced them? We are surprised that he did. Why did he issue these figures? Was it not enough of a problem to get this unpopular tax on the statute book without causing more distress to local councillors of all parties? The Minister must be aware that the increases of some Conservative controlled local authorities, compared with the estimates of the Secretary of State, are much higher than others.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, the noble Lord overlooks the fact that his own region of Strathclyde has managed to come within 1 per cent. of my right honourable friend's estimate of what expenditure should be. There is no validity in the argument that the Secretary of State should not put forward his views since this is a completely new way of dealing with local authorities and their expenditure. I think it is fair that the Secretary of State should estimate what the levels should be, particularly taking into account, as I said, the 6 per cent. rate of inflation. Therefore, I reject the noble Lord's argument and I believe it is only right that those who are to pay the community charge should have some basis on which to make their judgments.
Lord Stodart of Leaston: My Lords, within the general context of this Question, has my noble friend observed a report to the effect that particularly in rural areas many houses, although their roofs have not actually been removed, are described as unhabitable but the owners are being assessed for, I believe, the standard community charge? Is that the intention of the Government?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I am well aware of what my noble friend is referring to on this difficult issue. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has been considering whether the present flexibility in the community charge arrangements is sufficient to meet the concerns that have been expressed, quite widely. We have decided that it is not appropriate for the full standard community charge to be levied in respect of empty rural cottages that are required for strategic agricultural purposes. Therefore today we shall be issuing a consultation paper setting out proposals for an alternative treatment for such properties.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, can the Minister confirm that Strathclyde region, which represents a large part of Scotland and is Labour controlled, has more or less met the target of the Secretary of State for Scotland and that it is authorities that are not Labour controlled that have exceeded the target laid down by him? I refer to the Grampian and Highland regions and also to the Borders region. Can the Minister also tell us whether his estimate of the cost of collection of the community charge is at least twice the cost of the present system of collecting rates?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I shall refer to the last part of the noble Lord's question. The Government took into account a level of 7 per cent. in the estimates relating to non-payment and also for those areas that will be discounted. Of the local authorities, Tayside has taken 10 per cent. and, as the noble Lord knows, Strathclyde has taken 5 per cent., as has Lothian. So there is a variation as to what the actual payment levels will be.
As regards the general point made by the noble Lord about the levels of increase, there are many levels of varying increases. But there are several that show a decrease on the actual amount that the Scottish Office has published. They number Caithness, Argyll and Bute, Cumbernauld, Cumnock, Doon Valley, Cunninghame, Kilmarnock, Loudoun and of course Shetland, which is a special case.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, I am sorry but the Minister appears to have misunderstood me. I am talking about the cost of collection of the tax and not the number of people who will not pay it because of the non-payment to which the noble Lord referred. Will the Minister care to answer the first question?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I believe that the answer to the first question is contained in my original Answer. There we took into account inflation, unavoidable extra expenditure on school boards and community charge collection.
Lord Hughes: My Lords, can the Minister say on what the Scottish Office bases its figures and where it obtained the numbers who are likely to be involved? Can the Minister also tell us the percentage who it is expected will be making payment? I understand that in Perth and in Kinross, where I live, the Government estimated that 94,000 people would pay, but the registration officer has been unable to find 5,000 of them. Therefore the local authority can base its figure
1088
on only 89,000. It has been estimated that 92 per cent. of that 89,000 will pay. Can the Minister tell me where the Secretary of State obtained his figures and what percentage he expects will be making the payment?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, as the noble Lord knows, registration has been taking place and, contrary to what some Members opposite thought, 99 per cent. of people have registered. Therefore there is a basis on which to assess what the levels should be. The actual calculations are based on the past year's expenditure by those authorities. Due cognizance has been taken of inflation of 6 per cent., to which I have already referred.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I believe that the estimates published in November were helpful to the public in Scotland, most of whom wanted to have some idea of what the figures would be when this drastic change in domestic rating becomes the community charge. Can the Minister tell us whether the Government will now publish another list showing the expenditure for each authority and each council in order to facilitate at an early stage the accountability to the local community that the Government seek?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that observation. The answer is: yes, we shall he assessing very closely how expenditure is arrived at by each and every district and regional council. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will take due notice. It will be up to the local authorities concerned to publish certain information as a result of the passing of this Act. The code of practice to he adopted is in the course of formulation.
Lord Hughes: My Lords, in dealing with my question the Minister gave a very interesting answer that had nothing at all to do with the question. After the noble Lord has had time to look into the matter would he be good enough to write to me about it?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I shall be very happy to look very closely at what the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, has said and I shall write to him. In the generality of the question, I believe that it should be clearly pointed out that in drawing up these figures the Scottish Office has taken due account of all relevant considerations. They are not plucked out of thin air. It will be plain for all to see in Scotland what can he achieved if there is careful expenditure by local authorities.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, when the Government publish the list to which my noble friend has just referred in answer to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy, can they ensure that the basis on which the original government estimates were fixed is made public? Unless the public has faith in the Government's original list it cannot read correctly the disparity between that list and the community charge that has been fixed.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, the short answer to that is yes.

Road Building: Expenditure Forecast
3.6 p.m.
Lord Gainford Lord Gainford asked Her Majesty's Government:
How much money will be allocated over the next three years to the building and improvement of trunk roads and motorways.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, we plan to spend nearly £3 billion over the next three years on building and improving motorways and trunk roads. This represents an increase of 40 per cent. on our spending in the previous three years to March 1989. Another £1·3 billion will be spent on road maintenance.
Lord Gainford: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for those impressive figures. Has he any information as to whether this money will speed up the proposed M.40 extension from Oxford to Birmingham? What is the progress being made with that motorway and when is the possible completion date?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, as regards the M.40 extension, all sections are under construction except that between Waterstock and Wendlebury. The inspector's report on that section is with the department and a decision is expected soon.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: My Lords, can the Minister give any indication of how the figure that he has quoted as regards investment in roads compares with investment in railways, including perhaps digital clocks? Can the Minister also say whether the Government are adequately aware of the dangers of pressing ahead with a road policy without at the same time trying to get more people back on to public transport?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, that is quite another question. But I can tell the right reverend Prelate that I believe real investment in railways is at its highest ever level in recent years.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether the massive expenditure that he has forecast will include some expenditure to deal with the great weakness in the motorway system; namely, the access from motorways to the road system of central London?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, there are various schemes in hand that may help my noble friend. I cannot refer to each of them individually in this answer. I refer noble Lords to the last White Paper that was published in the spring of 1987. I expect that we shall be publishing a new one fairly shortly as we usually do so about every two years. That gives details of all the schemes in the programme. Since the last White Paper there have been 14 schemes added.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that there is a very considerable gap in the rate at which we are building extra miles of motorway compared with our neighbours in France? Though
1090
this massive increase of 40 per cent. may sound satisfactory, does it not mean that the gap between the two countries will get even wider? Does the Minister not agree that in his arguments with the Treasury it would be a good idea to say that it may be more productive in the long run to improve our rail and road infrastructure rather than to pay off small amounts of the national debt?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I take note of what my noble friend says. It is a matter for the Treasury. I shall draw my noble friend's remarks to the attention of my right honourable friend the Chancellor.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, is the Minister aware that we took particular pleasure in the announcement made by his honourable friend in another place about the number of bypasses, which arc important to the quality of life of so many people? He mentioned an additional £1.3 billion on repairs. Will that be enough to cope with the backlog of repairs built up over the past five or six years? I refer in particular to repairs in cities and towns. I know that those are not specifically the Government's responsibility but the Minister must be aware that many urban roads are in a quite deplorable state.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, 16 bypasses are under construction at the moment out of a total of 147 in the programme at this stage. That is good news. The noble Lord mentioned the backlog of repairs. I quoted a figure of £1.3 billion for repairs over the next three years. It remains our aim to eliminate the backlog by 1992. I cannot give an answer on local roads because the Question refers only to roads for which the department is responsible.
The Earl of Shrewsbury: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that many of the roads in the Black Country are highly congested and are inadequate to provide for the increased volume of traffic that has been generated by two successful enterprise zones? Does he not agree that, to enhance the commercial attractions of this area, substantial funds should be allocated as quickly as possible to improve the position?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, it would be unwise for me to discriminate between different areas. Every area of the country reckons to have a claim on resources. My noble friend is concerned with his area. Others would argue that their claims are just as good. I hope my noble friend will be encouraged by the overall figure that I have been able to give this afternoon.

Business
3.11 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to say a word about the length of speeches in the debate standing in the name of the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition, to which your Lordships have agreed to apply a five-hour time

1091
limit. On the principle that the noble Lord is allowed approximately 20 minutes to open and the Minister should rise to reply not less than 25 minutes before the scheduled end, any other speech which exceeded nine minutes would do so at the expense of subsequent speakers in the debate.

Unborn Children (Protection) Bill [H.L.]
The Duke of Norfolk: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to amend the law relating to human embryos produced by in vitro fertilisation; and for connected purposes. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(The Duke of Norfolk.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Petition: Football Spectators Bill [H.L.]
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I beg to present a Petition from members of the National Federation of Football Supporters' Clubs which prays that this House will amend the Football Spectators Bill in such a way as to preserve football as a spectator sport capable of attracting a new generation of supporters while having a real impact on football-related violence. I have been told that it contains many thousands of signatures as a first instalment.
Petition presented.

Pollution and the Environment
3.13 p.m.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos rose to call attention to the case for enhancing the quality of life by protecting the environment from increasing pollution; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Motion should have been proposed by my noble friend Lady Nicol, but because she is indisposed she invited me to take her place. I regret my noble friend's absence because she speaks with knowledge and with conviction on this subject. I know that the House will look forward to seeing her back on this Bench very soon.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, the issues of the environment and of pollution are numerous and complex; land, sea and atmosphere are involved. In recent years scientists worldwide have been warning us that all is not well and that if governments, and especially industry, here and elsewhere fail to comprehend the dangers and to take appropriate action, catastrophe— that, apparently, is not too strong a word—lies just over the horizon. We are thinking, therefore, of the kind of world which our
1092
grandchildren and future generations will inherit from us. On all the evidence, there is no doubting that our responsibility is daunting. In this country the general public seems to be aware of the dangers. A recent poll indicated that 81 per cent. of the people of Britain believe that the Government should be doing much more to protect the environment.
The right honourable Lady the Prime Minister, who is herself a scientist, has recently appreciated this. I was greatly encouraged to read the report of her speech to the Royal Society last September. She described the protection of the environment and the balance of nature as one of the great challenges of the late 20th century. The Prime Minister also touched on a number of other problems which have caused acute concern; the greenhouse effect and CFCs, the depletion of the ozone layer and acid rain. She also spent some time on—I quote—
"the need to spend science budgets wisely"
There we come to another problem—whether the Government have spent and intend to spend the money which is necessary to begin to deal with the impending menace. I shall come back to the Government's record in a moment.
I know the House will be grateful to the Minister if he will inform us of the action the Government are taking following the Prime Minister's encouraging speech. We hear that a report is in hand based on papers prepared by all relevant government departments and that this will deal in part with the fight against the greenhouse effect. Can he say whether it is now the Government's view that some warming of the climate due to the greenhouse effect is inevitable? I have read that scientists believe that the world will heat up by 1.5 to 4.5 degrees centigrade in the first half of the next century, producing the warmest climate for 125,000 years, raising sea levels and seriously disrupting harvests. If this change is not anticipated, and if the necessary action is not taken, areas such as the east coast of England will face enormous problems and will suffer as a result.
The United Nations Environment Programme Report describes this development as,
"the greatest challenge lacing the international community'".
The report also draws attention to other matters about which we have all read. I refer to the felling of tropical rain forests, especially in Brazil, and the destruction of the ozone layer. It says that the burning of forests is second only to the use of fossil fuels as the biggest source of carbon dioxide, the main gas that causes the greenhouse effect. The burning of fossil fuels is of course a point which concerns this country very much.
NERC scientists have been carrying out some significant work. They have shown that the Atlantic Ocean has become stormier over the past 20 years and they think that this may be related to climate change and the greenhouse effect. Another group is monitoring the growth of ocean plankton. In both cases it is essential to maintain continuity of measurements, but I understand that the project will end on 1st April unless the council wins new contracts from industry and from the Government. It is relevant to note that over the past six years

1093
government commissioned research expenditure has fallen from £46 million to about £22 million. The future of the council must be in some doubt.
But there arc signs that the Government are becoming aware of the dangers. We welcome warmly the Prime Minister's decision to join with the United Nations Environment Programme to call a special meeting of governments here in London next month to try to speed up the measures aimed at protecting the ozone layer. We greatly hope that the conference will be successful. No doubt the Minister will tell us more about it when he comes to reply. But government policies must be clarified. They must he carefully formulated and realistic before the public or this House can begin to be satisfied. It is one area where reliance on market forces could be disastrous. We have learnt over a period of 175 years that market forces on their own are no respecters of the environment or of the people.
My worst and most tragic experience over 40 years of political life was the Aberfan disaster, in which I was involved as Secretary of State for Wales, as indeed were my noble and learned friends Lord Edmund-Davies and Lord Elwyn-Jones in their legal capacities. Market forces left a scar there which will never be erased. There must be effective planning and control over the use of natural resources and over the exploitation of land, water, energy, the sea and the atmosphere. Without that organisation both nationally and internationally, the environmental and ecological problems will continue and they will grow.
All developed countries have contributed to a greater or lesser degree to the problems which I have mentioned. However, today we are mainly concerned with our own country and with the record of our own governments. We know that we led the world in the Industrial Revolution and the balance sheet no doubt shows credits and debits. I have already referred to one of the debits. Successive governments must bear some of the responsibility for neglecting the environment. The present Government have had the advantage of a volume of new scientific evidence and advice which has emerged over the past few years. I must say, although I much regret having to do so, that on the material which I have read over the past few days, after 10 years during which the evidence of environmental damage has become graver and more precise, the Government have failed to take that evidence sufficiently seriously and to act upon it.
The result of that neglect is difficult to calculate with any precision, but it will certainly have grave, and possibly disastrous, consequences. What does the record tell us? First, that we have one of the worst records for pollution in Europe and, it seems, the dirtiest beaches in Europe. That is really disgraceful. We pride ourselves on our tourist industry and we need the revenue which it brings, but the Government must not turn their back on this state of affairs. As I understand it, the European Commission is taking legal action against the Government over five of the worst cases of beach pollution. We shall be grateful to the Minister if he will tell the House how that action is proceeding and what is the Government's response.
1094
Then, we have yet another example of this neglect which relates to our drinking water. We arc told that nearly 11 million people in Britain drink water which is below the standard set by the European Community and that there are excessive nitrate levels in water in many areas of the country. Here also the Community is taking legal action against Britain in respect of six serious breaches. Perhaps the Minister will also tell us how that matter is proceeding. Are those breaches, as we believe, due to the failure to modernise water treatment works? If that is the case, then governments must take responsibility because they forced water undertakings to limit their borrowing, with those serious results.
Perhaps I may give the House another example which is well known to noble Lords. It relates to the ship the "Karin B". When that vessel, with its dangerous cargo, approached the South Wales coast, the local authority and the community generally made it plain that they would not tolerate the ship berthing or unloading her cargo. Therefore, as we recall, the ship departed from these shores. However, the Government were tardy in giving their view at the time. There seems to be a total absence of any policy for managing toxic waste.
Against that background, it seems common sense to me that at least our system of inspection should be adequate. But the fact is€as the noble Earl will confirm€that his department has only five inspectors to supervise 5,600 dumps in England and Wales. Further, as a protest against this serious inadequacy I understand that the Deputy Chief Inspector of the Inspectorate of Pollution felt that he had to resign. If that is true, it is a very serious condemnation. I see that the noble Earl shakes his head but we shall be grateful if he will confirm whether that is a fact.
The absence of a clear policy was made clear in the House in an exchange about the dumping in Cheshire of waste from the United States. Indeed, the noble Earl took part in that exchange. The Government later cancelled the proposal but there was no statement of consistent, formulated policy. It is disgraceful and totally unacceptable that nuclear waste, or any toxic and hazardous waste, should be dumped in these small islands.
Obscure spokesmen of firms do exist who say blandly and pompously that they have the expertise to handle waste which may be brought into Britain. Who do those people think they are? I know who they are; they are people who would handle anything for money. They are the unacceptable face of market operation. We must not allow them to decide which sort of country our children will live in. If such people continue to have their way this will no longer be a green and pleasant land.
I turn now to the problem of acid rain. Here again, Britain remains the largest emitter of sulphur dioxide in Western Europe, with an increase of 200,000 tonnes in 1987. Again I have read that the experts say that we send into the air 800,000 tonnes of gases which can be converted into acid rain. That is obviously serious and I shall be glad to have the Minister's comments on the matter.

1095
I concede immediately that these are very real problems for this or any other government to overcome. The Secretary of State, Mr. Nicholas Ridley, has said that to resolve the problem we must concentrate on nuclear energy. But here again, unfortunately, we have no clear forward policy on nuclear waste. We need a carefully thought out energy policy but there are certain steps which we can take now. For example, the Government can see to it that our existing power stations are cleaned up at a much faster rate and, most important of all, the Government must take urgent action to increase energy efficiency. I hope that the Minister will say that he will support those two initiatives with enthusiasm.
I should now like to put two short, but important, questions to the noble Earl. First, why, if he and the Government support increased energy efficiency, has the budget of the Energy Efficiency Unit been cut by 5 per cent. in real terms? Secondly, why has work on the revolutionary Grimthorpe power plant, a pollution-free coal burning plant, been halted when only €12 million is needed to demonstrate its feasibility? Such plants could start a new era of safe power stations in this country, which would meet the problems.
If the Government are serious about efficiency they must find good answers to those two questions, for at the end of the day Britain will be judged not by what its leaders say on platforms or at conferences or even by what we might say in debates such as this one, but by what its governments of all parties do to meet the challenge. Many people responded warmly to the Prime Minister's speech in September and expressed the hope that it signified a positive change of heart. However, they also pointed out that the Government's practical response at the time was very disappointing.
Perhaps I may again give some examples, because I want to be perfectly fair to the noble Earl. Following last year's science budget allocation, the National Environment Research Council had to make 160 of its staff, mostly scientists, redundant. It had no money to pay them. The council said that it had gone as far as it possibly could in making savings. The secretary of NERC, Mr. John Bowman, said:
"I welcome what the Prime Minister said, and I think the scientific issues she addressed are enormously important. But if the scientific community really is to give the Government sound guidance in these matters in the future, the Government must concentrate resources on the relevant areas of research".
Those were the words of the secretary of NERC. The retiring chairman of NERC, Mr. Hugh Fish, said:
"if the squeeze on the funding is not halted, environmental research could suffer damage from which it would take years to recover".
The new chairman, Professor John Knill, has warned:
"the Council could no longer support some important environmental monitoring programmes."
The sad and alarming fact is that the expenditure of the noble Earl's department on environmental research has fallen in real terms from €40.6 million in 1979–80 to €28.2 million today. It would be helpful if he would tell the House how the Government justify a cut of those proportions.
1096
We also know that the universities, many of which are carrying out vital research in the environment field, have suffered severely from economic stringency. I have the details, but I do not have time to list them. Again there are wide-ranging cuts in research which have been announced by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, an area in which I have taken a great interest. That is also a matter of considerable worry.
The chairman of the Nature Conservancy Council has deplored the cut of 5 per cent. in the council's grant and questioned whether it can carry out what is required for the future. We cannot but accept the view of the scientists that the cuts are deep, damaging and injurious, especially to environmental monitoring programmes, including those directed to the atmosphere.
Perhaps I may say in conclusion that this is not the time or the subject upon which to make purely party political points, and I do not want to do so. There is no general election in view. We all have a duty to face the facts as presented by objective commentators. But what is in view is disaster on an unpredictable scale for future generations. Let us operate internationally through the United Nations and the Community, and do so with vigour and enthusiasm. The greatest scientist of the century—Albert Einstein, said:
"Why does this magnificent applied science which makes life easier, bring us so little happiness? The simple answer runs: Because we have not vet learned to make use of it".
Let the Government heed those words; listen to the scientists; and give them the resources to finish the job so that our country and the world may be safer to live in. I beg to move for Papers.
3.33 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, we are all disappointed that the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, is not here today to move the Motion which originally stood in her name on the Order Paper. I am sure that I speak for all your Lordships in asking the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penhros to pass on our very best wishes to the noble Baroness. I am pleased however that the noble Lord was able to leave the Motion unaltered because it includes the most important challenge that we face.
The state of the environment, both national and international, is very much at the forefront of people's perceptions now. But it is something about which the Government have been concerned throughout our time in office. Our efforts so far have helped to reduce pollution in all the environmental sectors—air, fresh and sea water, and land—and will produce benefits both in this country and over a broader area, indeed globally. I should ike to give an overall picture now thus allowing myself time to answer detailed points when I speak, by leave, at the end of the debate. Clearly, there are a number of misapprehensions that need correcting.
The subject of the debate is the enhancement of the quality of life by protecting the environment from pollution. This is not a debate where one is for it or against it. It is a question of degrees and priorities.

1097
Whatever we do for a cleaner environment will be costly. Thus our ability to tackle each problem depends on its severity and the resources we are able and willing to devote to it.
Although each pollution problem is different, I believe one can divide them into four categories: local, national, regional and global. Each category contains issues which arc more complex and costly to deal with than the next.
Let me start with local mess. Litter is an all too depressing feature of our lives. And it is, par excellence. the area of environmental pollution where individual citizens, each man, woman and even child, can by their own personal efforts make a real impact. We really must get away from the idea that "they" ought to do something about it and develop the idea that "we" can do it. The Government have increased grant to the Tidy Britain Group from €0.7 million in 1987–88 to €1.2 million this financial year and we shall increase it again to €3 million in the next financial year. The group, at our request, is running a range of pilot projects to test various ways of tackling the problem in different kinds of location.
Noise is a major cause of stress and interference with our well being. Recent figures show that complaints about noise have increased fourfold between 1977 and 1987. As with litter, that is a form of pollution that will only be solved by individual action. Local mess is created by us and it is up to us as individuals to sort it out. Our involvement will be rewarded by a reduction in pollution and enhancement of the quality of life.
I move now to items of national importance: first, the protection of the aquatic environment. We have 95 per cent. of our population connected to the main sewer. That is the highest percentage of any of our European partners. Once sewage treatment is installed, life in the environment can return to its previous condition, as we have shown with the Thames which now has over 100 species of fish in it, when not so long ago it had none in its lower reaches. The Tyne is now a salmon river again. Even with our high standards, now that we can afford to, we must do more. The most prominent example is our campaign to clean up the Mersey basin at an estimated cost of £4 billion.
Notwithstanding the high standards we have in this country, where 90 per cent. of our rivers are of good or fair quality compared with 75 per cent. on the Continent, there is concern over some recent slight deterioration in river water quality reported in some areas. The main causes have been the poor performance of many water authority sewage treatment works, and pollution from agricultural sources. The unsatisfactory discharges of sewage effluent are usually from outdated and overloaded sewage treatment works and sewerage systems. This is largely the result of chronic under-investment in the 1970s under Labour Governments who, with Liberal Party support, cut investment in public infrastructure. In this case it was by 30 per cent. in real terms. Since 1980, investment has increased annually and we recently announced a €1,000 million programme of investment by water authorities to bring almost all works up to standard by 1992.
1098
Increased investment will also enable water authorities to speed up their programmes of compliance with new UK and EC environmental standards, and to renew underground assets. But let there be no confusion, drinking water from public supplies in this country is good quality and perfectly safe to drink. Most water supplies already comply with the new more stringent standard for nitrates set by the EC drinking water directive, and the others will do so within a reasonable time scale.
In addition to the investment programme that I have just mentioned, a number of measures are being considered in order to tackle farm pollution, including regulations concerning silage and slurry stores—some of the commonest causes of water pollution incidents.
We believe that the establishment of the National Rivers Authority (NRA) will improve the institutional framework for water pollution control. The water authorities currently combine their pollution control functions with being major polluters because of their role in sewage disposal. This as in other areas is a fundamental mistake. We strongly believe that we must separate the role of producer and regulator, and the NRA will have no such conflict of interest.
A further area which has, quite rightly, gained increasing national prominence is the whole question of waste management. Clearly, we should start by trying to reduce the total quantity of waste. That will be an important feature in our proposed measures for integrated pollution control. We also encourage recycling of waste products to the maximum extent consistent with sound economics. Nevertheless, we must ensure that the inevitable wastes which require final disposal are dealt with effectively and safely.
We have done a great deal of work in the past few years reviewing the legislation governing waste disposal in this country. The basic changes have been decided. The total package we have produced will, we believe, provide a clear, solid framework for the long term and we shall certainly legislate during the lifetime of this Parliament.
Perhaps the most talked about area of regional pollution is the North Sea. The quality status report prepared for the second international North Sea conference in 1987 showed that the state of the North Sea is generally good. Damage from pollution is confined to areas on the eastern coasts such as the German Bight and Wadden Sea. That is not surprising when one looks at the hydrography of the North Sea and understands that 80 per cent. of the pollution entering the North Sea from rivers comes from the Continent.
However, we must do more, and in the London declaration all eight North Sea states agreed on further protective measures. An international scientific task force has been set up to improve our understanding of the North Sea environment and the United Kingdom has played the leading part in taking this initiative forward.
Another area of intense action is implementing our commitment to improving air quality and reducing acid rain. The United Kingdom has already had a £1 billion programme to reduce acid emissions from

1099
power stations—the second largest in Europe. We have now agreed targets for Sot and Nox emission reductions in the EC large combustion plants directive which will involve significant additional expenditure—something like a doubling of the existing programme.
Last November in Sofia we signed the Nox protocol to the UN-ECE convention on long-range transboundary air pollution. We are implementing the EC Luxembourg directive on vehicle emissions, which is likely to halve emissions from new petrol engined cars, and will add £850 million per annum to motoring costs.
There is no doubt regional pollution can do longterm damage but global pollution is the most dangerous and complex set of problems which faces us.
The first priority is to reduce the very great uncertainties—some of which the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition mentioned—about the nature and consequence of climate change to a range manageable enough to enable the world community to take sensible precautionary measures to minimise the impacts. We are making an important contribution to international efforts in this field. Our scientific institutions are world leaders in this area and the director of the UK Met Office is leading the joint UN EP-WMO study group which is examining the science of global climate change. Once we better understand cause and effect we shall be better placed to press for effective remedial action.
One of the greenhouse gases is chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and related substances, used in aerosols and refrigeration, and which we know can interfere with the way ozone is created and broken down, and thus reduce ozone concentration in the upper atmosphere. Because the ozone layer protects us from the sun's ultraviolet radiation, this could lead to increased skin cancer and reduced yield in crops.
We have been closely involved in international measures to protect the ozone layer. Your Lordships will be pleased to know that the United Kingdom will meet the target set for us 10 years earlier than required by the protocol. But we now know that the 50 per cent. target is not enough. We accept the firm scientific evidence presented by the independent body set up by the Government—the Scientific Ozone Review Group—that to prevent further depletion of the ozone layer CFC emissions must be reduced by at least 85 per cent. world-wide as soon as possible. The Montreal Protocol must be implemented on a faster time-scale and significantly strengthened.
We shall be pressing for this higher target and shall be hosting an international conference on the ozone layer in March, to demonstrate practical ways of achieving further world-wide reductions in CFCs. Over 150 countries have been invited, and we already have firm indications from over 50 from all parts of the world that they will be represented at senior ministerial level. His Excellency President Moi of Kenya will deliver the keynote opening address on 5th March. The Prime Minister will attend on more
1100
than one occasion. All the signs are that we shall be able to make real progress at the conference.
One reassuring aspect of this work on CFCs is that the international community has shown encouraging signs of being able to act together to solve global problems. Much more progress needs to be made to get world-wide, universal participation and the London conference will give a vital boost to this aspect of the problem. The indications are encouraging, and they need to be.
The UK will continue to play a leading role in regional and global environmental issues. We shall work actively to promote the concept of sustainable development and to translate it into reality, both at home and abroad.Attitudes and institutions will have to change. Every country throughout the world will have to play its part. The stakes are the world as we know it. The costs will be enormous, but the costs of failure are greater still. The human race has faced no greater challenge.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, I too wish to say how sorry I am that owing to illness the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, has not been able to open the debate. Nevertheless, I am delighted that the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition, Lord Cledwyn, has found it possible to open the debate himself. He did so with great expertise and with his vast experience not only as a former Secretary of State for Wales, in which capacity he was close to the dreadful Abcrfan disaster, but also as a distinguished and able Minister of Agriculture. He will know that as regards pollution the Minister of Agriculture is at the moment in a very hot seat indeed. It is a relevant area of experience.
This is a very important debate and I am grateful to the noble Lord for introducing it. I think I am right in saying that we have had approximately 10 debates on the general subject, in addition to one or two on specific subjects like the recent debate on the ozone layer in your Lordships' House. I seem to recollect that I have spoken in all 10. I think that other noble Lords who are to follow me have spoken in many of the debates as well. No doubt some of them, like me, have wondered which of the earlier speeches to make. After thought, I have decided that my earlier speeches would not fit into nine minutes so I shall have to make a new one. Whether noble Lords who will speak later will repeat the old speeches I do not know, but I should be glad to hear some of them again, particularly from the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, who has spoken to us so often on the subject with great wisdom. I should be glad to hear the old speech again, or indeed a new one. Like other noble Lords, I am particularly looking forward to hearing the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Kenilworth.
The Minister himself has said, and we must say at the outset, that the problems with which we are faced can only be solved internationally. I know that individuals can do a great deal, but the problems of pollution in general cannot be solved by individual nations. They will have to be solved by international action. Having said that, I am thinking of subjects which have already been mentioned, such as the

1101
declination of the tropical rain forests. We cannot solve that problem on our own in Britain. Nor can we deal with acid rain, though I accept, as has been said to us, that we have a major responsibility in that direction. Nor can we alone in Britain deal with the damaging greenhouse effect related to acid rain and to our outpourings of sulphur dioxide into the atmosphere. Nor can we alone deal with the threat to the ozone layer or with lead pollution, which is a serious problem. It must be tackled internationally. There is now general acceptance of that.
However, having pointed out that we all understand and accept that the problems must be tackled internationally, that does not in any sense relieve us in Britian of our responsibility to play our part in the task. The noble-Earl has outlined the way in which we are trying to play our part but I think most of us would say that we arc not doing it quickly enough or well enough.
We all know what the problems are. We have heard so much scientific evidence in recent years that most of us know the answers. It will not be possible in the future when our grandchildren say, "Why didn't you do something about this, that and the other?", for us to say what we did not know. We do know. We know the answers. The real task now is to apply those answers vigorously.
The main point I wish to make in the course of this debate is that I genuinely believe that it is not so much new legislation that we need but the effective implementation of legislation which is already on the statute hook. What are we considering in the main? We are considering the clear fact that man has proved beyond all possible contradiction that he excels all other animals in his ability to foul his own nest. Every day the food we eat, the water we drink, the air we breathe, the land we live on and the sea which surrounds that land—each and all—become increasingly contaminated by pollutants of one kind or another.
Going through those pollutants one by one, let us consider food, where there is increasing contamination with various additives. Let me say at once that I am not opposed to the use of food additives. Indeed, with modern methods of food production, it is essential to have certain additives in order to restore nutrients that have been removed in the manufacturing process. It is also essential to have additives to prolong storage life at a time when we have a huge world population to feed. So additives are necessary. But they should only be accepted when they are safe, and they should only be used in the interests of the consumer rather than in the interests of the producer. They should not be used in the interests of the producer to conceal the use of inferior materials.
Regarding water, I am not wholly opposed to certain additives. It is well known that I am in favour of adding fluoride to our water supplies. The Minister mentioned sewage. We already have powers to stop our rivers being contaminated by sewage. We have powers to stop the constant outflow of sewage into the seas which surround our land. Yet that goes on day after day in all parts of Britain. I could list those parts. I am sure the Minister knows them. But I very
1102
much agree with what the Minister said—that in many ways the answers are in our own hands as individuals.
The Minister may be interested to hear that tomorrow I shall have the great honour of receiving from His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales an award in respect of conservation. I shall receive that as the chairman of the Groundwork Trust. The Minister, who has been deeply involved in the Groundwork movement, knows very well that the Groundwork experiment has been an outstanding success. It has taught people to do something about urban fringe decay. It has helped people to improve the local environment in which they live. That has only been achieved as a result of education in the schools and throughout the population. The movement has helped people to come along and improve the environment in which they live. It has been an extraordinarily successful experiment. It shows how very important education is to the whole subject with which we are concerned today.
We must ensure that all schoolchildren understand the consequences for the future of their present actions. As I said, the Minister himself has been deeply involved in the Groundwork movement. He will be glad to hear that we are about to receive that award from His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales.
I believe that if we in Britain were now to apply the answers which we know and to enforce legislation which is already on the statute book, many of our problems would he at an end almost at once. But I must say that we are dealing with the accumulated pollution and contamination of some 50, 60, 70 or even 100 years. There are deposits of chemical waste lying about Britain. Everywhere one looks in Britain one can see monuments to centuries of greed when people have taken out of the environment and not put anything back. Things have been left. I accept that all that damage cannot be repaired overnight. It will take time. But it will only be achieved if we all understand as individuals that there is a price to be paid for conservation. It cannot be done for nothing.
I have mentioned before in your Lordships' House that I was deeply involved in the clean air programme. That movement campaigned for a better atmosphere, and for getting sulphur dioxide out of the air to prevent such conditions as bronchitis. That campaign took a very long time. People realised there was a price to be paid for doing that. They were only prepared to pay that price when they found that it was necessary to do so. When did they find that out? They found it out when the great smog occurred in London round about 1952. At that time 18,000 Londoners died from bronchial pneumonia as they had inhaled chemically laden fumes for some 48 hours. Once Londoners became poisoned, we quickly got down to solving the matter and clean air zones were set up almost everywhere. We must teach people that there is a price to be paid for conservation, but that if we do not pay that price we shall pay a much heavier price later on. That is one of the lessons that must be got home at the moment if we are to apply the kind of remedies which the Minister listed with the kind of speed which is necessary to preserve things for the future.

1103
We must consider one other factor. We cannot exclude from our considerations population growth in world terms. I said that we had to look at these matters in world terms. The population is now growing at the rate of 8,000 people an hour. So by the end of this debate we shall have acquired something like a new Wolverhampton in terms of population. I am not saying that is something that can be tackled immediately. However, we must recognise that every hour our population is growing; and that as our world population grows, the rate of consumption of irreplaceable raw materials, on which we depend for our very existence, is also increased. The rate of contamination and pollution of the environment is also increased. That too is something which must be thought about in applying all these remedies.
We must also consider the effects of education in this matter. I look forward very much to hearing the speeches which other noble Lords will make—even if I have heard them before. Some of the points that will be made cannot be repeated often enough. This is a desperately important subject. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, for giving us an opportunity to debate it. I hope that the debate will he followed not by the action that the Minister has catalogued, but perhaps by increased speed of action. I merely say to those who clamour for new legislation that if all the existing legislation were adequately enforced, our situation in Britain would be very different. I hope the action will be enforced and quicker than is intended.
3.55 p.m.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: My Lords, when the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, who is sadly not with us today, opened the debate on this theme in your Lordships' House this time last year, she began with the Royal Commission's definition of pollution. The definition was as follows:
"The introduction by man into the environment of substances or energy liable to cause hazards to human health, harm to living resources …
and so on. Human health comes first in that list. It comes near to last in terms of practical investigation. In the Environment Committee's first report on air pollution last May, to take one example, it had almost totally vanished.
In last January's debate I tried to redress the balance a little. I want, however briefly, to try to do the same today. Anyone who maintains that we are winning the war against ill-health in this country cannot have looked at the statistics. Of particular note, I think, is the increase in asthma, eczema and allergies in general, in which I include reactions to chemicals in air, food and water. These are often severe, and they include behavioural disturbances. They are well documented now and their link with substances in the environment such as lead, pesticides, food colourings and even man-made electromagnetic fields has been demonstrated.
Allergy sufferers have been described as the canaries down the coal mine. When they keel over, it behoves all of us to take action. But environmental illness has gone way beyond allergy. I believe its insidious effects are putting us all at risk. The "cup
1104
full of stresses" theory mentioned in the air pollution report I referred to is very familiar to those hard-pressed practitioners in environmental medicine who are diagnosing these disorders. But it is human beings they are dealing with, not trees.
If there were time today, I could say a lot more about the work these underrated pioneers are doing. It is sad, indeed more than sad, that official reaction is almost always one of bland reassurance, with the suggestion that anyone who draws attention to the evidence is a scaremonger. I am concerned about these issues because I have myself been damaged over a long time by toxic substances. In addition to having painful first hand experience, I help to run an allergy support group. That group exists because the medical profession is almost nowhere to be seen in this field.
Lately I have had time for reading and reflection. I have used much of that time in trying to search out, as a non-scientist, why it is that something which from experience I and many other people know causes a great deal of ill-health has hardly yet impinged on official consciousness. I believe that it has much to do with the tyranny of medical fashion. Doctors have not been trained to look for environmental factors in illness in a century when the germ theory of disease has held sway and drugs have become the chief weapon. It also has to do with the nature of the scientific method, and with our perceptions of what science can do for us.
We are all, I am sure, in favour of the "good science", which the Prime Minister and Mr. Ridley invoke in this context. But there is a catch here. What does one do if "good science" is unobtainable? I shall quote from a recent article on the possible link between pollution and the deaths of seals in the North Sea. The article states:
"Given that it would take one worker three years to evaluate the effects of one pollutant upon one animal species, that there are 1,000 species in the North Sea (a gross underestimate) and that 100,000 chemicals are discharged to the North Sea … each year, then to evaluate this system would take some 3,000 million man-years. This does not even begin to address the problem of interactions between the chemicals involved."
How long did it take for "good science" to establish the link between smoking and death from just one facet of one disease? And how many, I wonder, died waiting for the proof? As the British Medical Journal pointed out not long ago, what gets measured in medical science is too often what is easy to measure not what it is important to know. (Educationalists have the same problem with examinations.) Moreover scientists use words like "evidence" and "proof" in a different sense from the rest of us and in different senses in the different sciences. The common phrase "We have seen no evidence to suggest that there is any danger" often means "There is no research in that area", or sometimes, I am afraid, "We have not looked".
A choice example of that appears in the July 1984 report on acid rain attached as an appendix to the air pollution report. The sentence:
"We received no evidence to suggest that there is any cause for similar concern in this country over mercury"
stands at the end of a paragraph (121) whose message is precisely that no evidence exists of any kind in the UK and, incidentally, that the DoE's chief scientist

1105
was unaware of the foreign evidence. In the context, not only is the sentence misleading but it says volumes about the way in which we approach the issue in this country.
Does the scientist, in reporting his results, point out that what he previously said about safe levels of lead, mercury, aluminium, DDT, asbestos, X-rays, nuclear radiation and the contraceptive pill is now known to be dangerously wrong? Why should he? But the biological sciences are like that.
It seems to me as though a government which have not been shy in taking on other experts are somewhat in thrall to their scientists and in an area, toxicology, which those who know declare to be frighteningly imprecise. I have seen one example quoted where the number of deaths over an average lifespan from eating a certain sweetener could have been 0.2 or 1,144,000. The animal test data were entirely consistent with both estimates.
What is more, scientists are discovering that a minute dose of a substance can be more toxic than a higher dose. That may sound the death knell of another familiar phrase—"the public may be reassured that the concentrations were too low to have any effect on human health". It was the Chairman of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution who recently said:
"People have a belief in science, which, speaking as a scientist, I cannot share".
In everyday life outside the laboratory we constantly have to take a view on less than absolute proof. When an aeroplane crashes, within 48 hours the authorities are grounding aircraft and ordering checks to be made. That is common sense. No one asks for absolute proof at that stage. The onus of proof itself is shifted.
The burden of what I am saying is that decisions on these matters of health and the environment are political decisions, not scientific ones. Politics, as the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, said in the debate last October on the ozone layer, is:
"the art of taking good decisions on insufficient evidence". [Official Report, 20/10/88; col. 1308.]
The evidence, as I have tried to indicate, will almost always be insufficient for the scientist, although much of it is already available. Time is not on our side now. I appeal to the Government to appreciate those facts, to resist the powerful interest groups that urge delay from so many sides, to follow the lead of other countries and to take the decisions which will safeguard the health of this and future generations.
4.4 p.m.
Lord Kenilworth: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, for introducing today's debate on a subject which has become a critical issue of modern times. I am very conscious of the enormous breadth of expertise in your Lordships' House on this subject and the very strong feelings which the subject engenders. It is indeed a great pleasure and an honour for me to be addressing the House on this topic in this my maiden speech.
I was most interested by the remarks of the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, who I note made his maiden speech on this subject this time last year.
1106
I am well aware that convention dictates that a maiden speech should be non-controversial and non-political. Clearly this issue is both highly controversial and political. I note that it has been extensively discussed in both Houses year after year and that numerous reassurances of action have been given by Her Majesty's Government. I feel that it is my generation, the younger generation, which needs to act. It is for us to be aware of the dangers we pose environmentally by not addressing the threats from pollution now.
Due to the constraints of time it would be impossible for me to examine more than a tiny part of the problem that is pollution. Therefore I shall restrict my remarks to the critically important issue of the need for a positive policy on the recycling of waste, and in particular paper waste. We are talking about a load of rubbish.
In my capacity as a landscape designer I am deeply involved with environmental ecology and in methods of enhancing our living space. I am fully aware of the importance of plants, and especially trees, in beautifying our surroundings. But while we have come to expect areas of greenery in our towns and cities and demands for the conservation of the so-called green belts, at the same time we are effecting the destruction of tens of millions of trees worldwide per annum in order to satisfy our demand for paper. The figures are horrifying, the effect devastating.
In Britain our paper consumption is equivalent to the loss of one or two trees per person per annum. That is equivalent to 131 million trees, an area of forest approximately the size of Cornwall, disappearing every year. How can we sustain that scale of consumption? Paper products use approximately 35 per cent. of the world's annual commercial wood harvest. That figure is predicted to rise to 50 per cent. by the year 2000. At present only 25 per cent. of the world's paper is recycled.
After a spurt of popularity in the 'seventies recycling lost favour in the United Kingdom and we resorted once more to landfill. That seemed an attractive solution until recently, but controversy over that method of waste disposal is growing and it is becoming increasingly difficult to find suitable holes to fill. We must therefore re-examine recycling techniques in an attempt to create a demand for recycled products.
Unfortunately the UK's paper recycling industry is in a sorry state at present. It was reported in February of last year that the British Waste Paper Association was on the verge of bankruptcy, and we are as yet unable to engage in paper recycling operations on a large enough scale to make them financially competitive with virgin paper from abroad.
The situation can be reversed. We should follow the example being set in the United States where one company is emptying the trash of 150 Atlanta firms (some 200 tonnes per month) to whom they pay 3 cents per pound for the high-grade paper which they resell to a broker for up to 12 cents a pound. Eventually giant paper goods firms transform the scrap into napkins and towels. Recycling, long dominated by family-owned scrapyards and environmental activists, is now attracting a new

1107
generation of entrepreneurs and big firms which see the business less as a crusade than as a way of making big money.
Soaring waste disposal costs and potential profits have fuelled the boom. More state and local governments in the United States are passing mandatory recycling laws, and new technology allows more kinds of waste to be reused. We must attract a new generation of green-minded entrepreneurs—US-style paper barons.
Germans are accustomed to having their daily lives shaped by an army of regional environmental ministers and district officials who arc obliged by a recent federal law to make the avoidance of waste an urgent priority and to recycle whatever they can.
Apart from cutting down on our consumption of trees it is imperative that we make some attempt to remedy the chaos that we have already wreaked on the world's forests. But mass burning of trees and clearing of forests are raising the world's carbon dioxide to oxygen ratio to dangerous levels. Areas of land are being exposed to dreadful soil erosion. Attempts at reforestation have been made but have tended to favour the fast growing and hardy conifer. Unfortunately, they bring out the acidity in the soil which contributes to acid rain and cannot support the plant and animal life that flourishes in deciduous forests. A sensitive programme of reforestation and tighter controls on the felling of trees in the future must be implemented immediately in order to preserve what still remains.
Much as I wholeheartedly welcome the current drive toward a greener United Kingdom—for example, our attempts to stamp out noxious CFCs, dioxins and leaded petrol—it seems that we ignore the more easily tackled problems. It is as much a question of re-education as anything else. We are not conscious enough of the ease with which we ourselves can control the situation. There is too little publicity, too much complacency on the part of city councils and too great a distaste for recycled products, a distaste which is spawned by ignorance and memories of earlier, cruder attempts at recycling.
Recently there has been an extensive amount of publicity on the logistics of posting Sunday newspapers of an ever-increasing size. If the newspaper giants spew out so much paper each week, the onus should surely be on them to provide a solution for the recycling of their products. Recycling of paper would have five major advantages for the United Kingdom. First, it would reduce the need to find landfill sites; secondly, resources would be used more efficiently and economically; thirdly, it would create jobs and new industries; fourthly, it would encourage people to protect the environment and would engender a sense of community pride; and, finally, there is wealth in waste. It is estimated that the value of lost materials in this country alone, if reclaimed, is £750 million per annum.
I look forward to hearing the views of noble Lords on this crucial issue. I am consicous of the recent efforts of Her Majesty's Government to address this subject but I reiterate my plea to the Government for
1108
positive action now before, as I fear, it may be too late.
4.13 p.m.
Baroness White: My Lords, it falls to me. on behalf of noble Lords in all parts of the House, most sincerely to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Kenilworth. We have heard a most impressive speech from a member of the younger generation, as he called himself; but it was a speech based on good sense, knowledge and, I believe, personal conviction. I hope that we shall hear frequently from him in the future.
We also had a very interesting speech from another member of the younger generation—indeed, they are somehow making me feel especially old today. The noble Earl,Lord Baldwin of Bewdley, most interestingly referred to the difficulties that one faces in trying to follow through scientific evidence, or indeed finding it when it does not seem even to he there. He referred also to the work of the standing Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution. Its first chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Ashby, and his immediate successor, the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, are both highly valued Members of this House.
It is encouraging to know that exactly a week from today we hope to have the pleasure of welcoming among us the current chairman, Sir Jack Lewis, professor of chemistry at Cambridge. He will be a notable addition to the very small number of contemporary scientists—I stress the adjective to whom we may turn in this House for up-to-date advice and inspiration. I think I am right in saying that of the speakers on the list for today's debate the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, is the only one eligible, both by age and by qualifications, to be considered a contemporary scientist.
As a former member of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution which began its labours in 1970, I want to remind your Lordships that we are not all Johnnies (or perhaps Jennies) come-lately to the environmental scene. It was a Labour Administration that some 20 years ago, in the Control of Pollution Act and the establishment of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution a few years earlier, recognised that pollution was a threat not only to public health (the Victorians grasped that) but also to the environment and hence, as the Motion before us indicates, to the quality of life.
In the past decade or so another factor has become of ever-increasing significance; namely, our relationship with the European Community. With groups of various shades of green gaining political influence in Germany and elsewhere—as even our own Prime Minister recently observed—and with the inclusion of environmental responsibility in the Single European Act (it was not included in the original Treaty of Rome), pressure from Strasbourg and Brussels is intensifying, as I am sure the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, is well aware.
The United Kingdom does not always see eye to eye with its partners—sometimes justifiably and sometimes not. We were glad to hear recently from the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, whose speech on the

1109
financial aims of the Community impressed the House. Today I should like to pay a most sincere tribute to the other recently retired United Kingdom Commissioner at Brussels, Stanley Clinton Davis, former Member of Parliament for Hackney. His portfolio included nuclear safety and environmental protection. No one recently in the environment field in Brussels could have been more zealous in the vigorous pursuit of realistic policies designed to protect and sustain environmental values and areas of concern in the very varied conditions of the different member states. As a recent article in our own House Magazine pointed out, Stanley Clinton Davis was dedicated to establishing an effective relationship between industry on the one hand and the environment on the other. but he understood that,
"the market alone cannot protect the rain forests or restore the ozone layer".
It takes more than that. The fact that on occasion he may have made life a little more difficult for our own Secretary of State for the Environment and his colleagues should not diminish our warm recognition of work well done by a member of the European Commission, in whom I believe we can justifiably take pride.
I turn to some current pollution problems. They include several situations in which, as the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, indicated. we have inadequate and therefore uncertain knowledge. For example, a recent ministerial Answer in another place concerning health risks from aluminium and aluminium sulphate in drinking water, which was the cause of widespread illness in Cornwall this summer, referred to an EC directive and to a World Health Organisation guideline but stressed that these were not in fact related to health effects at all but only to water discolouration and palatability.
However, it now seems likely that kidney dialysis patients, young babies and the elderly may be seriously affected by excessive aluminium in drinking water. Perhaps we may learn what steps the Government are taking to find out more about this matter. They are taking seriously the problem of nitrates in water, as my noble friend Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos mentioned, but only as the excessive use of nitrates in agriculture is likely to decline; though they seem about to do something at last to help reduce damaging pollution from slurry and silage effluents.
In another area, where high concentrations of aluminium in water are also involved, there is currently a sharp and public divergence of view between the Forestry Commission, which has an obvious vested interest, and the group of scientists engaged by the Department of the Environment on a major study of acidification in lakes and rivers in Wales, with its known damage to fish life. My personal bet is on the scientists' view that acidification is greatly enhanced by inappropriate planting of trees, in particular in the uplands, a view which the Welsh Office in its decisions so far has not yet caught up with.
Noble Lords may regard these problems as relatively peripheral but they are important because they are indicative—as the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, remarked—of the time-scale which normally elapses
1110
before any government will take an awkward environmental risk seriously. They always hope that it will go away.
We are about to confront some major problems arising from the proposed privatisation of the water industry. I shall listen with the closest attention to the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell. He is likely to he the chairman of the National Rivers Authority. He is currently the chairman of the advisory committee on that matter. There could be a serious conflict of views on the relationship between the National Rivers Authority and Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution. I believe that the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, is holding consultations in favour of the integration of control of pollution.
It is a line of thought that also finds favour in Brussels. I was myself on the Royal Commission on Pollution when years ago we strongly recommended the establishment of an integrated inspectorate. At that time, however, not one of us—whatever our political views—would have contemplated commercialising anything so basic as our public water supply.
Since then we have received the Fourth Environmental Action Programme from the Commission in Brussels covering the period 1987 to 1992. In Section 3 of that report the Commission sets out very fairly the principles of pollution prevention and control, the problems of multimedia controls, and the possible conflicts between substance oriented and source oriented control systems. It emphasises the desirability of a powerful unified control authority in each member state.
This is not the occasion on which to argue this in detail as the Water Bill is still in Committee in another place. However, in welcoming a National Rivers Authority one must indicate as forcefully as possible that it is entirely unacceptable to appoint a watchdog and then either to deprive it of the necessary teeth or, for market reasons, to issue derogations, dispensations, or whatever, for periods of time which could easily prove extendable, either to assist flotation of shares or in order to maintain a level of profitability which might otherwise be unobtainable in a public service industry. 1, for one, therefore give notice that unless satisfactory arrangements are made both in the Water Bill and in any forthcoming green legislation concerning pollution control and Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution, there will be trouble.
4.25 p.m.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, may I say straight away that I shall have to miss much of the rest of the debate. I wish to come to a certain piece of nitty-gritty; namely, the polluter pays principle. The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, recently answered a Written Question from me about the polluter pays principle in the following words:
"The Government have consistently supported the polluter pays principle which requires that the cost of meeting pollution control regulations should he borne by the activity concerned …The cost of treating and purifying water to render it fit for human consumption has always been borne by the water undertakings and recovered from charges made to consumers".

1111
That means that the Government were saying, "We support the polluter pays policy but we practise the consumer pays policy". To get themselves into this position the Government have to be either confused or dishonest. I expect that they are confused. Let us therefore look more closely at how the Minister came to sign that text.
The confusion arises from the words that the cost should be borne by the activity concerned. The activity whose cost the Government propose should be borne by the consumers is the activity of purifying the water. Under the polluter pays principle that cost should be borne by the activity which has polluted the water. So it is glaringly obvious that the activity concerned is not the purification; it is the original pollution.
Water has to be purified of pollution from three major sources: industry, agriculture, and household sewage. Industry at present bears part of its own purification costs, which it recoups from the consumers of its products, and it passes the other part on to the water consumer who as such has no interest in the matter. The polluter pays principle requires that industry should pay its full costs. Agriculture pays none of its pollution costs. The whole cost is passed on to the water consumers, and it must be shifted to the polluters. Households already pay their full pollution costs as ratepayers and no change is required here on polluter pays principle grounds.
In short, there are two activities concerned in this matter. The Written Answer that I quoted at the beginning of this speech confuses the two, or regards them as interchangeable. Since they are respectively the pollution and the purification of water, that is quite a feat. I gave the Minister notice this morning that I was going to raise this matter and I now invite him to comment on this, especially since he has told the House that his department is the lead department in applying the polluter pays principle. So he cannot claim that his department does not know perfectly well what it means: that those who pollute pay to prevent and pay to clean up, not those who consume.
While I am on the subject of water, it is interesting that the North-West Water Authority has abrogated all the agreements it had with the Peak Park Planning Board, which permitted public access to the water authority's land, obviously in order to clear the way for the private purchaser to develop it. I see that Mr. Howard, responsible in the House of Commons for these matters, now admits the virtual worthlessness of the Government's proposals in this matter.
Much of this class of land throughout the country has been publicly acquired through compulsory purchase. The public's use of it over the decades gives them an interest which cannot be supposed to have no value, but which is to be extinguished without compensation. Does this accord with natural justice or with the nation's long-standing customs? Moreover, compulsory purchase right is being accorded to the new firms which buy the old water authorities' property. This I believe is completely unprecedented. Under the Bill, the new companies will apparently be allowed not only to take land under compulsion but also to sell compulsorily
1112
purchased land without offering it back to the original seller. I think it is the first time that that has happened, certainly in this country, and I strongly suspect in any other country.
The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, has said that the Government are considering the Crichel Down principle in this matter, but what on earth is there to consider?
I turn now to the environmental assessment directive of the European Commission. This country, and one other, held up this agreement for years but finally agreed in July 1985. Mr. Ridley said it would not make any difference anyhow because we all did environmental assessment in any case. It came into force in July 1988, but we have not yet, six months later, made the regulations that we arc hound to make by July 1988.
We are not alone in this. Enforcement proceedings have already begun against other countries, and it will be our turn next. Why do we agree these things and then simply default on our agreement? In whose interest is it to do that? This directive says that every major development shall be preceded by an assessment of its environmental effects; but there is a blanket exception to that which is, at least so far as it concerns this country, very much to be regretted and probably means that the directorate will have to be tightened up in a year or two. This is that any development which has been approved in all its details by an Act of Parliament is exempt.
That for us appears to mean Private Bills, and I greatly fear that if ever the Government begin to pay any attention at all to the directive it will encourage big developers to go more and more for Private Bills. The Government may get away with this attempt at circumvention, or they may not; and if other countries do not have the same system of private Bills they will be put under an unfair disadvantage by our making increasing use of them, and the European Court might so judge.
Private Bills were fine for canals and the first railways. There were not so many people in the country then, and the pressure to defend the environment did not have to be so continuous and so arduous. But now no one can really pretend that fighting one's way through the jungle of rules about locus and then giving evidence to a hurried parliamentary committee in this intimidating building is any substitute for a local inquiry on the patch concerned. For example, as regards the high speed railway line to the Channel Tunnel, there is no sign yet of any environment assessment being provided for these plans; although Mr. Ridley, I repeat, has said that we do that sort of thing anyhow. I say "for these plans" because there are several alternative routes and one sub-alternative; namely, a tunnel through south London. All these routes and the London tunnel idea have to be compared for their environmental impact.
Who is going to do it? Will it be British Rail, or Saatchi and Saatchi? It goes without saying that the necessary single environmental assessment has to be published and fully discussed by interested parties, the professions and the planning authority before a Bill is presented to Parliament. I said "planning

1113
authority" without thinking. I forgot that the Government have now decided finally to deprive Kent County Council and all the other county councils of any planning function whatever. There is of course a class of planning inquiry commissions, which might come in handy in this case.
In conclusion, I should like to mention that my party, the SDP, last Saturday adopted a new environmental policy consisting of four very short points which I think I shall just have time to read. First, the polluter pays principle, which is enshrined in British law by the Treaty of Rome, which we have signed and which binds us, should be the touchstone of pollution policy in practice as it is already in theory; secondly, cost-benefit topography, as described in the paper concerned, should be introduced at all appropriate levels, and long-term research units and teams should be reintroduced into and alongside Whitehall and Parliament.
Thirdly, decisions on cases should be taken at the lowest possible level. Fourthly, certain chemical substances and procedures will in future have to be deemed guilty until proved innocent. Fifthly, legislation enforcing public access to information about pollution of the environment should be put into effect, and the Royal Commission on the Environment should be heeded when it does the job it was appointed by Parliament to do.
4.34 p.m.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, my speech will he confined to consideration of the threat to the quality of life posed by the world's population explosion. Surprisingly, this has not been touched upon so far by speakers before me, except in the last one-tenth of the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley. I say "surprisingly" because a great lead has been given in the context of environmental pollution by His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh and by the Prime Minister. Let me give your Lordships some quotations from both of them. His Royal Highness, in the last two or three editions of The House Magazine, in the United Kingdom World Wildlife Fund advertisement, puts at the very top of the environmental agenda,
"the hammering the world is taking from its huge and ever-growing human population."
In saying that, he is reiterating the main point of the brilliant speech he gave on the 11th March 1987 to the All-Party Group on Conservation of which I think the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, is chairman or president, and to the Population and Development All-Party Committee. That was an historic meeting of those two all-party groups at which he said this:
"Human population pressure—the sheer number of people on this planet—is the single most important cause of the degradation of the natural environment, for the progressive extinction of wild species of plants and animals and for the de-stabilisation of the world's climatic and atmospheric systems."
Next in point of time came the Prime Minister's fine speech to the Royal Society (mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, in his opening speech) on 27th September 1988. In the environmental section of her speech she gave great prominence to the world population problem and gave these startling figures:
1114
"The world's population, which was I billion in 1800. 2 billion in 1927, is now 5 billion souls and rising."
She then went on to say:
"For generations we have assumed that the efforts of mankind would leave the fundamental equilibriums of the world's systems and atmosphere stable. But it is possible that with all these enormous changes"—
and she quoted particularly population, agriculture and the use of fossil fuels—
"concentrated into such a short space of time, we have unwittingly begun a massive experiment with the system of the planet itself'.
The Prime Minister made a further important speech as recently as last November to the Margaret Pyke Centre, whose splendid work as a family planning clinic in central London she described as "their supremely important role". In that commendation she was including all family planning clinics. The Prime Minister made this extremely important statement:
"Whatever we can do in research—and we must do it—on the greenhouse effect or the ozone layer or pollution is not enough unless we tackle the population problem"
or what she called,
"the behavioural problem of human nature"
I shall try to give examples of population problems in other parts of the world before turning to our own domestic population. Both my examples come from the continent of Africa but could just as well come from Asia, where the numbers are much greater, or from Central or Southern America. The first example is Kenya, which has the world's fastest growing population at 4 per cent. per annum. Its population in 1980 was 16 million, and it is expected to double in the next seven or eight years. Its workforce will double from the 1975 figures to those of the year 2000. This poses huge economic problems for the Kenya Government. which will have to provide massive increased facilities; for example, for education, hospitals, water supplies, food, housing and employment by the year 2000. Kenya will need all the help she can get from us and other countries friendly to her. Unfortunately, unless there are dramatic changes in the behavioural problems of Kenya in order to contain that country's fertility rate, the increase in population will outstrip anything that can be done to maintain let alone enhance—to use the expression of the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn—the already low quality of life in that country.
Secondly, from Africa also, there is the Sahel. I take this from an article in a paper recently I published by Earthwatch. It is especially concerned with land degradation in Burkina Faso. There the population is 8.5 million growing by 2.8 per cent. per annum. It is a very densely populated country in a semi-desert area which was once rich and fertile.
There are no easy answers, but two are top of the agenda. First, food output must rise; and, secondly, the rate of population growth must slow. That can be achieved by using approaches which affect the demand for children; improved awareness of family planning, plus of course the supply of modern methods; and, last but not least, female education. It is a paradox but apparently so that a great reduction in infant mortality will be needed before parents will stop over-insuring themselves against the loss of a child. This is an example of Mrs. Thatcher's pregnant

1115
phrase—if I may use that term—"behavioural problems of human nature" that have to he overcome. Many other such measures are necessary for the Sahel even to have a chance of halting further degradation of its environment and sustaining its people and hence the quality of life there.
May I turn to our domestic population? I am confident that the ODA is well aware of our responsibilities to developing countries, but I do not have the same confidence in the Department of Health. At home we give a good example, in that our own population is relatively stable as is now nearly all the populations of developed countries. Our doubling time is high at 462 years—if your Lordships compare that with Kenya you will see the difference; their population doubling period is 18 years—and our fertility rate is only 1.8 per cent. Nevertheless, I fear that the Prime Minister's message, which I feel has been received loud and clear in the ODA, is muffled or scrambled in the Department of Health. Whether or not there is a bad line between No. 10 and the department, I do not know. But if they have not paid heed to what the Prime Minister said, they had better watch out.
It looks as if family planning clinics all over the country, and not just the Margaret Pyke Trust to which I have referred, are being starved of funds. The noble Lord, Lord Renton, aired the subject the other day in a Starred Question, when he said that there is a closing down or reduction of services supplied by National Health Service family planning clinics, and that that is contrary to Section 4 of the National Health Service Reorganisation Act 1973. That could have very dire consequences for our hitherto exemplary population policies.
In closing, I should like to remind noble Lords that in 1749 Dr. Johnson opened his poem on the Vanity of Human Wishes with these words:
"Let Observation with extensive view Survey mankind from China to Peru."
When he said that, the world population was something less than 1 billion. Now China's population alone is more than 1 billion. As for Peru, the doubling rate of Peru's population is 28 years. At that rate, we have not got much time to lose.
4.44 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, like other noble Lords, I should like to express good wishes to my noble friend Lady Nicol. I hope that she will soon be fully restored to health and able to take her place once again on the Opposition Front Bench. But I also congratulate my noble friend Lord Cledwyn on a characteristically powerful speech on this important matter.
I shall concentrate my remarks on one particular issue that my noble friend raised—the Co2 effect; the warming of the atmosphere; and the effect that that will have all round. My noble friend made reference to the cutting down of rain forests and other forests throughout the world. And, of course, that is making a serious contribution to the greenhouse effect. But the reason why people are cutting down the forests is that their standard of living is so low that they have
1116
to do so in order to grab some sort of below-subsistence-level living for themselves and for their families. If deforestation in poor countries is to cease, it will be necessary for the developed world and the rich world to give these people a better living than they are getting at present, not only by means of direct assistance but also by allowing them to trade in a world which is becoming increasingly unavailable to under-developed countries.
As I have said. I want to concentrate on the greenhouse effect. I read in the Daily Telegraph on 27th January an article which had the headline.
"Limit fossil fuel use, say greenhouse effect experts".
The article began:
"World governments should limit the burning of fossil fuels and study the cost of sea defences as part of a strategy for tackling the greenhouse effect, scientists said yesterday".
I do not have time to quote further. But those scientists, from 20 countries throughout the world, are clearly as concerned as we in this House and other people about the long-term effects of burning fossil fuels.
I should have hoped that the relevant authorities in this country and the Government would have taken that message on board a long time ago. Unfortunately, the seriousness of the matter does not appear yet to have got home. Indeed, the only alternative to coal burning, it seems—from Mr. Ridley's remarks anyway—is to build more and more nuclear power stations, which of course in turn brings as many problems for the environment as are solved by not burning fossil fuels and by not emitting Co2 from those fossil fuels into the atmosphere.
It is unfortunate that the CEGB should only yesterday have announced that it is to build a third nuclear reactor at Sizewell. Obviously it has not taken soundings from the people living around Sizewell; indeed, it seems to have ignored the fact that it will not be economically sound to build another PW R. There are, of course, real alternatives to burning fossil fuels and indeed to building nuclear power stations. Those alternatives are, first, to make use of alternative energy sources and to conserve the energy which we produce in fossil fired stations and, indeed, in nuclear power stations.
First, the Government could increase the research into alternative energy sources for which they pay. We could assist by pressing on with the job of providing renewable energy from already known sources. For example, the Severn Barrage could provide 6 per cent. of the energy needs of this country, thus saving the burning of 4½ to 5 million tonnes of coal every year. That would be a significant contribution towards reducing the greenhouse effect. It is only one source of renewable energy.
Secondly, we could conserve the energy we use. The amount of energy which is wasted from houses, factories, offices and other industrial complexes, together with the better use of renewables, would be sufficient to obviate the need to build the 15 new power stations by the end of the year which the CEGB believe to be necessary.
We could also ensure that coal is burned to more effect in power stations. There is an approximate overall thermal efficiency of only 37 per cent. plus the

1117
transmission losses. Therefore we are throwing out of power station chimneys and into our rivers and seas approximately 62 per cent. of the heat value of every tonne of coal and every gallon of oil used in power stations. That waste ought to stop. There is no longer a case for building power stations at pitheads at approximately 35 per cent. thermal efficiency when the fuel could he burnt more efficiently by combined heat and power. I believe that in future no power station should be built unless considerable weight has been given to combined heat and power.
Unfortunately, the Government arc to privatise the electricity supply industry and therefore will not have control over it. I hope that in the Bill they will go a little further in their insistence and put a duty on the privatised electricity authorities to promote energy efficiency, not merely advise that it should be done. One of the ways in which they can do that is by the use of CHP. If the Government have no direct way of influencing decisions, perhaps they will give tax relief to people who will build power stations, together with district heating or largescale heating for industrial complexes.
Unfortunately, my speaking time has run out. As the Minister knows, there is plenty more to say on the subject. In relation to the general view of the environment, I hope that the Government will realise the importance of that aspect.
4.53 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, for initiating the debate and for the way in which he did so. I regret the enforced absence of the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol. As the first following speaker on this side of the House, I add my congratulations to my noble friend Lord Kenilworth on his excellent maiden speech. I look forward to hearing him often in the future.
I should first like to mention the changes to the environment of the whole world which are likely to be damaging or disastrous. They were rightly referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn. International cooperation on these matters is essential. Fortunately, governments now appear to be giving them priority and that is welcome. However, pressure and action must continue.
For some time the House has given attention to the issues and over the past few years I have raised them several times. I am sure the House will agree that the issues should be given more attention. I shall mention them, pointing out their importance but not expanding on them. In view of the opening remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, I make no apology for pointing out the fact that 2½ years ago I tabled a Question in this House on the greenhouse effect (3rd July 1986). Questions preceded and followed that on other and related atmospheric subjects.
I cannot resist also pointing out that in our debate one and a half years ago (13th May 1987) I raised the other subjects, in particular the damage to the ozone layer. In that respect it is good news that next month the British Government are convening a conference in London. They should keep up the pressure to reduce further use of CFCs after the agreement
1118
reached in the Montreal Protocol. The Government should have the support of us all in maintaining the impetus.
When the debate was first arranged in her name the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, suggested that I should speak in my capacity as chairman of the Advisory Committee on Pollution of the Sea: ACOPS. It is an organisation well known to some of your Lordships. This is the second time that I have occupied the position of chairman. The first time was for one and a half years, eight years ago. On the last occasion one and a half years ago I was invited to take over at short notice because of the sudden death of the previous chairman.
While recalling my role and interest, eight years ago during my chairmanship, I hope that it will be recognised that there are Conservatives who have not suddenly turned green overnight. Of course, many people in Scotland have known me as being green for most of my life—probably in more senses than one.
During the time allowed in the debate, and because of my role and interest in ACOPS, I shall concentrate on the marine environment. Its headquarters is in this country but there are office bearers and members overseas. ACOPS was one of the first organisations—it may have been the first—to call urgent attention to the dangerous and disreputable trade in toxic wastes which is still a menace.
At ACOPS we heard from our main representative in Venezuela that an attempt had been made to dump toxic wastes inland with no safe arrangements. The Venezuelan authorities discovered the attempt and ordered that they be reloaded onto a ship and taken away. That was the first of the vessels which have roamed the seas with nowhere to go. A second incident was a similar attempt to dispose irregularly of toxic wastes in Nigeria. That led to the "Karin B" sailing the seas with a highly hazardous cargo. There is no doubt that other unsafe disposals, or attempts, have occurred but have not come to light.
What has been revealed is a sordid business. Arrangements were made for highly dangerous materials to be imported for disposal in African and Latin American countries. In the two cases mentioned the authorities discovered them and disapproved in time. Now there is an urgent necessity for international agreement to make it illegal to dispatch toxic wastes until safe and effective disposal arrangements have been guaranteed at the destination and proper transport and container arrangements approved. I remind noble Lords that in those two instances the containers were inadequate and leaked.
To assist in achieving the necessary new agreements I am glad to announce to the House that ACOPS is planning to hold an international conference in London in October. It will he on the transport of hazardous substances and particularly directed to toxic wastes. The International Maritime Organisation (IMO) has made its conference facilities available to us at its head office, which is on the other side of the river from here. If the proposed conference receives the support which we expect, it will take place at an important stage in the intergovernmental negotiations. These have reached a stage where a

1119
conference in Basle next month is intended to produce a draft convention under the aegis of UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme).
However much progress is made in Basle—and of course I hope it will be substantial—the ACOPS conference in October should help in enabling discussions on subjects still proving difficult, in encouraging support and ratification and in examining, monitoring and enforcement measures. This conference will be held two years after the last one arranged by ACOPS, which was in Venice in October 1987. That considered protection of the marine environment in general and was held to mark the European Year of the Environment. That was a very well supported conference and appears to be widely regarded as successful and influential. We hope that the London conference, on a narrower but very topical subject, will equally contribute to reducing causes of pollution.
I accept that toxic wastes cannot always be disposed of near their origins. I understand that there exist thorough and safe techniques for dealing with virtually all known wastes. I am not suggesting that waste should not be transported at all, but that the correct disposal arrangements must be made, together with transport arrangements; and that the waste must be disposed of. if necessary, with the appropriate technology.
I shall briefly turn to oil pollution of the seas. Here there has been a steady improvement through international conventions, discipline and enforcement. It is not just that disasters like the "Torrey Canyon" and the "Amoco Cadiz" now seem to be episodes of the past, but that deliberate operations such as the washing out of tanks at sea have been prohibited and greatly reduced. A useful part has been played by the International Oil Pollution Compensation Fund which was started in 1978 and at the latest count has 38 member states.
A large proportion of the pollution in the seas comes from land sources, not vessels, and in particular from rivers. That brings me to the North Sea. The deaths of the seals last year started on the east side. About 10.000 died on that side before the epidemic reached the coasts of Britain. While a full explanation of what happened is not yet possible, there must be suspicion that a polluting substance came down a river on that side and that that was the cause.
We were glad to see the progress made at the November 1987 meeting in London and we hope that the British Government will continue to take a leading part in the preparations for the next ministerial meeting on the North Sea to be held early in 1990 which I understand is to he at The Hague. That is all good news and, on this, I am sure that the Government can count on receiving general support.
5.3 p.m.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: My Lords, I should like to say a few words about the importance of educating the young in the matter of the environment. When we debated the Education Bill last summer certain of your Lordships—and I was one of them—were
1120
extremely concerned that there was no mention in the Bill of environmental studies, not even by implication. The noble Lord. Lord Craigton, who I am glad to see in his seat opposite, introduced an amendment to the effect that one main object of the Bill should be to prepare young persons for adult life as I think he said, individuals, members of society and inhabitants of the earth. That was supported by a number of us but unfortunately the Government were not interested.
There has been and still is very considerable concern among teachers that somehow or other those very important studies will be squeezed out. After all, there are 10 compulsory subjects, compulsory from the age of five to the age of 16, which have to be fitted into 40 periods in a week. If one takes an average, that is four periods for each subject, that leaves no time left over at all for such important matters as this. Many teachers still do not understand how that will work and are awaiting enlightenment.
However, at the time and increasingly since, the Department of Education has spoken about the very important matter of environmental studies being regarded in a cross-curricular sense. We were somewhat mystified about that when we first heard it last summer but it is becoming clearer. The noise is increasing and the department is giving the matter serious thought, as are other important bodies. Theoretically it is possible when one is teaching science, geography or maths to cover a large area of environmental studies. That can even extend to PE where one can suggest to joggers that they should not jog on hard surfaces with carbon monoxide fumes for instance, along main roads. The culmination of this new thinking—and it is new thinking—is HMI Report No. 13 produced last week entitled Environmental Education from 5 to 16. That was very welcome.
However, I am very concerned that environmental education for young people should take the right form. The other day I happened to look through the interim report of the working party on science. Of course, it is very conscientious, thorough and the persons who were forming the working party certainly knew what they were talking about. However, I was left rather depressed because I felt that it was too traditional, too academic, too abstract and not related to the sort of matter in which children will be interested. I happen to notice that out of a working party of 19, there were only five women. I believe that had there been a higher proportion of female contributors, they may have produced a more human report.
It is so important that young people should become involved and should not just sit in a classroom being talked at or be in a laboratory doing standard experiments. They should become involved in what they are doing. I should like to mention two examples of becoming involved. There is an organisation known as Watch which I am sure many of your Lordships will know. It is a club of young people who are concerned about wildlife and the environment. That organisation produced a kit a few years ago in 1987, the European Year of the Environment, which enabled a large number of children all over Europe to monitor the rainfall in

1121
their own countries for acidification. That resulted in a superb report Watch with Acid Drops which was given a prize for its thoroughness, and well worthy of it it was.
I should like to refer to something similar which has been and is being done. An organisation known as the Living Earth Foundation together with the London Centre for International Peacebuilding started an initiative with the Cassia plant. I had never heard of the Cassia plant. It is called cassia ohnisifolia. It grows in arid and semi-arid regions of the world and is supposed to have nutritious properties which can be a very valuable food supplement. Kew Gardens became interested in that because they knew of it but knew nothing about it. If I may use the expression, it had no biology.
The suggestion was made that some basic research on it was needed. A Ph.D was not needed to do it. Why should not school children do it? A scheme was therefore set up whereby a school in the East End of London, in the borough of Newham, was twinned with a school in Kenya. Together the schools observed the behaviour of' the seeds of this plant. It was basic research. All they had to do was see how long the seed took to germinate and how it behaved when it had germinated.
The effect on the children was extraordinary. The interest and motivation of the children in the London school was amazing. They were able to conduct intelligent discussions with the teacher. They were able to form their own hypothesis and do their own testing. By intuitive means they often came up with new ideas—ideas which their teachers had never thought of. That seems to be a most brilliant type of education and is the sort that we want.
The Living Earth Foundation is now extending the idea to the twinning of other schools. A school in Cleveland is being twinned with a school in South Mexico. Another school in Cornwall is to he twinned with a school in Borneo. The object of the twinning is not merely to form pen-pals but to provide each with packs of information based on genuine research done by the children on the spot. It is a pity that when the Chernobyl disaster occurred we did not have the physics departments of the country out monitoring the amount of radioactive fallout. That is the sort of project we want to go for. Children must get out of the classroom laboratory and see things for themselves.
The concern is that the national curriculum is packed so tightly that there will not be time for this sort of experiential work. It is most important that it should happen. There must be some flexibility in the programme, with government support and leadership. There must be co-ordinators in schools to carry out such projects as well as fulfil the demands of the curriculum. Children need to get out and become involved with their surroundings. They need to develop—and this is important—a moral responsibility for their environment and not just knowledge of it. They must feel part of it and responsible for it. The pursuit of knowledge without moral responsibility we all know to be highly dangerous. It is that that has brought us to the brink of the destruction of the human race by the appalling
1122
weapons we have created. It is that, too, which has brought us to the brink of destroying the planet. We cannot have knowledge without moral responsibility, and that is what young people must learn by getting out and discovering the environment for themselves. I hope that that will come in the years ahead.
5.13 p.m.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, as chairman of the National Rivers Authority Advisory Committee I am particularly grateful to the noble Baroness Lady Nicol, whose absence we regret, and the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, for giving me this opportunity to speak about some of the issues which my committee think are specially irnportant, a number of which were referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady White.
First, may I say as a user of unleaded petrol that the present efforts of the oil companies to make available an adequate supply of unleaded petrol pumps are woefully inadequate.
The committee which I chair is an advisory body and Ministers are entitled to reject our advice Nonetheless, it is right that we should be open about our views. Ministers have already accepted our advice on a number of issues and have made it clear that on others their minds are not closed. In my opinion the Water Bill will prove to he one of the most important environmental measures yet introduced by a British Government. The framework provided by the Bill is sound but my committee is firmly of the opinion that the Bill and the arrangements that refer to it can be substantially improved.
In the time available to me I shall confine my remarks to a few important topics about which we feel strongly. The first concerns the relationship of the NRA with the Government. While we are broadly satisfied that the Bill gives the authority the range of legal powers that it will need, we think that the NRA should have a wide degree of management independence and should not be subject to the direction of Ministers over individual decisions. I suspect that Ministers would find their involvement in individual cases equally unacceptable. One possible solution is to define in the Bill the areas of activity where directions may not be given.
We agree with the many individual representations that the NRA should be as independent of Treasury funding as is practicably possible. In its first year of operation on present estimates the NRA will be dependent upon the Exchequer funding for £70 million out of a turnover of £290 million. We are convinced that a greater degree of self-financing is both practicable and desirable. It is important that the NRA should have adequate funds to perform its duties effectively. It is also extremely desirable that over a period we should move to a system that provides a real incentive for environmental improvement.
We should like to see a system that enables us to recover as large a proportion as possible of general monitoring costs through discharge consents and abstraction charges. If it is not possible in the short-term to make all monitoring and sampling costs self-

1123
financing, it should certainly be our objective over a period of years.
To produce a fully worked out incentive charging scheme may well prove difficult, but it is important to recognise that a sound cost recovery scheme can itself have important incentive effects, simply because higher costs arise for approvals for the more polluting and dangerous substances.
I think it is a great pity that the Government have decided so firmly that the environmental services charge must go. Though there would have had to be a change of practice because of the abolition of domestic rates, my committee believes that there might well have been a substantial degree of support for the NRA levying a river management precept or charge for abstracters in order to contribute to the funding of its general pollution control duties.
My third point concerns the relations of the NRA with Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution, a topic raised by the noble Baroness, Lady White. The NRA is to be the national guardian of the water environment. We regard it as essential that the division of responsibilities between the NRA and Her Majesty's Inspectorate should be clearly drawn. We believe that it should be based on the following principles.
First, there should be absolute clarity as to which organisation customers deal with. Secondly, HMIP should be responsible for assessment of the best practical environmental option, whether to water, land or air, and consideration of the best available technology. Thirdly, the NRA should have an overriding responsibility for determining the conditions for discharging to controlled waters so as to ensure that water quality objectives are maintained.
My fourth area of concern is about sewage treatment works discharges. The technical. background to the issue is extremely complex and the arguments that relate to it would delight the medieval theologian more, I suspect, than noble Lords taking part in this debate. They are vitally important. however, because they will decide the effectiveness of the NRA as an environmental control body. They also directly relate to the flotation and financial position of the new plcs.
There is a problem at the present time. A very large number of sewage treatment works do not achieve the standards that have been laid down. There is no way in which that sort of problem can be solved overnight. While we would not accept any permanent relaxation of present standards, we think it right that the water authorities should be allowed time to carry out a programme of major improvements of the kind which the Government have already announced.
However, while this temporary relaxation in specifically agreed cases and within agreed upper limits is acceptable, we feel strongly that a system must be established early in the life of the NRA that will enable it to set adequate standards that treat all discharges, whether they be industrial or concerned with sewage treatment works, even-handedly and which clearly reveal the truth of what is going on. We have told the Government that we do not believe that
1124
the present system which includes so-called look-up tables provides a satisfactory basis for the future. The system allows a relaxation of standards. The protection against statistical quirks is lopsided, increasing the risk of pollution.
However, having said that, we equally understand that there are difficult questions of principle, practicality and timing to be resolved; and my committee is working closely with Ministers to try to solve those problems. It is being argued that to do away with look-up tables would substantially increase the number of non-complying sewage treatment works. There may be some exaggeration, but if there are those consequences it can only be because the present system is disguising an unacceptable level of failure.
The Government need not be embarrassed by what we are proposing. It is now very clear that one consequence of their decisions has been to bring into the open the reality of the state of our sewage treatment works previously disguised by the poacher-gamekeeper relationship within the industry and by the look-up tables' system. The Government are entitled to take full credit for the fact that this has happened. The early introduction of a system that does not disguise the true level of discharges would be a further important step towards the improvement of water quality. My committee would argue that if the facts are clear and if the task is even larger than we know at present. the Government in consultation with the regulators would be fully justified to take account of the availability of resources and the impact on charges in reaching their decision on the scale and timetable of improvements that they can approve. That would reduce and not add to the uncertainties that confront the industry.
There should be no misunderstanding that a robust NRA, with or without look-up tables, will carry out much more extensive sampling. If all doubtful cases are adequately sampled, much of the truth will out. That is why, when all the technical arguments are put on one side, the important fact is that there is to be an NRA. No authority with integrity will allow industry, water plcs or government departments to fudge the issues. That is why the present Secretary of State deserves such credit for what I am confident will prove to be one of the most important steps yet taken to prevent pollution in this country and improve the environment.
5.23 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, on 24th November last year, speaking on the Address to the Gracious speech, I asked the Government a number of questions following the Prime Minister's conversion, in her speech to the Royal Society in September, to what some of us have been saying for a number of years now. I pay particular tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, for the way in which he has pursued the same issues as I have. For years Ministers have poured scorn on the warnings that we were given.
I received no answers to any of those questions. I wish to repeat some of them this afternoon. On that date I asked the Government what they were going to

1125
do about the cuts that they had made in the research that applies to the ozone layer, climatic changes, carbon dioxide emissions and to energy efficiency. I received no answer. Later in the same speech I referred to the same figures that were quoted by my noble friend Lord Cledwyn this afternoon regarding water. In this country 11 million people are drinking substandard water. According to EC standards, 300 water supplies are illegally contaminated with pesticides. As a result. senior pollution inspectors are resigning in frustration because they cannot obtain the resources from the Government to continue and extend the work that is becoming daily more essential for the preservation of the health of our people.
I repeat those questions this afternoon, and I hope that the Minister in winding up will give us some answers. I hope that those answers are not those outlined in his opening speech of complacency about the situation today. We wish to know what has been done since at long last the Prime Minister has been converted to recognising the basis of the quality of life in this country.
I shall confine myself to one subject only this afternoon. It has already been mentioned by my noble friend Lord Cledwyn and by the noble Lord, Lord Kennet. That issue is clean water. Surely, if the quality of life depends on anything, it depends on the people of this country being able to rely on drinking clean water. I wish to bring these large figures down to certain specific issues. I ask the noble Earl who is to reply to answer the specific question as to what the Government arc doing about what can only be described as a disgrace to our country in this modern age.
What are the Government doing about the people in Luton and Dunstable? According to a study commissioned by the Government themselves, the water drunk by as many as 1.5 million people in this country may he at risk. How? It is because of two substances, namely, trichloroethylene and tetrachloroethylene. These are solvents that are used in dry cleaning and for degreasing metal used in industry. They were found in the drinking water of 150,000 people in Luton and Dunstable. Both chemicals have been shown to cause cancer in animals. The World Health Organisation regards them as potential causes of human cancer.
This polluted water is supplied by the Lea Valley Water Company, a company that has been the subject of an attempted foreign takeover in advance of privatisation. It seems that the Government's answer to these questions is to privatise. According to another government report from the Department of the Environment—of which no doubt the noble Earl is aware—61 of the 168 ground water sources used for drinking water in this country contain well above the minimum level of those substances according to World Health Organisation limits.
As it was pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, only last night the Minister of State for the Environment admitted that after privatisation, private companies set up by water suppliers to manage their land after privatisation will be free to disregard special legislative safeguards on conservation and public access. That was stated only
1126
last night. What has the noble Earl to say about what his master told another place last night? The senior boss of the noble Earl, namely, the Secretary of State himself, less than two months ago promised that the desire to make privatisation a success would not prompt him to relax pollution standards across the country.
My Lords, what has happened since then? At the end of last year the Government invited water authorities to apply to have their pollution standards relaxed in the run-up to privatisation, presumably to make privatisation of water more popular with the investors. It is feared—and feared by scientific environmentalists—that as a result of this step 2,300 sewerage works in England and Wales will be allowed to cause greater pollution by the time the water industry is sold off. Is this the Government's answer to what has been said this afternoon and to what has been written about the danger to clean water?
At least 20 per cent. of this country's sewerage works, which are operated by the water authorities. are at present operating below the pollution standards set for them. They are breaking the law. The Government appear to be trying to get out of their difficulty by changing the standards. I should like the noble Earl to answer specifically the general question on which I have particularised: what are the Government doing to ensure that every citizen of this country is guaranteed pure water? I ask riot what they have done in the past but what they are doing now. What have they done since September when the Prime Minister made her speech to the Royal Society?
I should like to introduce one other issue. Along with the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, on the other side of the House, I have asked many times about CFCs. We were told at first that we were cranks. Now it is accepted that this problem is a danger to the world. However, there is another ozone danger—the ozone danger that comes from the land itself and which has been shown to be produced from photochemical reaction of hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides, pollutions from motor vehicles and from industry. It has been shown that this ozone attacks not only plants but human lungs, and causes complaints such as fibrosis. This occurs in Britain, and it has been shown to occur. We know that industry can be made a good deal cleaner. What is the problem? The problem is one of cost. What will the Government do about that? Is it not the Government's responsibility to ensure that, whatever it costs, the air is cleaner, fertilisers do not poison the people of this country and people are guaranteed clean water?
It would appear to me that since the Prime Minister made her conversion speech after years of scorning those of us who raised these issues, since she appeared to have grasped at long last the environmental crisis through which we are living, the Government have done nothing except reduce the budgets for energy efficiency and hand out redundancy notices to the environmental scientists.
5.33 p.m.
The Earl of Cranbrook: My Lords, although she is not in her place I shall remain grateful to the noble

1127
Baroness, Lady White, for giving me the appellation "contemporary". However, in the light of what she said, I must make it clear that I do not speak as as member of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution. I wish to speak this afternoon rather as a member of a number of environmental bodies, both statutory and non-governmental, which are concerned about the present and future environment of this country and of the world at large.
At this stage of the debate, roughly half way through, it may be pertinent to ask what we mean by the term "pollution". We need to agree on some form of definition. One definition has already been offered to us by the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin. This is the widely accepted definition of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution. I shall read it again:
"The introduction by man into the environment of substances or energy liable to cause hazards to human health, harm to living resources and ecological systems, damage to structures or amenity, or interference with legitimate uses of the environment".
There are several ambiguities in that definition. In particular, there is an element of subjectivity in the diagnosis of terms such as "hazard", "harm" or "damage". These were highlighted by the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, in his perception of the problems.
In the conservation circles in which I move, arguments over definitions were largely settled by the 1980 joint publication by the International Union of the Conservation of Nature, the United Nations Environmental Programme and the World Wildlife Fund of the World Conservation Strategy. The WCS's definition of "conservation" has been incorporated by the European Community into the Fourth Environmental Action Plan and has therefore been endorsed by the Council of the European Community of which our nation is a member. The definition is as follows:
"The maintenance of essential ecological processes and life-support systems; the preservation of genetic diversity; the sustainable utilisation of species and ecosystems".
This tripartite definition can usefully be developed to provide a less subjective test of environmental risk, damage or hazard. These would then be characterised by any one of the following features: interference with essential ecological processes; the decrease of genetic diversity; or non-sustainable exploitation of species and ecosystems. It may seem rather ivory-towered and out of the picture to be talking in these terms but, if we can achieve a conservation-related definition of "pollution", we will have taken a major step forward. Such a definition might run something like this:
"The introduction by man into the environment of substances or energy in such measure as to cause hazards to human or animal health, or to interfere with essential ecological processes, or to reduce genetic diversity, or to lead to the non-sustainable exploitation of species or ecosystems, or damage to non-living natural or man-made structures".
I apologise for producing such a mouthful but a definition on those lines offers better objective tests of pollution. Agreement on such a definition would help all parties concerned about the environment to combine constructively to meet the threats that are so identified.
At the national level we would then need some central all-encompassing, super-departmental
1128
organisation to direct and co-ordinate our national effort to combat pollution. The functions of this body might include the development of a forward plan for the environment; advising the Secretary of State on threats to the environment and on the need for regulations to deal with them; monitoring environmental conditions on land, in the atmosphere, in inland and estuarine waters and indeed in our territorial seas. It would be involved in enforcing the law protecting wild animals and wild plants.
An essential role would be to liaise with other government departments and with local authorities and international bodies involved in conservation and environmental protection. It would take on itself the role of commissioning research. It would carry out investigations and inquiries into incidents. It would promote environmental awareness in education and elsewhere, sponsor new environmental technology and develop codes of good practice. Further, in order to tell us what it was doing it would probably publish an annual report. Structurally, I believe that the body would incorporate into itself first the N RA, the aims and ambitions of which we have just heard about in an extremely interesting speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell.
I believe that the body would also incorporate into itself existing organisations such as Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution, the Nature Conservancy Council, the Countryside Commission, the Forestry Commission in its regulatory role as opposed to its entrepreneurial role, probably the National Radiation Protection Board and probably the import control and the plant protection control arms of MAFF. All those are existing bodies which I believe could be brought together under some central regulatory authority.
I have called this the national environment protection commission and I have said that it should be organised rather on the lines of the Health and Safety Commission with an executive in order to carry out its function. Such a commission could be distanced from the party-political scene by being made an agency of some kind, as has been recommended for several governmental statutory bodies in a fairly recent efficiency unit report entitled Improving Management in Government: the Next Steps.
By the composition of such a body, through its commissioners, who would have varied backgrounds and varied interests, and by the incorporation of the existing main national environmental agencies—a sample of which I have listed—I believe that the body would he able to deliver an integrated strategy and a coherent set of policies to protect the environment and to safeguard the nation against some of the hazards which have been outlined this afternoon.
5.42 p.m.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, I do not find it enough merely to agree with the major number of things which have been said by other noble Lords this afternoon, although I agree with many of them. I found a chord in my heart particularly struck by something which was said by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, at the beginning of the debate. He said

1129
that apart from anything that was going on, it was our duty—each one of us—to do what we could in saving ourselves, and the world, from pollution. Here strangely enough, I found myself rather unusually in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, because he at least took the matter nearer home.
Looking at what pollutes this country at present, I find that the great polluter is the internal combustion engine burning petrol and diesel oil. It seems to me that the point is a very simple one. If one is trying to get rid of pollution it is much easier to do it at one large central point rather than at a million or more smaller points.
Perhaps I may take one horrific example, which luckily has not happened. However, let us try to imagine the situation. We know that we are now using atomic energy to produce electricity in power stations. Let us just imagine that there were several million atomic cars charging about on our roads. The dangers and the pollution which might arise from them would be quite horrific. Of course, that is an extreme example and, as I have said, it has not happened. But, nevertheless, it is to some extent an illustration of what is going on when we have the petrol and the diesel vehicle charging about on our roads. Indeed, where I go on our waterways, the same thing is true.
The trouble on the roads is quite easy to tell. You have only to go out on the streets in any of our main cities and take a deep breath and you will know about pollution. However, on our waterways there are other factors involved in that there is bank damage which would not be done by an electric craft—for reasons which I shall not go into now because, alas, I do not have the time. Moreover, oil spread on the surface of water prevents oxygen from getting down. If you leave a waterway naturally with the sun shining on it and the oxygen getting down from the surface, it will clear itself; but if you stop the oxygen from going down, it will not.
For those reasons I am bitterly opposed to the internal combustion engine. The trouble is that at present we cannot replace it. The electric vehicle, and the electric boat, which should be replacing the present motors, are still not with us. There seems to be a rather absurd reason for that. Money for research into all sorts of projects is being spent. In particular, research is being carried out on energy saving and in similar fields, but none of it is allowed into the field of transport. There is no money allocated for research into energy saving in transport. I see that the noble Earl is busily writing his notes at the moment, but if he could make some remarks on the matter at the end of the debate I think that we would like to know just why some money should not be spent on research into energy saving in that field.
I should point out that I am deeply involved in such research. My own finances are not enormously strong, but I have deliberately spent money on building an electric test vehicle on the waterways in order to test electric motors. Moreover, I have put further funds into research in this exact manner. I am pleased to say that there is another noble Lord present in the Chamber today who has done just the same. However, it is not just our private funds that
1130
we need; we need a great deal more. We are very near a breakthrough in the field and if we made a breakthrough in this area we could be in a position where we would lead the world.
The British electric vehicle is already fairly well advanced. Of course, on water we have some of the world experts. If we arc to get any chance at all to grab this valuable market, I believe that we should do so. I am talking about a market because if one wants something done, something invented, the best way to get it invented is to create a market for it.
Once something is needed your manufacturers and your inventors sit down and get to work on it and produce it. Over and over again in the history of the world, especially in war and on other occasions, we have seen just that happen. There is a sudden incredible demand for something and once the demand is there of course the market is there and then the thing is produced.
Indeed, on the matter of waterways, in Austria many lakes are restricted to electric boats only. The result is that there came to be a market for a firm making electric boat motors. The same could happen over the whole field of transport provided that we can push the market into position. My message to the House and the Government is: let us create a market if we possibly can: let us encourage these things forward all that we possibly can and we shall find not just that we have a market in this country but that there is a big international market, because we are not the only country trying to go green. The whole world is trying to do the same on the waterways.
I shall not bother your Lordships with examples. I have lists and lists of ways in which electric drive is becoming more and more common. Venice, among other places, is now going electric to protect its invaluable city. There is every chance now to open the door and create the market. All we need is a little more research and effort. We do not need much of a push; but we need a little push.
5.51 p.m.
Lord Craigton: My Lords, the noble Viscount has been a conservationist for many years. He is chairman of the Electric Boat Owners Association. He has done a great deal, and we conservationists are all in favour of electric boats.
The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, opened the debate on a world scale. It would perhaps help, as it has helped me, to look at the world problem in perspective for just a minute. The problem is caused by industry and overpopulation. Industrial nations are responsible for 80 per cent. of the world's goods, and so the bulk of the world's pollution is from industrial processes. The third world contains nearly 80 per cent. of the world's population, which, as has been said, is expanding.
That world knows little alternative but to destroy its land to survive. Many of those nations cannot afford to teach their people to control their birth rate or how best to exploit and save their land. The fact that they owe the industrial nations 1.2 trillion dollars is a significant factor. Our duty, as an industrial nation, is clear. It is to reduce our own pollution, about which I hope to say more in a

1131
minute. and to do all possible to ensure that the third world has the resources to educate its people.
I say that we must reduce our pollution. I was pleased to hear my noble friend say what is being done by the Government, because the reduction of pollution must be done on a global scale through international fellowship.
It is within the context of threatened dangers to land, sea, air and forests (now being destroyed at the rate of a football field every second) that we must discuss pollution here at home. Of course it is not a new problem. Over the years as dangers have become apparent. successive governments have taken steps to control and direct it; but the world has only recently fully realised the dangers. Now is the right time to look at our controls and directions to see whether they can be improved. If they can, they should be.
I and my colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Moran, who is now a vice-chairman of the all-party conservation group, will show that there is considerable scope for improvement. The ideal is that a single body with close links with all the departments responsible for the domestic and global aspects of conservation should be able to offer technical expertise and to make realistic policy proposals and so control the source of the conflict.
Furthermore, such a body would combine theory with practice and must have wide and necessary powers to operate statutory provisions and ministerial directions, together with, or acting alone on behalf of, the department concerned. For the past 15 years there has been such a body with many of the necessary powers and skills—the Health and Safety Commission and its executive, created by the 1974 Act. The chairman of the commission came to the all-party conservation group meeting on 14th December at our invitation. My noble friend Lord Cranbrook had spoken at a previous group meeting, as he has spoken today, voicing the concern at the lack of departmental co-ordination and suggesting a new conservation commission and executive patterned on the Health and Safety Commission and its executive.
After learning of the HSE operation, it seemed to us that the whole Health and Safety Commission and its executive could, if asked, fulfil much and perhaps all of what we wanted it to do, and the roles we had in mind, through existing powers and existing government departments. We feel that no new organisation is necessary. The work can be done in that way. It is already doing much of that today. It exercises responsibility for the control of pesticides and genetically manipulated organisms. It carries out many matters connected with radiation and some with landfill. It is a statutory authority concerned with the regulation of new substances. It deals with most of the major hazards which could affect the environment if there were a large-scale event.
We already have a going concern in this field. Of course, one cannot protect the workers without protecting most of the natural environment. What I suggest is no more than an extension of the functions already carried out. The Health and Safety at Work
1132
Act is a wide-ranging Act. Under its provisions, it is possible to carry out much of what we have in mind.
The Act does not extend to controlling harms that affect only the natural environment without affecting man; but an organisation such as the Health and Safety Executive can act as an agent to departments under legislation that fills that gap. I gather that that has already happened in the case of pesticide control under the 1975 food and environment protection legislation.
What are the advantages of and the need for a more unified authority? The advantage is that a single department may be satisfactorily operating its responsibility, but the changing situation may bring up scientific and expert need that may conflict with other departments. To obtain the best co-ordination there must be a single regulatory philosophy on all facts known to all departments. Only then can conflict be avoided and efforts most fruitfully directed.
Finally, there is the need. It is extremely important that government regulatory bodies do not try to sort out their differences on the factory floor. Clearly. a works manager, faced with a factory inspector demanding certain actions in pursuit of health and safety and a pollution inspector with demands for environmental protection, could be put in an impossible situation. The Government should sort out the problems before industry is approached. This can be done most readily by having a unified authority. Only in that way can industry be reassured that the Government have a clear idea of what is required and only then can the image and authority of the regulatory bodies remain undiminished.
6 p.m.
Lord Blease: My Lords, I have listened with interest to the informed and challenging speeches of noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. The general thrust of the arguments has prompted me to think in global terms about environmental control. I am reminded of the lines of the poet John Donne which I shall paraphrase: "No person is an island; entire of oneself. every person is a piece of this world; a part of this universe".
It is my view that concern for the environment cuts right across all social divisions and ought to surmount narrow party political attitudes and policies. As well as the necessary action against environmental pollution within the British Isles, the Government must seek the earnest co-operation and commitment of the European Community, the United Nations and especially of multinational organisations. Many of these have been mentioned in detail in the debate. The Government must ensure that every feasible economic and technical action is taken by local authorities and local communities in the United Kingdom and by individuals. That includes you, me and our families.
There are many actions we can take as individuals to overcome the matters that are polluting the earth. Each of us can help to create a better and a safer world. I mention but a few of the matters tabled to me; the use of unleaded petrol; the use of household products that are not harmful to nature; energy

1133
saving in the home and elsewhere, already mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon; the recycling of household rubbish; and many other possibilities. I contend that we all have a responsibility to ensure that pollution is kept under management and under control.
A recent radio programme I heard dealt with the work of a new environmental movement named Ark. This voluntary trust's objectives appear to me to be bold, imaginative and exciting. I quote from one of the papers sent to me from Ark's London office:
"Our children may never see the earth as we have known it. Plants and animals arc vanishing each year. The oceans, soil and atmosphere are poisoned. Forests burned. Our own health, too, is failing. Human beings cannot live in a polluted world. We must change our ways before it is too late. We must ensure that life on earth continues. This is Ark's purpose. There is no greater cause nor one that so demands the support of every thinking, caring man and woman".
That succinct statement challenges us all to take some form of action—political, personal or otherwise.
A number of organisations within the United Kingdom, both statutory and voluntary, do excellent work to control environmental pollution and to improve the quality of the environment through education, advice, legislation, financial measures and the promotion of international agreements and action. I wish to mention two such organisations. The first is the standing Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution. Over some 20 years the commission has produced 12 reports with recommendations for action by government within the field of national and international policy matters. It appears to me that much of the excellent advice of the commission to government and to the wider public is lost through lack of public debate and concerted practical action for change.
I invite the Minister to consider drawing the attention of his right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to the need to undertake measures further to encourage the scope of the commission's advisory role and the need of the commission for adequate secretariat personnel with suitable supporting scientific and consultative officials. Reports indicate that the commission is always working against time and against a background of lack of appropriate and suitable services.
The second organisation is the Institution of Environmental Health Officers, a body founded over 100 years ago. A perusal of the 1982 report of that institution will indicate that had the government then acted upon the environmental health officers' recommendations for research, staff requirements and training and heeded their concern about health hazards in the poultry industry, it is unlikely that we should now he facing the salmonella crisis. That is on record, to be read by everyone.
Will the Minister draw attention to the need for the environmental health services to be adequately staffed by suitably qualified and trained personnel at all levels throughout the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland? Perhaps the Minister will also undertake to draw attention to the suggestion that all environmental health officers' reports should be monitored and tabulated for action assessment. This
1134
should enable services to be discharged in an efficient and effective manner by all private and public bodies with responsibility for decisions concerning pollution control. I think that the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, related to that subject. I am sure he would agree that modern data technology should enable these measures to be quantified and evaluated on a United Kingdom basis, as the issues of pollution go much wider than one industry or one local community. They have much greater implications.
In conclusion, I turn to Northern Ireland. The Province is an integral part of the United Kingdom as regards environmental pollution control. But it is administered by a separate departmental service, the environmental protection division of the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland. I am sure it is understandable that preoccupation with other political and social matters means that there is perhaps a lack of drive in this area. I feel with confidence that in Northern Ireland we share a great heritage and are blessed with a relatively clean environment. However, it is evident that we are faced with some serious problems. One of these is solid waste disposal. What is urgently needed is a clearly defined waste management strategy with planned arrangements for landfill sites, recycling, incineration, re-use projects and composting systems—matters already mentioned in the debate.
Unacceptably high levels of agricultural effluent from silage and slurry have given rise to pollution in some rivers and water systems. Some reported incidents have also been caused by industry, mainly through sand washing and food processing effluents. I understand, however, that the protection of the environment division now has the problem under effective control as well as that arising from excessive use of some agricultural pesticides. Some concern has been publicly expressed about the plans for the new power generating units at the Kilroot electrical station. Assurances about the installation of emission control equipment should be publicly stated.
The seven-point environmental charter for a cleaner and safer United Kingdom, launched last May by the Minister the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, was incorporated in a statement by the Northern Ireland Office. I welcome this public commitment by the Government to an environmental protection policy. I regret that there was, and still is, little media coverage or public awareness of the need of all people in this matter.
I want in conclusion to draw attention to something which I think is relevant to the debate. It would be helpful to general environmental matters in the Province if the Government would expedite the parliamentary procedures for the enactment of the Nature Conservation and Amenity Lands (Amendment) Northern Ireland Order 1988. That order has been in draft form for almost two years. Surely that is a matter that requires urgent attention. I should be grateful if the Minister will use his good offices to draw these remarks to the attention of his Northern Ireland ministerial colleagues.
I wish to close with a quotation which, I think, relates to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord

1135
Cledwyn, in his excellent speech. The quotation comes from Oliver Goldsmith:
"Ill fares the land, to hastening ills a prey, Where wealth accumulates, and men decay".
I believe the issues in this debate are ones of accumulated wealth or active concern.
6.10 p.m.
Lord Colwyn: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, for introducing this debate this afternoon. I must admit that I have spoken on this subject on previous occasions. However, I can promise the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, that my remarks, although perhaps having the same basic underlying message, offer some new thoughts for the Government.
The subject we are discussing covers a very wide range of possible topics. I have decided, in the best interests of the House, to confine my remarks to those in which I have a particular interest; namely, the effect of environmental pollution on our health. That is particularly relevant in view of the publication of the White Paper yesterday. I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin—I wish to make this quite clear to your Lordships—that it is vital that we understand the appalling state of health we and our children now face, and how much we can do to try to reverse the trend. In this polluted world with water, atmosphere and food all affected, no one is free from the negative influences to their health in terms of accumulated toxicity. That comes from the air we breathe which can contain gases, fumes, organic solvents, bleaches, detergents, oils, heavy metals and many other atmospheric contaminants. The toxicity can come from the food we eat, nine-tenths of which contains colouring, flavouring, preservatives and other additives. It may also contain pesticides, herbicides, traces of hormones, antibiotics, heavy metals and many other substances. The water we drink is also contaminated. That matter has been well covered this afternoon.
I am sure your Lordships will have realised that it is not a coincidence that over the past few years several new diseases such as AIDS, Legionnaires' Disease, myalgic encephalomyelitis, and some old diseases with a revitalised potency such as meningitis have emerged to become headline news. The connection between many of these conditions is the presence of a severely compromised immune system. That is the system in our bodies which is our first and most important line of defence against any invasive influence.
These negative influences within the environment are compounded by other factors.Those factors are an ignorance of or disregard of what constitutes a correct diet. Further factors are the use and abuse of social drugs, such as alcohol, tobacco and caffeine and the use and abuse of medical and "street" drugs such as the virtual total disregard of the long-term consequences of the contraceptive pill, tranquillisers and other drugs.Those drugs often have far more serious side effects than the condition they are being used to treat.
1136
A further negative factor is a disregard for natural biological responses to recurrent infection and reinfection. Finally, there are clinical and sub-clinical allergic responses and stress inducing elements including noise, artificial light, low level radiation, electromagnetic forces and anxieties and problems associated with finance, work, emotions, and personal and domestic situations. When these elements are added to the inherited characteristics which make us unique, we can see the picture which now faces so many of us of a rising tide of chronic and degenerative disease which affects young and old alike.
The pollution of our environment by the spraying of insecticides, pesticides and herbicides is a further negative factor, as is the addition of artificial substances such as preservatives, taste enhancers and colourings to our foods. So, too, is the removal of useful nutrients by processing and the loading of our air with industrial effluent. That is the price we pay for modern civilisation. Yet it is those very factors which cause recurrent headaches, insomnia, fatigue, minor allergies, digestive problems. constipation, intermittent depression, joint and muscle pains, menstrual problems, recurrent infections, overweight problems, skin problems and frequent colds. I could go on and mention other things. All these symptoms are termed minor ill-health problems. As on average most of us are affected by one or more of these common symptoms, it is taken to be normal. Nothing could be further from the truth as each represents the insidious onset of a potential decline into more serious health problems. It is urgent that we all consider just what we can do to accept responsibility for our health to prevent this seemingly inevitable decline.
Although we may be aware of the adverse effects of generalised environmental pollution, there is very little that we can do about it individually. I hope that increasing public awareness will eventually lead to an improvement in the situation. But I want to know what I can do now, for myself, to minimise the effects and increase my quality of life. The answer to that is that nutrition is the single largest factor under our control which can dramatically influence our health for the better.
Whereas not all the conditions I have mentioned arc simply the direct result of poor nutrition, all of them are influenced by it and all of them can be benefited by desirable nutritional alterations. Most of us know that we eat too much of the wrong things. We eat too much refined carbohydrate, too much fat, too much dairy produce, too much processed and overcooked food and we are deficient in one or more essential nutrients.
Studies have shown that this deficiency is widespread in American and European schoolchildren, employed and unemployed young adults, pregnant women, middle-aged and elderly members of the population, all of whom are in apparent good health. The need for many of the 40-odd essential nutrients varies between individuals. Thus you or I may require up to seven times more of any particular nutrient than our neighbour, husband, wife or child. That is an inborn, biochemically determined need—not an acquired one. It can vary

1137
during periods of growth, stress—that means most of the time for many of us—infection and old age.
It is these essential raw materials which enable the body to cope with the stresses of environmental pollution and allow it to function normally. The interaction of environmental pollution with poor nutrition and lifestyle changes, as well as other insults such as the pill, antibiotics, alcohol, caffeine and tobacco, all of which negatively affect the defence systems of the body, allow new illnesses to appear.
The depression of the natural bowel flora control over hostile yeast colonies in the gut, combined with a diet high in sugars, has allowed rampant overgrowth of yeast colonies, of which the main culprit is candida albicans. That yeast can cause many symptoms ranging from allergies, depression, digestive problems, skin conditions, frequent infections, colds, ear infections, chest problems and many others too numerous to mention. It also manufactures acetaldehyde. That is a highly toxic substance which produces further complications. It is one of the first major signs of, and always precedes AIDS. It is directly responsible for many of the signs and symptoms in that disease complex. It is always present in and may proceed myalgic encephalomyelitis, which is associated with the failure of the body fully to recover from a normal viral infection such as cytomegalovirus or Epstein-Barr. It is probable that candida enhances the viral activity noted in ME and AIDS by diminishing immune function effectiveness.
In conclusion, I would say that I have tried to establish a relationship between environmental pollution and our general health. I am aware that the Government are investing in health care to a greater extent than ever before. But the greatest improvements will come through better education, housing and employment conditions, combined with further improvements in our environment. I hope that our debate today will go some way towards stressing the great urgency of the situation.
6.20 p.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, the general heightening of awareness of environmental issues, especially in the political sphere, is perhaps best illustrated by the Prime Minister's recent statements about the finite period of time that we have on this planet and our duty to all future generations to leave this world as a fit place to live in.
Such sentiments can only be applauded, but positive action alone must be the acid test of the Government's commitment. Although laudable support has been given to such international moves as the restriction and ultimate banning of CFC gases, the Government seem to be rather slow to act on domestic matters where uncooperative foreign governments are not a problem.
At present the Government have only one piece of legislation before Parliament which includes a green element—the privatisation of water. The waterways of this country are under considerable pressure from man-made pollution and there are horror stories aplenty, such as the incident in Camelford where poisonous aluminium oxide was accidentally poured
1138
into drinking water. One could use the example of the Thames, which is so polluted by female contraceptives in sewage that fish are undergoing sex changes.
I should like to look at what is being done, what is supposed to have been done and what is proposed for the future. We have an appalling record on inland waterway pollution. In 1980 the number of incidents of pollution was 12,500. That figure had risen to 23,253 by 1987, with 1,402 of those incidents being regarded as serious. I wonder what was not regarded as serious. Industry was responsible for 37 per cent. of those incidents. Agriculture and sewerage works avidly competed for second place with 20 per cent. and 19 per cent. of the total respectively. There were only 288 prosecutions. Most resulted in small fines or conditional discharges.
Current legislation, mainly the Control of Pollution Act 1974, is currently being avoided by a series of consent conditions: in other words, the standards that have to be maintained in our rivers are being lowered. Yet 20 per cent. of water authorities still fail to meet those reduced standards after such a blatant case of moving the goal posts. It is thought that 80 per cent. of water authorities—the protectors or our waterways—would find themselves in breach of the law if there were 100 per cent. enforcement of the 1974 Act.
There is also an alarming but hardly surprising downgrading of the quality of our rivers. In 1985 a river quality survey showed an unprecedented net deterioration in 903 kilometres of river length. It should be kept in mind that 35 per cent. of the rivers in England and Wales are not routinely monitored.
Under the water privatisation Bill no new standards are proposed. Effectively the 1974 Act is reworded and redrafted but it is not substantially changed. There is however the possibility of far greater enforcement by the new rivers authority. The National Rivers Authority is effectively to police waterways rather than leaving that job to the water authorities which are themselves so often at fault.
The principle of having an independent guardian of water standards should be a step towards higher water standards through enforcement, making it possible to find out who is responsible for any incident of pollution. It should also make it possible not only to punish the offenders but to make them pay for whatever restorative measures are necessary.
However, resources are required for the new authority to work properly. The present allocation of staff of 6,500 means that after the necessary back-up and land drainage posts are filled there will be only 450 pollution control officers. Each will be responsible for nearly 100 kilometres of waterway and between 45 and 65 effluent discharges. That is hardly blanket coverage.
Enforcing regulations has assumed an even greater urgency when it is considered that the Department of the Environment will no longer have the legal obligation to maintain and improve water quality that was imposed upon it by the Water Act 1973. That will not continue after privatisation.
The job of enforcement is further complicated by the system of testing. Testing has to be carried out

1139
over the course of a year and all tests have to he done in triplicate. Only a 95 per cent. compliance rate to consent conditions is allowed. That in turn is subject to a further 95 per cent. compliance rate for statistical reasons. The upshot is that not only are the tests difficult to carry out and time consuming, but also a sewerage works, for example, could fail five out of 50 tests and still comply.
Another worrying question as to how seriously the Government are taking their commitment to green policy is raised by the delay in introducing the new river quality objectives originally proposed for last year and now not to be introduced until 1992. One can only hope that their introduction will not he further delayed.
Water would seem to be a good starting point for any environmental campaign. Inland waterways are not only vital in providing us with drinking water but also, in theory at least, are comparatively easy to inspect. Even tidal rivers flow only in two directions and along known paths. The Government are dealing with a domestic problem—that is one of the advantages of being an island—and most of the offenders are known. If the Government were prepared to give the necessary free hand to the National Rivers Authority, it would potentially be a very effective watchdog.
The rivers authority needs not only the proposed powers but also clear objectives and if the standards are often changed those objectives are not clear. We must ensure that we maintain the standards which we regard as being necessary. If consents are continually lowered that cannot happen. I suggest that we freeze those consents at their present level and remove them as soon as possible.
The rivers of our nation are not only a national resource, they are also a great source of natural beauty and play a vital part in the life cycle of the countryside. To damage them is surely an act of vandalism. To damage such a vital part of our national heritage would be an act of vandalism comparable to damaging one of the great historic buildings of this country. I suggest that the Government should he equally severe on anyone guilty of that charge as they would on someone who was guilty of defacing St. Paul's Cathedral.
6.28 p.m.
Lord Moran: My Lords, I too hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, will soon be back among us.
I enjoyed the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Kenilworth. He may like to know that a letter I received today from the Parliamentary Under-Secretary at the Department of the Environment has a note written in the corner saying, "100 per cent. recycled paper".
I suggest that there are five fundamental causes of the tremendous increase in pollution that we are discussing. There is the runaway growth in world population about which my noble friend Lord Henderson of Brompton spoke eloquently; developments to meet the ever-growing demand for energy; the widespread increase in wealth; the
1140
changes in farming practice and the spread of development generally. But there has been a notable increase in public concern and growing public insistence that the problems should be tackled and pollution controlled.
There are so many different types of pollution. Had there been time I should have liked to discuss aspects such as noise pollution. The noble Earl said at the outset of this debate—if I heard him correctly that that ought to be combated by individual effort. But I think that a good deal of it is out of the control of most of us. In the country, for example, there are the bird scarers used by farmers, unsilenced motor cycles racing about on open hills, and the scream of low-flying aircraft. In town, there is the horrible noise of hooters on fire engines in place of the perfectly effective bells of my youth.
Anyone who returns to this country from abroad cannot fail to be struck by the appalling amount of litter on the streets of London. One asks oneself why it is that, for example, a Canadian city such as Toronto is so much cleaner. Here things are equally bad in our country villages. Children walk along and throw away their sweet papers and cans of pop at the side of the road; when they are older they throw away their cigarette packets and empty cans of beer. I do not know how one can remedy the situation. Perhaps it can be done by a campaign in schools or a television advertising campaign; or by imposing conditions on planning consents for fast food outlets that they must have someone to clear up the mess outside or insisting that shops be made responsible for cleaning the pavements at the front of them. I am not sure how we should tackle this very difficult problem.
I have no time to do more than mention such matters but I wish to raise two separate aspects of the topic. There is first the question of co-ordination of control of pollution, which was a matter raised in their speeches by the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, and the noble Lord, Lord Craigton. I was interested in the announcement made at the end of last year by the noble Earl about integrated pollution control, which surely means a single control authority. On the other hand, the Government have announced the formation of the NRA, which as I understand it is to have exclusive control of river pollution. I listened with great attention, as I am sure we all did, to the very interesting and important speech of the noble Lord. Lord Crickhowell, on the future NRA policies.
Both those initiatives arc very welcome but it seems to me that to some extent the concepts are mutually contradictory. I shall be interested to know the Government's view on that. For example, I noticed in the July 1988 discussion paper on inputs of dangerous substances to water—the red list—which, as a member of the environmental sub-committee, I also warmly welcomed, that on pages 14 to 17 of that document two alternatives are suggested: either model A, with HM Inspectorate of Pollution being responsible for consulting the NRA, or model B, with the NRA being responsible for consulting HMIP. I am not sure whether the Government have yet thought out the respective roles of the NRA and the HMIP. The remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, to some extent seem to confirm that

1141
view. I think it is very important for the Government to get this right.
An additional aspect not mentioned in that paper but about which the noble Lord. Lord Craigton, has spoken is the existence of the Health and Safety Executive with responsibility for the safety of workers and the public. Again there may at present be a conflict of interest between those responsibilities and other responsibilities for the environment.
As a member of the environmental sub-committee I went last year to Sellafield where the waste accumulated and stored on site to some extent may be a risk to the workforce. That is the responsibility of the Health and Safety Executive. It might therefore favour the controlled release of that waste at safe levels into the Irish Sea. However, control of the release of waste into the Irish Sea rests with the Department of the Environment, so there is obviously a demarcation matter to be resolved.
I believe that it is important to sort out the questions of boundaries, the balance of safety, health and environmental considerations and to get it right before industrialists, farmers or public authorities are given advice, because it is essential that the advice they are given is not confusing and does not conflict. Perhaps we need a new all-embracing environmental or conservation protection agency. Certainly I think that is something that ought to be considered very carefully.
The other matter I want to discuss is our sometimes sluggish response to some pollution problems. I realise that the Government act swiftly in some of them and take the lead—for example, on the question of the ozone layer and CFCs. It is obvious that the Prime Minister has a strong interest in that, and of course when the Prime Minister is interested things happen. But I believe that the Government generally now take an enlightened and positive view of these problems. I found their responses to the reports of the Environment Committee of another place about pollution of rivers and estuaries (Cmnd. Paper 543) and on air pollution (Cmnd. Paper 552) encouraging reading.
However, on some matters I think that they have been very slow. Let me give one example—that of unleaded petrol. In 1981 I went to Canada and bought a car which ran only on unleaded petrol. I found that virtually all cars ran on unleaded petrol and only a few ancient jalopies still ran on leaded petrol. I never found a single service station where I could not obtain unleaded petrol. That was eight years ago. Now, so much later, I run my car here on unleaded petrol but, like the the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, I have considerable difficulty in finding enough stations which have unleaded petrol to fill up. I have to do a good deal of advance planning.
I understand that only 2·5 per cent. of all the petrol used in this country at the moment is unleaded. It should be more like 80 per cent. or 90 per cent. and I think that we have been very slow in this matter. We have also been slow on the funding of HMIP. I was worried when the chief inspector, on his resignation, described the inspectorate as "understaffed, undervalued, underpaid and underfunded". I recognise that the Government are setting up 13 new
1142
posts but I wonder whether even that number will be adequate.
We have been slow to respond to the increasing threat from new farming practices, as the increasing deterioration of rivers in the South-West shows, and to the threat from acid rain. There is still a reluctance to accept the aggravation of this problem by the mass planting of conifers, and I agree with the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady White, on that point. I think also that our response so far to the nitrate problem is pretty tentative. There is a need to get to grips with these problems as soon as the scientists have identified the cause of the trouble and we should not wait until the problem has grown and produced a public outcry.
6.38 p.m.
Baroness David: My Lords, I want to speak about the quality of life for children in two aspects: their extra vulnerability to pollutants to which we are all subject; and the need to give them knowledge about their environment through environmental education.
One of the most prevalent pollutants to which children are subject is lead, particularly that from vehicle emissions. What I shall say refers more to those who live in urban surroundings. However, that is the majority of our children. There has been evidence that exposure to more than a certain amount of lead in the atmosphere can lead to a loss of intelligence. Being smaller, children are nearer to the fumes. Efforts by this Government to reduce the dangers from vehicle exhausts, especially by restricting the use of cars in cities, have been minimal. Admittedly, there is a lower price for unleaded petrol, but that differential could be made considerably greater. It would give a more positive encouragement to car owners to change and to garage proprietors to move faster in providing unleaded petrol. I agree totally on that point with the noble Lord, Lord Moran.
The EC standard should be brought up to US levels, which are considerably more stringent than ours, and should apply to small as well as large petrol-driven vehicles. We could follow the example of the Netherlands in making clean cars financially attractive by using taxes and charges to favour the purchase of small cars.
Public transport has been cut and has been made more expensive, thus encouraging people to use private cars, usually with only one person in the car. There has been no encouragement of increased sharing. I remind noble Lords that the GLC experiment, which offered cheap fares, worked in the capital.
The amount and the speed of traffic have another detrimental effect on the lives of children. Parents very seldom dare let their children go about the streets on their own. That is a pity. It takes away from the independence and spirit of adventure and discovery that all children have. Many more schemes relating to traffic management, and separati on of cars and pedestrians in certain areas, could be encouraged: planners could be made to plan more positively. Planning is not a favourite word with this Government. As an aside, if county struci:ure plans

1143
are abolished there could be very serious consequences for the whole environment.
The next danger for children is impure water—in the water they drink, paddle in, play in and swim in. This covers the sea, estuaries, rivers and canals. About 4 million Britons drink water which breaches EC nitrate limits. The numbers are expected to increase as nitrates—which mainly come from agricultural fertilisers—build up in groundwater.
A proposed EC directive which classes nitrates as dangerous substances is the culmination of several years of struggle by the Commission to tackle the problem at source, naturally with opposition from the farming lobbies. If the directive is passed, it will force Ministers to use powers that they have had for a decade but have never used to control nitrates.
The 1974 Control of Pollution Act gave Ministers powers to set up special water protection zones to regulate the use of nitrates and "other poisonous, noxious or polluting matter". Such a power has now been added to the water privatisation Bill. The Minister has indicated that the Government are moving on this. But will they definitely invoke that power, and soon?
The greatest scandal is the state of so many of our beaches where children play and bathe. They are particularly vulnerable to illness through exposure to sewage sludge being pumped into the sea. A summary of the results of a survey during 1987 of the quality of waters in England, Wales and Northern Ireland showed that 207 beaches passed, and 106 failed. That is not a record to be proud of.
Besides sewage sludge there are in places radioactive emissions, and emissions from chemical factories. For 40 years or so I have had experience in Cornwall of coping with children and grandchildren who suffered from appalling sickness and diarrhoea as a result of impure and contaminated water. It is unpleasant and it is dangerous. We know what happened in north Cornwall this summer when aluminium got into the water supply at the height of the holiday season. Twenty thousand homes were affected. The noble Baroness, Lady White, referred to this. That may have been a very unfortunate accident. But it could have been discovered and acted upon much more quickly. There is no excuse for not providing the funds and forcing the water authorities to deal with sewage in an environmentally acceptable way. Having a higher proportion of water in their bodies, infants are at greater risk than others.
The third danger I speak of is from contaminated foods. I need not elaborate on salmonella in this House. But it is young children and the elderly who are especially at risk. The reluctance of the Government to take swift action was inexcusable. One can only hope that the whole horrid battery hen industry will be put under much stricter control. Only last Sunday there was an account in the Observer of the danger to babies from milk with too much aluminium content. Again there is reluctance on the part of the Government to let the public have the information they need—in this case the names of the brands affected. Vested interests should not be
1144
protected. Our whole food industry should be made to adhere to higher standards.
I quote from the Observer article:
"When health inspectors visited a small supermarket in London's Old Kent Road last week, they discovered mice nesting in the disposable nappies and mice droppings on the bread".
The environmental health officers, whose job it is to inspect food premises and to provide health education, are well under strength, as my noble friend Lord Blease has said. Of approximately 6,000 posts, there are 430 funded vacancies. Aston University and Bristol Polytechnic have had courses closed, so there are fewer in training. Local authorities are short of cash to employ them. Will the Minister please make some comment on this situation? There should be a proper health education programme.
This brings me to my other point on environmental education. I was going to speak at some length on the HMI report, Environmental Education from 5 to 16 but the noble Lord. Lord Ritchie, has already covered the issue fairly widely. However, I was annoyed to see an article on the HMI report in the Independent which opened:
"Children should leave school knowing enough about environmental issues to avoid being indoctrinated by propaganda from environmental pressure groups, according to a new report"—
that is the HMI report. A totally false impression was given of the document. I contrast that with an article in Education, the weekly magazine for the education world. It states:
"Propaganda produced by campaigning protection groups should be allowed to pervade the classrooms to enable pupils to make sound judgments about environmental issues".
I suppose that tells one something about the media.
The aim of the HMI is to encourage schools, primary and secondary, to make positive plans. In May, 1988, the Council of Ministers of the European Community agreed,
"on the need to take concrete steps for the promotion of environmental education",
and adopted a resolution to that end. The HMI aims to help LEAs and schools to consider how best to carry out that job.
The HMI report emphasises the need for older pupils to acquire a sense of responsibility for aspects of the environment and shows how cross-curricular studies can help to develop that understanding. It gives an example of the study of water. Geography can contribute to the understanding of land forms and drainage basins and the nature of water courses can help to explain how the presence of water has affected patterns of settlement. The sciences can deal with water purity. Technology and design can help pupils to understand the man-made environment, such as buildings, sluices, weirs, bridges, and sewage works.
Where HMI has been clever is in fitting its report into the pattern of what the Education Reform Act demands. It sets out objectives at the ages of 11 and 16 in some detail. It has a section on assessment. It has much practical advice. On reading the report I felt much more hopeful about environmental education. The natural curiosity that children have about people, places, plants, animals and materials around them perhaps will be taken advantage of if

1145
the suggestions are followed through. Had the present generation of politicians and decision makers been better educated in this way there might not have been reluctance to move on environmental matters or to be so slow in following EC directives, lagging behind most of Europe.
The judgment on this Government's record on energy conservation, on pollution of air and water, on hazardous waste, on care for wildlife and the countryside, will be that they always did too little too late. I hope that this debate will push them forward and that we shall have some positive responses from the Government this evening.
6.48 p.m.
The Earl of Radnor: My Lords, like other noble Lords who have spoken, I am very sad that the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, is not here to set us off on this journey and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, for starting this debate. It has become quite hair-raising. It has been global. It has been brought to our notice that trees covering an area the size of a football pitch are being felled by the second. Eight thousand babies are being born each minute, or second—I cannot quite remember. My noble friend presented us with a galaxy of awful ailments that we were likely to catch.
I cannot quite understand it all. I am not a scientist and I am slightly suspicious of scientists. I am certainly suspicious of journalists who repeat what scientists say. My brief speech will he slightly different from those that other noble Lords have made. In the first instance, I do not understand why, if the pollution is so bad, we are all living longer. It does not seem to tie up. I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, 'that overpopulation is at the root of it all. In this country and in Europe it is over-population combined with sophistication. We have talked today about industrial pollution and motor car pollution, but nobody is prepared to forego his car. Nobody is even prepared to choose unleaded petrol in a big way.
I should like to bring the debate back to rather more local matters and pick up something which the noble Baroness, Lady White, and the noble Lord, Lord Kenilworth, in his very able maiden speech, mentioned. It concerns acid rain in this country; I am not talking about acid rain anywhere it may occur. I believe that the really acid streams and the really acid lakes are in Wales and in Kirkcudbrightshire. The wind comes off the Western Approaches to Wales and it certainly does not come from an industrial area before it reaches Kirkcudbrightshire.
A few years ago the noble Baroness and I attended a presentation given by the Welsh Water Authority, which convinced me at any rate that in this case the trees were to blame; and I am a great tree man. They did not actually mention the uplands but they talked about too many trees in the wrong place. I think by "wrong place" they meant the catchment areas.
It seems to me that quite a reasonable amount of action has been taken by the Government and a reasonable amount of money laid aside to deal with industrial pollution, and that this problem should also now be dealt with. It should be dealt with quite
1146
quickly and presumably quite simply because, in the same way as you can plant trees and grow them, you can cut them down. On the whole the trees in Wales are reaching at least a reasonably marketable stage. So why do we not go to the head waters, cut the trees down and put them through the brand-new pulping mill which is in that area?
The next matter I should like to touch upon is that of nitrates in drinking water. I have previously mentioned in your Lordships' House that I felt the directive, or whatever the term for it is, from the European Community was far too severe and that in fact we should not have accepted it. Now there is another directive on its way to deal with surface water. I do not know whether that is going to be too severe too, but one thing is absolutely certain: there is nothing we can do about the water except to treat it when it comes out. It is no good telling the farmers not to use so much fertiliser; that concerns 40 years hence and the damage was done 40 years ago.
Since it is so expensive to deal with this situation, I would suggest that there is a strong case for renegotiating the limit. One has to bring a certain amount of reality into this life. It is all very well to have everything sounding perfect, but we do not want to go back to the days when lorries had "20 miles per hour" written on their backs and nobody kept to that limit. Nobody is going to keep to this 50 milligramme limit because I think, first, it is impossible, and even if it is possible it is too expensive.
I should now like to say a word about the National Rivers Authority, following the very interesting and able speech by the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell. I welcome the National Rivers Authority, particularly because it is an authority which will look after the interests of water and therefore of the public. It will act as a policeman over the water authorities themselves. This has been a terribly awkward sitution, with the water authorities regulating themselves and others.
However, I was a little worried—and I must declare an interest as I am what might be described as a large fish farmer—when I heard mention of the low funding because it seemed an extraordinarily small amount of money for the National Rivers Authority. That immediately led one to believe—and I think I heard this coming through a little—that money would be taken away from concerns either as extraction licences or as charges for their effluent discharge consents. I think I heard correctly that the latter was meant to cover the costs but, as I say, I think I caught a hint in my noble friend's speech that the water coming in might be charged and used in some way to fund the National Rivers Authority itself. That would be a very great pity if it were so. I hope that the funding will come from elsewhere in order to provide the sort of service that the noble Lord, Lord Addington, wishes.
I should like to touch on one final matter although it is quite outside my sphere, and that is lead in petrol. It has been mentioned once or twice in passing and thoroughly by the noble Lord, Lord Moran. Quite frankly, I cannot see any reason why there should not be a law stopping lead in petrol. It could be passed now or next year and enacted, say, in five or six years'

1147
time. I believe it has been done quite successfully in some parts of the world. It is not too difficult to convert the motor car or to build one that will deal with it, with the los of performance not being too had. All sorts of details could be worked out so that the better petrol could be used, and so on. We are being hypocritical if we merely talk about this. I can see no reason whatever why full use should not be made of unleaded petrol by everybody and why they should not be made to use it by law, with certain exceptions. Hypocrisy does not go well at all. We cannot just talk about this and say what a pity there are not enough pumps, when other people are doing much better elsewhere. Why do we not do it ourselves? I should like to ask that question of my noble friend.
6.55 p.m.
Lord St. John of Bletso: My Lords, I join those of your Lordships in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, for introducing the debate this evening and regret that the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, could not join us. The long list of speakers is indicative of the importance your Lordships' House places on the need to protect the environment from pollution. I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Kenilworth, on a fine maiden speech. I can well appreciate the nerves of one of the younger Members making his first speech in your Lordships' House. His expertise in the area of landscape design will, I am sure, contribute to future debates on this issue.
The noble Lord addressed the need for recycling paper and thereby saving trees. I was astonished to read recently in an article that each year each one of us throws out 78 pounds of paper—that is one and a half trees—together with 30 pounds of glass, 28 pounds of metal and 23 pounds of plastic, not to mention the less savoury items. I wish to address my remarks to the increasing problems of disposing of household waste in an environmentally acceptable manner.
The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, drew the attention of the House to the more than 5,000 authorised dumping sites in Britain which are supposed to be monitored by the Control of Pollution Act 1974. It is well known that there are many more unofficial dumps where dangerous substances are dumped, in defiance of the law. While I accept that certain of the landfill sites can serve a useful purpose, for example, the filling of exhausted quarries and mines, there are a number of worrisome problems emanating from the tipping of untreated and partially treated domestic waste. These include the creation of methane gas from these sites, which kills plants by depriving their roots of oxygen, and obviously methane is highly inflammable.
Another hazard is that a cocktail of acids is formed by the natural decomposition within these tips. If uncontrolled, these leachates can pollute the earth's natural underground water reservoirs and streams, together with the surrounding land: a point that has been well drawn out by several noble Lords who have spoken today. Tipping operations also attract vermin
1148
and flies. This problem was highlighted in a recent television programme. "Friday Report", in October last year. Furthermore, even though the tips are lined with a non-pervieous material, there is always the possibility that they may be punctured by sharp metal objects.
I pose a question to your Lordships. How much longer can we continue dumping an increasing volume of waste into a decreasing availability of landfill sites? Some areas, such as South Devon, are already looking outside their boundaries at alternative methods of disposal. The county of Essex, which receives a major portion of the 31 million tonnes of domestic refuse per year generated by the home counties, estimates that suitable landfill sites will be exhausted in 10 to 12 years.
We can no longer afford to sweep the dirt under the carpet, which is visibly shrinking. Indeed a new approach is needed to address this time bomb. I mention a time bomb because of the decreasing amount of years that we have at our disposal to act on this critical issue. All too often alternative methods of handling domestic waste are discarded for cost considerations. Technology is available to transfer domestic waste into many visible products.
The noble Lord, Lord Kenilworth, mentioned the re-cycling of paper; others have mentioned plastics, metals and aluminium. Certainly several of these plants are already in operation in the United Kingdom. In America they are tackling the problem with incineration plants and recycling schemes. In Sweden there are special plants which combine a large percentage of the waste with sludges left over from the sewage treatment farms and these convert the waste into compost.
I am well aware of the Government's endeavours to address the pollution threat and have read with interest the Royal Commission's 12th report recently published on environmental pollution. I hope that the forthcoming legislation that the Minister mentioned in his opening speech will indeed provide for measures of disposing of household waste in an environmentally acceptable manner, so as to ensure, as the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, mentioned in his opening speech, a quality of life for our future generations.
7.3 p.m.
The Earl of Shrewsbury: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Kenilworth on an excellent, informative and vibrant maiden speech which was a pleasure to listen to. I am also delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, has given your Lordships an opportunity to debate this very serious subject.
I must declare an interest inasmuch as I am not a member of Greenpeace, but I care very greatly indeed for the well-being of the countryside in which we live and I farm. I applaud the very real improvements to the environment that we live in that Her Majesty's Government have had the good sense to implement.
My very real concern is not purely with pollution caused by the burning of fossil fuels and the destruction of the ozone layer and many other serious matters. My main concern is targeted towards the

1149
problem that we see every day of our lives; that is, the problem of litter. I have travelled extensively in America and have seen the awful litter problem that they have on the other side of the Atlantic, and I am greatly impressed by the cleanliness of Switzerland. But, sadly, we in the British Isles need to look ever more seriously at our own problems as we have a very sad reputation of being the naughty boy of Europe where pollution is concerned.
The tourist arriving at Heathrow, Gatwick or any other port of entry to this country has a considerable shock. He looks to this country to provide history, quality of life and responsibility. Yet when he arrives he is met by a barrage of fast food litter, dog excreta on pavements and piles of rotting rubbish, especially in London and in many of our other towns and cities. When he ventures out of those great cities that we have he sees rubbish dumped in the countryside, overflowing bins in lay-bys and farmers using corrugated iron sheets to plug gaps in hedges. It really is quite disgraceful.
The agriculural community complain like mad about "townies" dumping their litter in our countryside, but they find it quite unacceptable when townsfolk complain about the debeautifying attitude of farmers regarding their own land. I was recently in some fields bordering the Staffordshire county showground and I was quite appalled to see plastic fertiliser bags blowing around in the wind with paper waste caught up in great excess on the showground's perimeter fence. How on earth can we possibly expect townsfolk to adhere to decent self-control in dumping litter in the countryside when the very people who try to promote the quality of that environment cannot even clear up their own houses?
This particular part of pollution is thoroughly obnoxious, unsightly and unhealthy. It is a problem that must be solved very quickly. We must have much more punitive fines and a better, simpler system of prosecution to stop these litter louts from destroying our environment and the beauty of our countryside. We are the guardians of the countryside and we hold the trusteeship of it for future generations. Let us act now to enhance this aspect of our quality of life. Our sons and daughters can only benefit from our foresight.
7.6 p.m.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, if ever there was a case for enhancing the quality of life by protecting the environment from increasing pollution, it is the need to draw attention to those many thousands of people in our country in the coalfield communities, who have had to suffer industrial pollution—dirt, noise, smoke, cancerous fumes, respiratory diseases, bronchitis, even lung cancer; so many forms of environmental pollution within a coalfield community, causing so many environmental diseases.
Although we are witnessing a rundown of the coal mining industry with a decrease in the number of coal mine—nearly 80 pits having closed since the miners' strike—and although from this rundown there are bound to be environmental benefits, what perturbs us all in these coalfields is the continuing and expanding
1150
role of opencast coal mining. This is the worst and most immediate environmental polluter that anyone can imagine and it is added to the fall-out from power stations, the smoke and noise of heavy industry, the dust from muck stacks and so on. I question whether it is even necessary.
Deep mined output of coal allied with cheap imports is in excess of demand. Why then should there be more opencast coal mining? Production at the moment is about 15·5 million tonnes, with 14 million tonnes from British Coal. British Coal has recently announced its desire to increase production to 18 million tonnes a year. This statement has heightened concern among the coalfield local authorities, fearing that they are to have thrust upon them additional severe environmental damage. Therefore the coalfield communities' campaign, an all-party group of 70 local authorities, have expressed their anxieties at this proposed expansion.
In answer to a question that I posed to the Government in June last year, it was revealed that in just two years, 1985–87, there were 212 applications for new opencast mining sites and 130 were approved. I think that this is deplorable. I believe that the devastating impact on the environment is worse now than when the Flowers Commission reported in 1981. The report on energy and the environment stated that:
"even if the greatest possible care is taken in both the extraction of opencast coal and the subsequent restoration of the land, and while acknowledging that in some cases amenities have been enhanced by opencast restoration, opencast mining has a severe impact on the environment in both the short and long-term."
Indeed, the commission found that, despite its recommendations for particular improvements in opencast coal working practices, an overriding question remained: were current levels of opencast coal production appropriate for maintaining the balance between the environment, amenity, private rights and the need to exploit coal by opencast methods? It concluded that the balance was moving against the environment and amenity.
That was in 1981. How right they were, and now the situation is much worse. The commission also strongly recommended that:
"As older, more unprofitable and less environmentally acceptable deep mines are closed, and more efficient and profitable operations take place, the volume of opencast mining should be allowed to decline. In the meantime there should he no increase in the present target of 15 milllion tons per year".
It went on to state:
"The uniquely sensitive character of the British countryside and the high population density in much of the country would not be able to accommodate without unwarrantable damage a target in excess of that level".
That quotation is taken from the most authoritative paper on energy and the environment.
In the light of those observations made way back in 1981, and recognising the fact that the situation has undoubtedly worsened—there is the increasing number of sites, the scale and duration of new workings with their attendant traffic generation, and the multiplicity of environmental problems including sites not associated with land reclamation, not to mention the damage to tourist attractions and the parallel damage to any local authority economic

1151
initiatives in their areas—the pollution vandal of opencast mining must be cut back. There is no reason for this scale of operations.
Therefore, if we wish to enhance the quality of life by protecting the environment from increasing pollution, the Government can announce a halt to any expansion of opencast coal mining and a planned reduction in all those operations in addition to dealing with the ozone layer, acid rain, the costly and lengthy installation process of installing scrubbers in power station stacks, and so forth.
One has only to visualise how opencast mining can make many lives a misery for up to seven years. Choking clouds of dust drift into homes and gardens. There is constant noise and vibration from machinery, including the stream of coal lorries rumbling through the villages. In the meantime, the landscape is ruined for years. Fishing ponds, footpaths, sites of rare plants and wildlife are ruined. Schoolchildren and students are constantly disturbed in their studies. Secondary roads are ruined by the incessant patrol of coal lorries. There is an increase in road accidents, and houses are structurally damaged.
Above all, I feel most sorry for the old folk. Their property has been devalued. They suffer years of awful misery and unhappiness in the eventide of their lives, and offering them a better environment thereafter is not the answer. Many old people have died during such operations and some, no doubt, because of them.
The Flowers Commission stated:
"The combined effects of opencast operations can, for those badly affected, add up to a very severe diminution in the quality of life".
That is the situation for many thousands of people in the coalfield communities because that is where the coal is.
They and their forebears have suffered long enough during generations of ghastly pollution. if the Government are serious in their concern over the increase in pollution, then they should give those people a cleaner, healthier life by tackling the opencast vandaliser of our countryside, and indeed of our people's lives, and take steps now to cut it back.
7.14 p.m.
Lord Reay: My Lords, history has carried us into a new era as regards the approach needed to enable us to continue to live in a clean and healthy environment. In the 1950s, at the time of the Clean Air Act, it was found to be sufficient to ban forms of combustion from city centres where its heavy concentration was producing obnoxious results. Where the factories then went was not thought to matter. Similarly, factory emisions had to be released through tall chimneys so that they were dispersed widely—indeed, anywhere so long as they were not deposited locally. Sewage had to be carried far enough out to sea to avoid polluting the coast. Incidentally, that practice has not yet been stopped.
Still the concept persisted of a vast world out there beyond the pallisades of each human settlement, capable of absorbing all the waste man could ever need to dispose of. That point of view has obtained
1152
since the beginning of time. Even the vocabulary implied—and still implies the planet's imperviousness to man's rubbish. The proper thing to do with something one did not want was to throw it away. Today we can keep the language of that historical attitude but the way in which we behave must be different.
The Prime Minister's speech to the Royal Society set the seal of official recognition to the view that we could no longer ignore the effect of the sum total of all mankind's activities on the planet's system. In the eyes of the public that dramatic speech immediately legitimised concerns which could previously be dismissed as being the obsessions of cranks or the scaremongering of the media. It also nailed the colours of the Government firmly to the mast of all green issues.
At the same time we have a situation where the outstanding success of the Government's management of the economy and public finances has provided the country with the means to match all manner of good intentions. The means are there, the Government have expressed good intentions and the public have expectations for action. They will expect action at least as positive as that taken by any other country in comparable circumstances.
The Government are right to insist that attention should be paid to cost and the burdens to be imposed on industry and the consumer. Industry must not be put at an excessive competitive disadvantage. That is another reason why internationally agreed standards are preferable to national or even regional standards. As the Prime Minister said in her speech to the Royal Society:
"No nation has unlimited funds, and it will have even less if it wastes them".
Nevertheless, cost considerations apart, I see no reason to hold back in any field from the adoption of stricter standards. As the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, implied in a most interesting and rather disturbing speech—only marginally less disturbing than that of my noble friend Lord Colwyn—in field after field the worst predictions of scientists regarding the degree, nature and effects of pollution have regularly been confirmed or exceeded.
I accept only from that the prediction that industrial society and/or economic growth will come to an end. It has not happened, it shows no sign of happening and it is a prediction which neither scientists nor environmental lobbyists are qualified to make.
In several fields the Government have committed themselves to new and more exacting standards by setting certain target dates. Many noble Lords have acknowledged that fact. Many of the commitments were entered into as part of European Community agreements. Like the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, I hope that the Government will enforce those standards. As the noble Lord said, there has been far too much illegal pollution of rivers and coasts. Not much has yet been done to reduce river pollution from pesticides and other agricultural sources. Like the noble Baroness, Lady White, I am pleased that the Government are proposing to take at least some action in that field.

1153
I follow my noble friend Lord Crickhowell, the noble Lord, Lord Moran, and my noble friend Lord Radnor who put forward the most radical proposals, in deploring the fact that only very modest progress has been made towards the general use of unleaded petrol. However, one must acknowledge that the amount of lead in leaded petrol has been much reduced. Surely the key is availability. In my experience unleaded petrol is much more widely available in some other countries on the Continent—not those usually selected by the Government for comparison— than it is in this country. I believe that the Government should consider ways in which the process can be speeded up.
I welcome the Bills to privatise water and electricity. They should be beneficial in two ways. First, they will enable the two functions of producer and regulatory authority to be separated. With all his authority my noble friend Lord Crickhowell emphasised the great significance of that change. Secondly, they will release capital investment from the restraints of public expenditure.
I should like to make a plea for a higher valuation to be placed on aesthetic considerations. On purely aesthetic grounds. I believe that the mass conifer plantations have been a monstrous and inexcusable desecration of an incomparable national asset; namely, our beautiful wild scenery. It will be down to our shame in the future that that was ever permitted.
At the outset I said that we were entering a new era. I believe that we are also entering a new era of international conferences. Like my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy, I welcome the fact that in March the Government are to host a conference here on ozone depletion and on this subject are leading the demand for the use of CFCs to he further reduced. CFCs are also a major contributor to climate warming which will be the real test for international co-operation. It is no good the Western world on its own adopting more rigorous environmental standards. Much of the manufacture of goods produced for our markets has moved to the Far East. What are the standards in force there'? There are billions of people in Asia and hundreds of millions in Africa and South America who aspire to Western living standards and so to become polluters on a Western scale, quite apart from the extra thousands of beings horn every hour.
Everyone must be brought into these agreements and no one permitted to remain outside. Therefore, I regretted the derogation given to less developed countries in the Montreal Convention. I suggest that undeveloped countries should not be encouraged to consider themselves as a group apart, absolved from the responsibility for the world as a whole. The world has become a small place. For example, it is not purely an internal matter as to what standards of construction are set for nuclear power stations in eastern Europe, or how much of the tropical forest is being burnt each year, or that part of the world has become a breeding ground for disease. However, a lead must be taken by the West because it is the West, including, Japan, which has the resources, experience, technology and capital without which expensive environment friendly policies cannot be adopted by
1154
developing countries. If warnings about global dangers threatening the environment are to have any impact, we must start to witness a new age in international co-operation.
7.22 p.m.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, today—and this is itself a revolution—the environmental issue is accepted by everyone as being both serious and urgent. It is interesting that no speech today has even begun to challenge that statement. I suggest that 1O years ago that would not have been the case.
However, the environmental issue does not stand alone. It is linked to a number of other issues, each issue important in itself but which takes on a much greater importance and a new dimension because of its relationship to the environmental issue. The noble Lord, Lord Henderson, spoke in great detail—I regret that unfortunately I was not in the Chamber at the time but I am well informed—about the relationship between the population explosion and the environmental issue. I have just come back from a short trip to India, to the Marie Stopes International organisation, of which I am a director. Marie Stopes International receives strong support from the Indian Government, has 22 clinics and is opening another five. It does a very useful job but it is a drop in the ocean compared with what needs to be done. As the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, made clear, time is emphatically not on our side. My noble friend Lord Winstanley reminded us that by the time the noble Earl sits down a town the size of Wolverhampton will have come into being since we started speaking today.
However, we have to face the fact that the population problem is urgent, is getting out of hand, needs drastic attention and we have to face the implications. In the West, much as we may love our children, we recognise that economically they are a cost. In India and in the poor countries of the world to a very considerable extent they remain a benefit. As long as that is so. the effect of propaganda for birth control and a limitation on population will not be successful. Therefore, we have to recognise that it is in our interest as much as and perhaps even more than in the interests of the developing and poorest countries that a real attack is made on that level of poverty because in their poverty lies the seeds of our destruction.
For a whole variety of reasons in the past we have urged that more should be done to relieve the poverty of developing countries, but very little has been done. In fact, in many cases the poverty becomes more serious. As long as it remains true that children help out the meagre budgets of those poor families, then more and more children will be born. That is the challenge for our policy towards developing countries.
There is another link issue which I do not believe has been mentioned today. There is abundant evidence that one way in which population control comes into being is through the education of women. I am not making this as a typical feminist contribution, although in a way it is. However, there is no doubt that in country after country as the level

1155
of women's education increases population control brought about by the wish of the families and the women themselves begins to become a reality.
I hope that this debate has underlined that time is running out and that particularly the question of population, poverty and women's education need urgent attention and drastic action now. We in this House have a great wealth of experience and knowledge.
I ask the noble Earl whether or not it is possible for a special committee of this House to be set up to look at this issue which we have all said is of such great importance, to see whether or not it is possible to have some kind of a plan of action drawn up at international and national level but also in which ordinary people can take part. For example, reference has been made to the twinning of schools. Could that not be extended far more widely? Could not universities twin with universities in the poorer parts of the world so that at all levels people will be making a contribution to this problem, because if we do not overcome it we need not really worry about any of the other problems.
7.28 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, when my noble friend Lady Nicol receives at home in Cambridge tomorrow the Hansard of today's debate I believe that she will read it with a considerable degree of satisfaction. Knowing her, it will be quiet rather than exuberant satisfaction, but I believe that as she reads through nearly 30 speeches, each of which has shown some degree of expertise in analysing the problems of the environment and some imagination about possible solutions to those problems, she will feel that her initiative is worthwhile. Of course my noble friend will be sorry not to have been able to be here with us but she will read the masterly overview of my noble friend Lord Cledwyn with the admiration that has been so widely expressed.
I believe my noble friend will also feel that the noble Lord, Lord Kenilworth, made a quite outstanding contribution in his maiden speech when he talked about the need for recycling paper. I recall that it must be 10 years since my own borough of Haringey stopped having a cart pulled behind the rubbish trucks to collect the paper separately. I still endeavour to keep paper separate, even though I know it is going into the same container, because I feel it is important that paper should be recycled. I very much regret that the borough found that it was not economically justifiable to continue to keep paper separate and available for recycling. However, if we look at the amount of paper that comes out of the Palace of Westminster, that at least must justify some separate efforts for recycling. Perhaps, in his reply, the Minister can give special consideration to that point.
The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, referred to the change in attitude that has taken place over the past 10 years. I acknowledge that; I agree with her. However, it is not the same thing to say that there has been a change in attitude and then go on to say that
1156
there has been a significant change in action by this Government or by governments throughout the world. The press and the media generally seem to think that because greater attention is being given to environmental problems there is somehow a difference in public policy between the had old days and the days we are now living through.
In the bad old days, it is generally accepted, governments did not believe scientists when they said that there were environmental dangers in the chemicals that we use, in the food that we eat, in the air that we breathe and in the water that flows through and around our countryside. In the bad old days British governments—and I am speaking particularly of this Government—have been notorious for opposing EC regulations to control pollution in most of the spheres in which the European Commission has attempted to intervene.
In the bad old days—perhaps we can define those days precisely as the days before 27th September 1988 when Mrs. Thatcher is supposed to have made such a dramatic change in environmental policy in our country—we used to cut budgets for environmental protection. Public expenditure generally was cut and expenditure by local authorities, which have many environmental responsibilities, was also cut. The budgets of the research councils and research organisations in our higher education institutions have been cut, as my noble friend Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos pointed out. The budgets of the inspectorates of pollution and other government bodies concerned with pollution have been cut.
We are to assume that that is no longer the case because somehow the Government have woken up and become a green government as well as a blue government. My noble friend Lord Mason gave eloquent expression to the despair in the coalfield communities at the continuing pollution from opencast coal mining. He reminded us of the work of the Flowers Committee which enunciated so clearly the "polluter pays" principle and pointed out that even in 1981, when the committee reported, the burden of coalfield pollution on local authorities, who were not the right people to be taking up that burden, was substantial indeed. I wonder whether there have been the changes that the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, envisaged. Certainly the speech of my noble friend Lord Mason does not give the impression that those changes have taken place.
The speech of Mrs. Thatcher to the Royal Society was a remarkable speech. I think we must all agree on that. It contained a better scientific analysis of the major issues in pollution than has come from any politician, certainly any Prime Minister, in this country for many years. After all, Mrs. Thatcher is a scientist, although she would be right in claiming that she is a better politician than she is a scientist. Her speech contained a scientific analysis of the problems of the ozone layer. the greenhouse effect and a number of other issues, for which we must all be grateful. She stated in her speech that there is an inter-dependence between the health of the economy and the health of the environment—a statement with which I strongly agree and which I hope to pursue further in looking at the history of politics and the environment since 27th September.

1157
The right honourable lady spoke about the need for sustainable economic development in a way that encouraged me to think that by "sustainable" she meant not only in economic but also in environmental terms. It was, I repeat, a remarkable speech and one which ought to be used as the criterion by which we judge public policy on the environment and on pollution from that time onwards.
Now we must turn to what has actually happened since 27th September 1988. We have had a very effective propaganda campaign led by the Department of the Environment. The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, has made some outstanding speeches on pollution and on the environment with a conviction that is patent in all that we know of him and read in his speeches. Some of his colleagues in the department have made speeches which read equally well hut, one suspects, the conviction is less wholehearted. The Department of the Environment has been named as the lead department on the environment. Nobody could be better suited to take the lead within the lead department than the noble Earl.
However, let us look at the other departments which are supposed to he led by the Department of the Environment and at the policies they are continuing to adopt. Let us consider whether there really are the signs of improvement that there should be. A number of noble Lords have referred to the continuing failure of the Department of Transport to do anything effective about lead in petrol. As has been said, the United States and Canada have successfully controlled lead in petrol for many years now and several European countries are doing substantially better than us. We need not go so far as the noble Viscount. Lord St. Davids, in suggesting that the internal combustion engine should be phased out, but certainly the department could be making much faster progress with the control of pollution and transport. That applies to public transport policy as well as to the internal combustion engine. If the noble Earl is in charge of the lead department I hope that he will be making stronger representations than have been made so far to the Secretary of State for Transport for that department's co-operation in the campaign.
The Ministry of Agriculture is another notorious backslider on environmental matters. The Ministry was still seeking as late as November 1988 not just to continue existing derogations from European Community regulations about maximum acceptable concentrations of chemicals in our water but actually to have the pesticide parameters, as they call them, reviewed. By that the Ministry mean reviewed downwards —and that is after Mrs. Thatcher's statement that attempts are being made to weaken European legislation.
We have referred to the coalfields but it is pertinent to ask what steps the Department of Energy is currently taking—not conferences held, not proposals being made, but steps actually being taken—to allocate money to provide the scrubbers in our coal-fired power stations which will deal positively with the problem of acid rain. It is no good
1158
having vague policies for the future. It is no good having speeches or determinations about what we might do. We must see that money is allocated for that purpose. And that has not happened.
I am not sure that I agree with the noble Earl. Lord Cranbrook, or the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, about the need for a super departmental commission. My experience is that Whitehall would set its fangs into such an organisation with such effect that it would not be as good as the lead department policy which the Government have adopted. Nevertheless, it is clearly necessary that something more must be done if the Prime Minister's wishes on these matters are to be put into action.
In his opening speech the noble Earl had the opportunity to say what positive new actions are being proposed. We did not hear very much. We had a statement as regards the fact that we arc 10 years in advance in the control of CFCs and the announcement on more than one occasion of the London conference in March this year to be attended by the Prime Minister. We are grateful for both of those facts; but it is not exactly a range of policies dealing with environmental pollution, is it?
The prospects for real conversion of government as opposed to a speech from the Prime Minister are not good. My noble friend Lord Cledwyn referred to Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution. The problems have got worse because there have been more resignations, and one more resignation in particular since the Royal Society speech; namely, that of the chief inspector. My noble friend Lord Blease drew attention to the problems of the understating of the environmental health departments of local authorities. There is no sign that that situation is getting any better. My noble friend Lord Stoddart spoke about energy conservation and the need for more imaginative policies in that area. I see no sign of them.
My noble friend Lady White referred to the EC regulations and the work of Stanley Clinton Davis who was the commissioner on the environment. I remind the House that it was he who spent most of the last two years of his term of office complaining that the British Government in particular were dragging their feet over support for regulations and the implementation of them. He went so far as to say that as regards water quality, they were actually breaking the law and the EC regulations, apparently with impunity. My noble friend Lord Cledwyn referred to research budgets. There is continuing evidence that such budgets are still being cut and there is no improvement available in that area.
The Water Bill is being claimed as a debating gesture as if it were an environmental improvement. In fact there are very many ways in which the Water Bill, as it is at the moment at the Committee stage in another place, is seriously defective in environmental terms. I do not wish to anticipate either the form in which we shall receive the Bill later this Session or the arguments that will he used. I ask the Minister one question only of the four or five that I could have asked. Section I of the Water Act 1973 proclaims a general duty on the Secretary of State to promote a

1159
national policy for water which is to include the conservation of water resources and the restoration and maintenance of the wholesomeness of rivers and other inland water. That is a statutory obligation on the Secretary of State.
That statutory obligation is removed by the Water Bill now before another place. In place of it there is the National Rivers Authority which has comparable objectives. We listened with interest to what the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, said about it. I accept his sincerity and also that of the Government in trying to give it a proper range of responsibilities. But those are in accordance with standards and objectives set by the Secretary of State from time to time. In other words, the general duty to protect our water moves from being statutory to being non-statutory. If that is an environmental Bill—I choose this as only one example—then I believe that the Government have a good deal more explaining to do when the Bill comes before your Lordships' House.
If this debate had been taking place in Germany at the present time—I am thinking particularly of the recent conferences of the Social Democratic Party (I mean the real Social Democratic Party)—I believe that there would be astonishment, not that we are not concerned with the individual issues (because we are) but because we are so ignorant of the implications of environmental policy for wider economic and taxation policy. My noble friend Lady David referred to the ways in which the Netherlands Government use taxation policy to promote environmental issues.
We are barely making a start on that. Yet it is right that we should be dealing with planning controls; it is right that we should be reaffirming the polluter-based principles; it is right that we should be having legislation. We should also he devoting a substantial part of our budgetary and economic considerations to the issues of the environment. It is not obvious to me at any rate that, in the free market economy proclaimed by the Government, the health of the economy is the same as the health of the environment. The minimalist philosophy that this Government have of government intervention in the economy is simply not good enough in environmental terms. One of the advantages of this debate has been that it has pointed out the gravity of the issues facing this country and our Government.
7.45 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, from my point of view this has been more than just an interesting debate. I am extremely grateful to all of your Lordships who have taken part in it. I know that some noble Lords have felt the constraints of time in trying to get across their points. As I said before, I am sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, could not be present. I hope she finds that we have covered between us everything that she would have wished to have been said.
Contrary to what the noble Baroness, Lady White, indicated. environmental protection is not a new concern. Since the second half of the 19th century we have been taking steps to control and reduce the
1160
polluting effects of industry. Pollution systems have been developed and strengthened during the passage of the present century and now cover many different aspects of the environment. As the problems of pollution change and our understanding of them grows, more stringent controls may be needed to be introduced and the control systems themselves changed.
We have been embarked for some years on a quite unprecedented programme of investment, initiatives and reform in every aspect of environmental protection. I mentioned many of these in my opening speech. Perhaps I may cover some problem areas that have been raised during the course of this debate. though I know now that I cannot possibly cover all the points that your Lordships raised.
The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, and the noble Baroness, Lady David, referred to the United Kingdom's beaches. The noble Lord noted that some action had been taken against the failures to comply with the EC bathing waters directive. I must rebut his first allegation that our beaches are the dirtiest in Europe. No member state fully complies with the directive and the United Kingdom is very far from being the worst culprit. Moreover, the United Kingdom is the only member state with a clear programme for bringing its waters into compliance.
While it is true that complaints have been received from the European Commission as regards several bathing waters, we have furnished the Commission with detailed responses setting out the acts that have been taken to ensure compliance. As regards action by the EC concerning drinking water, the Government announced last year certain changes in the interpretation of the directive and these have so far satisfied the Commission.
Perhaps I may spend one minute talking about Europe because so much of our law now comes from there. I believe that close to 200 European directives affect this country. For some years we did have great difficulty with two European directives; namely, the large combustion plant directive and Phase 2 of Luxembourg; that is the vehicle directive. Both of those matters were resolved at the June Council and the situation as regards cars was confirmed in the November Council.
At the November Council I know of no situation where the United Kingdom solely blocked a directive. It was very much in the lead blocking one draft directive. I had some support, but not much, as regards the draft incinerator directive. I blocked it for one very good reason: namely, that it was not tight enough. It was ironical that, though some countries had been pressing us so hard on the large combustion plants, when it came to something like the incinerator directive they found that they wanted much less strict standards than we could achieve today with present technology. That was quite a revelation both for them and for the Commissioner. We are keen when we sign any directive to make sure that we can implement it. Therefore we shall continue to fight our corner most vigorously if the directive is not based on methods available to us.

1161
In an interesting and detailed speech my noble friend Lord Crickhowell expressed concern about the performance of sewage treatment works and in particular about the way in which performance is measured and assessed. He referred to the look-up table used to assess whether a series of samples complies with consent limits. We are aware of his committee's views on this matter and are in regular correspondence with it. It is quite right for the advisory committee to question the merits of the current system of consent-setting and compliance assessments which it will inherit. We welcome its views. I hope that the noble Lords, Lord Addington and Lord Hatch of Lusby, will take note of what my noble friend said. Perhaps the noble Lords will read it.
We are very much committed to improving performance as quickly as possible by major capital investment, not by moving the goal posts. The record of what has happened on the capital investment side shows that this is exactly where we wish to go. What was interesting was the solid support throughout the Chamber from those concerned with the matter for the need to separate the role of the producer and the regulator. We believe this to be fundamental to being able to tighten up standards. That is what the NRA will be able to do.
I very much agree with the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, about the potential and importance of combined heat and power. He has a very good point especially in relation to energy efficiency. We have provided strong support and encouragement for the development and application of economic combined heat and power technology. The Energy Efficiency Office has supported 25 projects featuring combined heat and power plant and has provided substantial funding of studies into the feasibility of district heating. Perhaps I may draw the noble Lord's attention to the Leicestershire scheme as an example. Privatisation of the electricity industry will provide growing opportunities for private generation including combined heat and power. Our aim is to ensure that all economic sources of electricity supply have fair access to the market. Independent generators will be able to compete on an equal footing with the two major generating companies being created from the CEGB.
While I am dealing with energy perhaps I may draw the House's attention to a statement we made at the Climate Change and Sustainable Development Conference in Toronto in June of last year. We said that in areas of energy, cost-effective measures to promote energy efficiency must be encouraged and emphasis must be placed on realistic energy pricing reflecting the true cost, including any environmental cost to the customers. Already there are signs that our policies are incorporating the environment considerations, as all noble Lords want.
The funding of research was referred to by the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition. He spoke of cutbacks in the funding and staff of the Natural Environment Research Council. I fear that the noble Lord may have his figures wrong on this occasion. In fact government grant in aid to NERC has increased
1162
by more than 30 per cent. since 1979 in real terms. In 1978–79 it was £60.3 million. In 1989–90 it will be £95.6 million. Reductions in particular projects and redundancies reflect changes in priorities made by the management of NERC itself and the ability of the council to win research commissions, not the level of government grants. NERC is competing with other groups wishing to undertake research. The noble Lord also referred to the small reduction in the funding of the NCC this year. The House will he aware that we have increased in real terms the funding for NCC by 150 per cent.; from under £8 million when we took office to more than £40 million next year.
The noble Lords, Lord Henderson and Lord Moran, and the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, raised the important question of world population. The Government accept the significance of population growth on the health of the world environment and the Prime Minister has drawn attention to this matter. There are obvious limits to the role the United Kingdom can play in this sensitive field. But the ODA is giving greater priority to support for primary health care facilities with special emphasis on mother and child health and family planning. The graph is relatively steady and then curves steeply. If noble Lords look at the graphs on desertification and on loss of topsoil, they will see what a major problem the world has.
The noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, spoke eloquently about the links between environmental factors and health. He said that toxicology is an uncertain science and that the Government should not insist on absolute scientific proof before taking action on environmental controls. The Government are committed to taking a precautionary approach wherever the evidence shows that it is required. I shall be saying more on the specific instance of CFCs in respect of which the scientific evidence was limited when we took our first precautionary action in 1980. My noble friend Lord Colwyn also drew attention to the link between environmental factors and health. As I felt way out of my depth in trying to compete with him, perhaps the best thing I can do is to draw the matter to the attention of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health.
My noble friend Lord Kenilworth made an excellent maiden speech about the necessity to reduce litter and to recycle more waste. We pursue such a policy and I am sure that it will come about as the cost of landfill increases and as we introduce national standards more effectively. That will create better opportunities for recycling. Perhaps my noble friend would like to know that just over half the annual tonnage of paper produced by United Kingdom mills is derived from recycled material—4£2 million tonnes of which 2£2 million tonnes is recycled material. A further 400,000 tonnes of recycled paper is exported. The demand for waste by mills is increasing. The DTI will be holding seminars in March and April aimed at increasing the collection of waste paper. In regard to other areas, 65 per cent. to 70 per cent. of our lead is derived from scrap, a higher percentage than the United States, Japan or our European partners. Some 30 per cent. to 40 per cent. of our copper and 33 per cent. of our tin is derived in this way.

1163
My noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy asked about safeguards in the international trade of toxic waste. I totally agree with him. We are at one in trying to make sure that we have the right safeguards. It is important that hazardous waste should be allowed to move from country to country, because one cannot expect one country to have all the necessary facilities. It would be quite inappropriate for Luxembourg to have the necessary facilities. But there must be strict regulation, strict notice and consignment notes to go with it so that it is disposed of in the most environmentally beneficial way. I fear that my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy was for once wrong on a point of detail when he mentioned seals. The disease is caused by a natural virus related to the canine distemper virus. There is no evidence to link the present epidemic to pollution.
I should like to return to the subject of waste because it brings in points made by the noble Lords, Lord St. John of Bletso and Lord McIntosh of Haringey. HMIP is not the inspector of non-hazardous waste sites. That is the responsibility of the local authority. As your Lordships will be aware, we confirmed this last week in our latest consultation paper to strengthen the powers of the local authority and to make sure that in HMIP national standards arc applied. That is why we have relatively few inspectors. They are not there to inspect every tip. That is the job of the local authority. The inspectors are there to audit the local authority's work.
The noble Lord, Lord Ritchie of Dundee, and the noble Baroness, Lady David, spoke of the importance of' environmental education and welcomed the recent HMI report. I wholly agree with them. Perhaps I may say just how envious I am of my children with the television and school videos which they now have on environmental matters. I wish to goodness that I had had them in my day, rather than having to learn it out of a textbook in a somewhat dry fashion.
My noble friends Lord Cranbrook and Lord Craigton and the noble Lord, Lord Moran, proposed the establishment of a new national environment protection commission or conservation commission and executive to operate in parallel to the Health and Safety Commission and Executive to protect the natural environment or expand the role of the HSC.
Lord Craigton: My Lords, I must point out that I did not propose that; I proposed that the safety commission should have the power to do the job.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I apologise for misrepresenting what my noble friend said, but I think that the point was that there should be a body with an expanded role similar to that of the HSC—if I may put it that way—to control pollutants affecting both man and the environment. My noble friend Lord Cranbrook said that he wanted to include such areas as the NRA. At present the Health and Safety Commission has 3,457 staff and one part-timer. The NRA itself, let alone the N RC, will have 6,500 staff when established. Therefore the establishment which
1164
my noble friend wishes to set up will be quite a large one. However, the points raised are important and they raise fundamental questions which we shall need to consider carefully. But, as your Lordships are aware, significant developments are in hand on the role and structure of our pollution control system involving quite large degrees of integration. I shall certainly raise the matter with my right honourable friend the Secretary of State.
Perhaps I may say at this point that I always make a point of talking to all my fellow Ministers to ensure that there is proper co-ordination when we are discussing environmental matters.
There is one point which my noble friend did not exemplify and that is how one settles the continually contradicting advice one receives from one's scientific advisers. That is a matter which would have to be settled. Indeed, the new body would have to face exactly the same problems as we all have to face now.
I turn now to the subject of lead in petrol. The matter was well aired, and rightly so, because it is a most important area. The noble Lords, Lord Blease and Lord McIntosh of Haringey, and my noble friend Lord Reay were concerned about the matter. I hope that none of your Lordships will be driving cars which use leaded petrol in the near future and that noble Lords will set an example in this connection. There are now about 3,000 such petrol stations available and with your Lordships' lead, I hope that the take-up—although it has doubled this year—will be distinctly greater in the future. There is of course the 10·6p differential in favour of unleaded petrol available at present so it is also economically beneficial.
The noble Lord, Lord Mason of Barnsley, raised the question of open-cast coal. It is one of the cheapest forms of energy available to this country so it is of national interest and he was right to raise the matter. Last May my department advised the Minerals Planning Authority on the balance which needs to be struck between the benefits of developing this source of low-cost energy and the protection of the environment.
I should like to say a brief word here about CFCs. As I said earlier, we did adopt a precautionary approach back in 1980. In 1987, when we signed the Montreal Protocol agreeing to cut consumption of CFCs by 50 per cent. by the end of the century, the evidence was still not clear. However, as your Lordships are aware we will now meet that cut by the end of this year. Further, I hope that our conference in March will bring many third world countries on to our side and that they will sign the protocol and subsequently ratify it. It has a built-in clause for it to be revised in 1990 and obviously the latest scientific evidence will he taken into account at that time.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, raised the important matter of acid rain. I shall deal in a moment with costs in that connection. However, think it is wise to point out that in such matters as acid rain and vehicle emissions, which some of your Lordships raised, the problem is not quite as simple as one might think. Although one obviously wants to cut down on the amount of sulphur dioxide and

1165
nitrogen oxide coming out of power stations, if one is going to use gas desulphurisation it requires limestone. Limestone must come from somewhere and it has to be taken to a new plant —which is quite a substantial plant as the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, will know from his experience. Moreover, when the limestone has been transported. if there is a residue there it is either gypsum or sulphuric acid which must be disposed of. Of course one then gets less efficiency and so there will be a small increase in the amount of carbon which is sent up into the atmosphere. Similarly, in order to reach the American standards, we would have to use three-way catalysts. No car could then use petrol which contained lead. But, of course, cars which are on three-way catalysts put about 10 per cent. to 12 per cent. more carbon into the atmosphere, and that is a greenhouse gas which is of a very global concern.
Many of your Lordships want action but only the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, and my noble friend Lord Reay mentioned the costs involved. I fear that to ignore that vital element leads to hope rather than action. In the year 1988–89 total government spending on environmental protection was around £210 million. That sum represents a substantial commitment. The Government follow the principle of "the polluter pays". Therefore the direct expenditure of the Government on environmental protection is largely confined to the cost of the salaries of the policymakers and central pollution control authorities in the environmental research which the Government commission.
The indirect costs of the Government's pollution controls are substantial. Perhaps I may just mention a few of them. We shall be approximately doubling the existing £1 billion programme to reduce pollution from power stations. It will be a £1,000 million programme for improving sewage treatment and disposal works over the next four years. There will he £70 million each year to improve our coastal bathing waters and we are discussing a substantial acceleration of that programme to bring all the beaches up to Community standard by 1995. That is an estimated total cost of another £1 billion. There will also be £850 million per annum added to the United Kingdom annual motoring costs by the imposition of tighter vehicle emission standards. All those costs must be passed on to the consumer.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, perhaps I may interject here with a question. The Minister said a moment ago that the Government follow the principle of "the polluter pays". However, his last sentence ended with the words:
"all those costs must he passed on to the consumer".
How does he reconcile those two statements?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, it is quite simple. We are doing what every other government have done. The costs of the industry will be passed on; it is either done by national taxation, or it is passed on to the consumer.
Finally, as so often happens when discussing such topics, the debate has been informed by the
1166
knowledge and experience of your Lordships. It would indeed be foolish to be complacent when so many threats face our environment both in this country and throughout the world. We must resist the temptation to rush towards simple nostrums and glib solutions. The problems are both far too serious and complex for that. We need sound policies based on sound science. There is nothing new in the Government's view about the environment. I hope that I have demonstrated the main actions we are taking. I know that your Lordships will continue to look critically at what we do. I am glad of that, because no less than the future of the world is at stake.
8.9 p.m.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords. because of the hour and the important business to follow, I shall be brief, although I should like to take issue with the noble Earl on the way he discussed the figures which I gave. Those figures came from very reliable sources. However, I promise the noble Earl that I shall study what he said very carefully. What he cannot do, although he contradicts the figures, is to contradict what the secretary, the retiring chairman and the chairman of the NERC said about the Government's funding of the work of the council.
Having said that, I should like to thank noble Lords and the two noble Baronesses throughout the House for the contributions which they made. It is clear that this is a subject which stirs the conscience and the imagination of Members of this House and I have no doubt whatever that we shall come back to the subject many times in the future.
I am most grateful to the noble Earl for explaining government policy to us, and I should especially like to congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Shrewsbury, upon a splendid maiden speech.
Noble Lords: It was Lord Kenilworth!
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, in that case, I apologise to both of them. Indeed, the noble Earl also made a splendid speech. However, I was referring to the noble Lord, Lord Kenilworth, and we look forward to hearing from him again in the future. My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) Order 1989
8.10 p.m.
The Earl of Dundee The Earl of Dundee rose to move, That the order laid before the House on 6th January be approved [5th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the Government strategy for protecting the public from the risk of eating sheep meat contaminated by radioactivity from the Chernobyl fallout is well known to your

1167
Lordships. That has been done by slaughtering sheep and monitoring the movements of sheep in and from the restricted areas through a series of paint colours used in rotation. I shall therefore, with your Lordships' agreement, limit myself to describing the changes to be brought about by the order.
It consolidates the Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) Order 1988 and its amendments into one order for ease of reference. The only alterations made are to remove the movement and slaughter restrictions on sheep painted green and to change from blue to apricot the normal colour with which sheep which have not passed the monitoring test are marked when they move from the restricted areas.
Consequentially, it also provides for slaughter restrictions on sheep painted red, blue or apricot until any sheep so marked has passed a remonitoring test. I commend the order to the House.
Moved, That the order laid before the House on 6th January be approved [5th Report from the Joint Committee].—(The Earl of Dundee.)
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, we thank the noble Earl for explaining as briefly and as succinctly as he has the purpose of the order. We do well to remind ourselves on this occasion of consolidation that the Chernobyl incident is now almost three years old and that we still, as a result, rightly have to engage in protection for the consumer which involves restrictions and limitations, by the use of this wonderful array of colours, on the movement of our sheep.
Will the Minister tell us whether he is satisfied that where exemptions are given observance of them is being monitored, because, bearing in mind some of the wide geographical areas to which the order refers, especially in the case of Scotland, there may be a temptation for movements to take place which should not take place?
Lastly, in view of the time factor which has emerged since the Chernobyl incident, are Her Majesty's Government in contact with the Government of the USSR about compensation for the disaster? We in Britain are eminently entitled and qualified to receive in full measure compensation for an accident which perhaps had to take place. The Soviet Government have a duty to compensate us and other nations which may have suffered similarly.
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving his support for the measure. On the question of how well the exemptions have been monitored, I can assure him that a great deal of trouble is being taken to look at all areas, whether or not exempted. I cannot give the noble Lord any information about possible compensation from the USSR. I shall certainly see what the position is and let him know.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

The Infirm Elderly: Care in the Community
8.14 p.m.
Baroness Cox Baroness Cox rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what measures are being taken to ensure satisfactory standards of care for the infirm elderly in the community.
The noble Baroness said: I am grateful to have the opportunity to discuss the care of the elderly in the community because a number of issues need urgent attention. I am most grateful to all in your Lordships' House who will be contributing to the debate.
In opening the debate I wish to do three things. First, I wish to highlight the growing scale and scope of the problem of providing adequately for elderly people who need some form of care; secondly, I shall point to current discrepancies between need and provision, discrepancies which will increase in the years ahead unless realistic measures are taken now; and, thirdly, I ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they are taking to remedy present problems and to forestall unnecessary suffering in the future.
First, there is the vast scale of the challenge. It is a matter for rejoicing that thanks to improvements in the standard of living and health care many more people now live so much longer. However, the demographic trend, which will have implications for the provision of care, is a change in balance between the relatively young, fit and indeed spritely elderly and those who may be termed the elderly, who are inevitably more prone to infirmity. According to Social Trends, although the total number of people over retirement age in Britain will remain at about 9.5 million up to the end of the century, the balance between the younger and more active element and the older more infirm group will change considerably. The numbers of those 75 and over, for instance, will increase by 21 per cent. between 1989 and the end of the century, while those who are between retirement age and 75 will decrease by 11 per cent. during the same period.
As the numbers over 75 and, particularly, over 85 increase dramatically. so does the rate of dependency. There will be a sharp increase in those with physical infirmities and those suffering from failing mental capacities. For example, among those over 75, 21 per cent. suffer from various forms of dementia requiring 24-hour nursing care. A simple extrapolation shows that there will be between 80,000 and 100,000 more elderly people suffering from dementia by the turn of the century as well as those requiring other forms of care.
Before turning to care in the community, it is important to remind ourselves that now almost half the acute beds in hospitals are filled by people over the age of 60. One concern arising from the White Paper on the National Health Service is the extent to which hospitals which may choose to opt out of the district health authorities may be subject to such financial pressure that they will prefer income-generating patients to less remunerative longer-stay patients such as the elderly.
I therefore ask my noble friend what steps the Government will be taking to ensure adequate

1169
provision in hospitals for elderly persons needing care and what measures will be taken to avoid premature discharge into the community, especially while there is a shortfall of provision there. Community care provisions are already often inadequate in quantity and quality. Looking ahead, the Royal College of Nursing estimates that there will need to be an extra 10,000 residential and nursing home places opened every year for the foreseeable future to cope with increasing need. That assumption is based on the extrapolation that only 4 per cent. of our elderly will need such care. That percentage is lower than that in any other comparable country and is therefore probably an underestimate.
Conversely, the rate of growth of such provision has already begun to slow down. In 1985–86, 14,000 new places were opened, but in 1986–87 those opened dropped to about half that number, and so my second question to my noble friend is: what provision will the Government make to ensure that enough places will be available outside hospitals for the care of the highly dependent elderly with either serious physical or mental problems? With the steady closure of large-scale long-stay institutions, where will such people be cared for with appropriate staff and facilities? Already, as I have pointed out, the acute hospital sector cares for many. While they are acutely ill, that is appropriate, but many others have to remain in hospital in an inappropriate setting for long-term care because of a shortfall of alternative provision.
That leads directly into questions concerning community care. While the ideals are commendable, the reality is often very different. The community can be a lonely place and many people suffer from social isolation and physical neglect. Therefore, as a framework for further specific questions I should like to raise three interrelated issues: first, the need for more carers, more support for those carers and appropriate education for them, and, secondly, the need for more facilities to meet the varying needs of the elderly and the families and friends who care for them.
Thirdly, there is the question of the organisation and administration of services and staff. Given the increase in the number of infirm and/or confused elderly in the years ahead, we know that more people will be needed to care for them. Many will be providing care alongside other family and occupational commitments. The great majority are likely to be women.
In 1972 Professor Pinker highlighted some of their problems:
"The fact is that the theory of community care was never based on any substantial body of evidence regarding the capacity and the willingness of ordinary citizens to play a major and continuing support role in the care of their sick or dependent relatives … Under the aegis of community care we may now be about to embark on another version of the domestic system, in which the bulk of hard, day-to-day support and care will be undertaken by women in their domestic lives, usually after a day's paid work in other occupations",
and often alongside other family commitments. Experience is proving Professor Pinker's prescient anxieties well founded.
Moreover, in addition to family responsibilities many people—sometimes themselves elderly —are
1170
having to look after infirm or confused elderly neighbours. I know, for example, one elderly lady—herself well into her eighties—was driven nearly to distraction by her elderly neighbour who was tragically demented. She used to walk down the street in her night clothes on dark winter nights, leaving saucepans boiling dry on her cooker. She could not be admitted to residential care because no places were available. That is not an isolated example. Professional colleagues know of many similar tragedies because of a shortfall of residential care.
There is therefore already an urgent need for more carers and for more practical support such as more back-up laundry facilities for elderly people who are incontinent; more twilight nursing services to help with the demands of evening and bedtime care: more help with the physical aspects of care, such as lifting and bathing elderly people with mobility problems, some of whom may be partially paralysed, very heavy and very difficult to move with dignity and without risk of bad injury for the carer. There is an urgent need for more clinical help as back-up, such as chiropody services; more help with transport. Many elderly people are virtually imprisoned at home because of a lack of appropriate transport. A final example is the need for more direct help in the home such as meals on wheels, which at the moment are not available at weekends. Therefore the third question for my noble friend is: what policies do the Government have in mind to alleviate the practical problems already being experienced by many cares?
My fourth question also concerns carers. Do the Government have any plans to provide carers with more financial support? At present many provide care at great personal and financial cost. Will the Government consider reimbursing them so that they are not unfairly exploited?
My fifth question concerns respite facilities. Many people willingly and gladly care for those whom they love. But because such care is often very demanding, they need some respite. Often this is provided in the form of admission of the elderly person to residential care while the carer takes a holiday. So far so good. But much more needs to be done. For example, day centres which are often very helpful during weekdays remain unused at weekends when they could give much needed respite to carers. Or they could also be used for night care. One enlightened place which I think is the first in Europe is the Crest Hospital in West Lambeth. That offers an excellent service at night for elderly people. They come in at suppertime and can go to sleep if they wish to. Or if they prefer to remain active, they can stay up with staff to keep them company. They can go home after breakfast. This is a particularly valuable form of care, as it is often broken nights which families find most exhausting when caring for elderly relatives.
Such an arrangement gives the elderly person security at night and the family a good night's sleep. It also makes maximum use of the capital assets of the centre, which is used 24 hours, around the clock, instead of lying idle for half the time. That is a path breaker; it is the first in Europe and we hope to see such facilities developed. Another helpful

1171
development would be more readily accessible clinics, either geographically, in the form of travelling clinics, or in terms of time, being open at weekends when working people can take their elderly relatives without having to take time off work.
A final point concerning carers is that many people who find themselves caring for the elderly have had no training for this demanding role. Given the physical and psychological competence needed to provide appropriate care, some educational support would be invaluable, such as the excellent course by the Open College, called "The Carers". My next question is to ask the Government whether they would consider offering financial support to carers to enable them to take a course such as this, which would enhance the care they provide, might help them personally and, if we are thinking of groups such as community service volunteers, might help them vocationally, as it brings with it a City and Guilds qualification.
Clearly all these provisions require resources. Sir Roy Griffiths acknowledged in his report that most of the submissions he received indicated that:
"care in the community is not a cheap option".
My next question is therefore to ask my noble friend whether the Government will take account of the extra costs which must he incurred if community care is to be adequate and humane?
This leads to my final theme: the organisation and administration of community care. While agreeing that it is most unsatisfactory for responsibility for community care to remain fragmented, I must draw the attention of my noble friend to widespread concern among health professionals over the proposals in the Griffiths Report that the social services departments should carry the primary responsibility and be the gatekeepers for the organisation of community care. That concern is based on anxiety that social workers lack appropriate clinical knowledge to assess the physical and psychiatric needs of infirm elderly people who may also he suffering from dementia. I am not lacking in appreciation of much of the excellent work done by many dedicated social workers, but their training does not give them clinical diagnostic skills necessary for preventive and prophylactic care, to enable them to discover incipient problems before they become acute.
The condition of the frail elderly can deteriorate very rapidly. Regular visits by trained health professionals can be invaluable in detecting clinical clues in time for remedial action to be taken before their condition deteriorates. Social workers are not trained for this and are therefore not equipped to be the first point of contact or the gatekeeper of care, as envisaged by the Griffiths Report.
Finally, there is deep concern over the ability of some local authorities to provide sufficiently high and consistent standards of care. While some do a very good job, the track record of others makes it doubtful whether they would be the best agencies to provide care for such immensely vulnerable groups as the elderly. Organisations representing the health
1172
professions, such as the Royal College of Nursing, believe that the right way forward would be not to follow those recommendations of the Griffiths Report, but instead to invest responsibility in a multidisciplinary primary health care team, including all the professionals involved with community care —GPs, community nursing staff and social workers. Examples of such good practice already exist, as in the Oxford District Health Authority.
A further point is that health authorities should maintain comprehensive registers by age. They allow effective monitoring and preventive care. Social services do not have that facility and must therefore wait for problems to present themselves rather than taking preventive measures.
I conclude by asking my noble friend two remaining questions. First, can he give an assurance that serious consideration will be given to the concerns of many in the health professions that local authorities are not appropriate as the primary agents with responsibility for community care? Secondly. will the Government consider the possibility of establishing an inspectorate to monitor and assess the quality of care provided in the community? This could be similar to the DES inspectorate and would be especially desirable, given the inherent vulnerability of people now being cared for in the community. Also, could such inspection include three-bedded homes, currently immune from any inspection? In this connection, will the Government realise the importance of such inspection being undertaken by people with clinical competence?
I finish by saying, as I have said on previous occasions, that a society can be judged by the quality of care it provides for its most vulnerable citizens. That judgment applies to individual citizens as carers and also to government. Many citizens are already setting a magnificent example in the way they are caring for elderly relatives and neighbours. Many health care professionals and social workers are also carrying out their responsibilities with great dedication, sensitivity and imagination. It is now essential that the Government develop a policy and provide resources which enable those who care to continue to do so to the highest possible standards and to meet the growing challenges ahead with all the necessary support and facilities to ensure that our elderly citizens in need of care can enjoy the best possible quality of life, with self-respect and dignity, to the end of their days.
8.30 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I am sure we are all grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, for raising these vital matters in such a sympathetic way. We are also grateful for the way she put all these questions which the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, will have the pleasure of answering in about two hours from now. I am sure the noble Lord's brain works much more accurately than mine. But unless he has been given advance notice, he may have quite a task in front of him to keep up with the issues raised.
I am not sure whether the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, is better qualified than I am to discuss the infirm

1173
elderly. No one is less infirm or elderly than she is. I believe that after this debate she will go and play a game of squash. About 60 years ago I might have done that myself. On the other hand, I claim the severe advantage of being elderly, and of course, infirm. That may be more obvious to other people than it is to me.
The noble Baroness talked with deep sympathy of the infirm elderly. But, if one is among their number, one understands their problems in a different way. I think I am the only person taking part in this debate who is genuinely elderly. I do not count anyone as elderly until they are over 80 years of age. So I think I have a priority on the tee, as one might say.
I do not underestimate the qualifications of the noble Baroness for raising these matters. She has been a nurse. That is certainly more than I have been. That may be more than anyone has been who is taking part in this debate tonight. The noble Baroness is full of charming eloquence. We understand she has a unique influence with Mrs. Thatcher. That is an advantage provided it is a one-way influence and it is influence exercised by the noble Baroness on Mrs. Thatcher and not the other way round. If it were the other way round, that would he disastrous. I am afraid that Thatcherism is regarded as a deplorable phenomenon for the social services by non-Thatcherites. So the noble Baroness has advantages and disadvantages as regards discussing these matters.
We should not treat the infirm elderly as necessarily tragic figures. This morning I paid a call on the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, who was formerly Lord Chancellor in this House. He has suffered from a distressing illness for a number of years. He has not been to the House for 10 years. But there he was, looking as elegant as ever, with his charming wife beside him. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, is aged 89 and his wife is 83. So they could be called infirm elderly. The noble and learned Lord asked me to send a message of good will to the House tonight. I am sure that would be reciprocated. The noble and learned Lord is a lovely example of serenity and dignity in old age.
I have been visiting a great friend in hospital during recent weeks. He is over 80 years old. He is getting on very well and will soon be out of hospital. Like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, he will be well looked after. So it is possible to be infirm and old but to be well looked after, to be happy and to lead a good life. But the people who are in our minds tonight are not in those comfortable circumstances. I have been in touch, as others may have been, with that splendid organisation Age Concern. There is no organisation in this country which does as much for the old as that one. I have some notes from Age Concern, and some of the points that are raised are similar to those made by the noble Baroness, Lady Cox. The idea of an inspector, for example, is mentioned by Age Concern. The organisation states:
"we have campaigned for many years for the introduction of some form of independent inspectorate for all locally provided services, closely linked with a well-publicised and carefully defined complaints procedure."
I am sure that suggestion from Age Concern has the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Cox.
1174
Generally speaking, Age Concern shares the desire of the noble Baroness to see services much better integrated. That rather horrible word "multidisciplinary" comes into all these discussions. Age Concern supports the noble Baroness in that regard. I am not quite sure whether the noble Baroness agrees with Age Concern in desiring to see a radical reform of the law. It considers there should be a new statutory duty placed on local authorities. I do not know whether the noble Baroness agrees with that. But that is one of the organisation's ideas.
I shall deal with just one aspect of the points that Age Concern has placed before me. As I said, I have been visiting a hospital quite often recently to see elderly people. One thinks about those elderly people who will not have a good time and who will not be looked after when they leave hospital. I think of them particularly tonight. Age Concern states that if those old people cannot find care for themselves, they must hope to find a residential home within social security limits. That, as I understand it, is the crucial point in the minds of those who are most concerned with the elderly. Age Concern thinks that the limits must be raised if it is going to be possible for old people, when they leave hospital, to find some kind of residence within their pocket. That means more money.
I am sorry if I have to speak in what may sound to the noble Baroness a party way, but Thatcherism is no use in this connection. Thatcherism means less money. We are told that the point of the new health reforms is that we are going to save money and somehow or other improve the condition of patients. Whether we are thinking of the infirm elderly or just the elderly, in my opinion we cannot save money at their expense. The social security limits will have to be raised. By and large, we cannot help these people on the cheap. I say that bluntly to the noble Baroness, Lady Cox.
8.37 p.m.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I shall be brief as many of the points I intended to make have already been covered by the noble Baroness, Lady Cox. I found myself in agreement with most, although not all, of her points. This evening I wish to speak not so much about old people themselves but about carers. I am the president of the Carers National Association. That body has recently been formed out of a merger between the National Council for Carers and their Elderly Dependents and the Carers Association. It is now undoubtedly the largest body dealing with the problems of carers for old people.
The issues are, of course, closely related. If carers are not adequately looked after, the chances of old people being properly cared for—unless they are in an institutional organisation—are very slight indeed. But it is the issue of carers to which I wish to direct your Lordships' attention.
It is reckoned that in the region of 1·7 million people are responsible for caring in this country. That is a very considerable number. Of those people, two-thirds, we are told, do not get help from anyone else. They are caring single-handed. I suppose that most of

1175
us, at some time or other, have been involved in looking after sick people. Anyone who has been disturbed night after night knows that it is not possible to go on and to maintain any kind of standard of care for people when one's sleep has been interrupted in that way.
If one is caring single-handed for an old person the burden is terrific. Old people get progressively more difficult to look after. They become more confused and, because of that, often very irrational. Something like 42 per cent. of the people doing the caring are themselves over retirement age. That places an additional burden on them because they themselves have to bear some of the problems of ageing along with the burden of the older people they are looking after.
Many people provide such care because they passionately wish to maintain the home in which those older people have lived. In so doing they are not only helping the older person who undoubtedly, in the vast majority of cases, wants to stay in his or her own home. They are also saving the state a great deal of money which would have to be spent if the old person were in an institution. It is therefore quite unreasonable to he cheese-paring in our attitude towards the needs of the carers.
People are living longer and therefore the years for which caring has to be undertaken are getting longer. If caring is to be a possibility there must be good community care. Good community care does not come cheaply. Let us not pretend that it does. At the moment, except in a few cases, community care is a mockery. It does not exist. As the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, said, carers need respite care. They need the ability to put the older person in an institution—often very much against their will. Old people are not all sweetness and light and can he extremely awkward as they get older, which increases the burden. Carers desperately need to get away from them and have a break.
It is therefore a great pity that the Government have been disposed to cut down on the number of small hospitals. If one wants good community care one must have a cottage hospital available where there can be day centres. With any luck the old person would have known that institution in the past, would be familiar with it and would know the people running it. Such local hospitals are well known and very much loved by many people. Old people would be willing to go into such hospitals for respite care for a short period to give the carers a very necessary break.
The noble Baroness, Lady Cox, made a further point which I should like to emphasise. Day care must allow the carer to continue in her work. That is highly desirable. The Carers Association has always fought for facilities to enable the carer to stay in employment and in social contact for as long as possible. Very early in the work of the association, years ago now, we asked people what their major anxiety was. We expected that it would be isolation, loneliness or their own ill-health. It was not. They asked what would happen to them when they were
1176
older because they had lost their jobs and their pensions and had used up their savings. They also suffered from isolation. It is therefore of the greatest importance that they should stay in employment for as long as they are able to do so.
Today, when the Government are anxious to get women back into employment, it is ridiculous to create circumstances in which women who have been in employment, often in very responsible jobs for which they are highly trained, have to give those up because the conditions under which they have to provide care make it impossible for them to continue their work. It should surely be a high priority to enable the carer to live as normal a life as possible. That includes the possibility to continue earning for as long as they possibly can.
There are of course other important services. Perhaps because I am a remarkably bad housekeeper myself, I have always felt that no social service is as important as the home help service. The ability to have someone to help with the cleaning up that inevitably has to be done for an elderly, often semi-senile and not very able-bodied person is of the greatest importance. Yet the Government have cut back on the home help service.
As a result of pressure a previous government paid the invalid care allowance where the carer had to give up employment—and that should be a last resort. The allowance is still only £24.75 and is paid only where someone has given up work. Someone drawing the allowance is not allowed to work for more than 12 hours. Is it not possible for the Government to look at the size of that payment? It is a very small contribution to make to people who are carrying a very heavy load, in many cases at great financial sacrifice, and who, in so doing, are saving society a great deal of money. Therefore we ask the Government to accept that there are a great many people who need to be cared for; to accept that the present provision is totally inadequate; to accept that we do not want, individuals do not want, and families do not want old people to have to go into residential institutions; and to accept that good community care is absolutely central.
I shall cross swords with the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, on one point. I should he very sorry for an argument to grow up about who should be the responsible authority. We are having difficulty enough in getting the Griffiths recommendations seriously considered. The Griffiths Report has recommended that the local authority social services department should have responsibility for community care. Of course it has to be a collaborative exercise between the people in the health service and the people in the social services. Griffiths came down in favour of the social services: I think that that is right.
The needs of old people are not only health needs. They have a variety of social needs. Once we improve their training, the social workers working with the health services, but not under them, should be in a position to see what is necessary and to call in expert help in the areas where they lack the appropriate expertise.

1177
Responsibility for this work must he in the hands of an elected local body, and that is the local authority. We talk about neighbourliness; we talk about individuals making their contribution—the good citizen that we hear about, and all that. But those things have to be organised through the ordinary democratic processes of elected authorities. Will the Government please accept that Griffiths did a great deal of work, that he got the right answers and that the problem brooks no further delay.
8.49 p.m
Lady Kinloss: My Lords, it is very timely that the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, should ask this Question about the measures being taken to ensure satisfactory standards of care for the infirm elderly in the community. I wonder whether the Minister who is to reply knows what unease, if not anxiety, there is within the community on this subject.
Already in the late 1970s and in the 1980s the pressing problems of an ageing population began to be apparent. As the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, has already said, almost half the acute beds in hospitals are filled by people over the age of 60.
One of the concerns not only of people who need support to live in the community but of their relatives is the need for home helps. Home helps are provided by social services departments, but if departments have their grants cut it means that they may have to make higher charges for the home help service to the detriment of their clients, that is, those who pay.
In many areas home help is changing to home care with staff attending to the personal needs of their clients. Thus the popular home help service which involves some cleaning and shopping is disappearing, leaving a considerable number of elderly and infirm people without essential domestic assistance. The maintenance of home help care is of the greatest importance to the elderly and so too is the meals-on-wheels service.
Does the Minister agree that health authorities and local authorities joint funding should have a special allocation for community care? That would enable them to plan in advance for their rehabilitation programmes for returning suitable elderly to their own homes?
In York the City Hospital cares for the infirm elderly. With a complete change of outlook on nursing and with rehabilitation programmes, there is a greater turnover of elderly infirm patients. With the necessary back-up support where it is available, they are able to return to their own homes. The City Hospital offers respite care for the families or carers of those elderly people. There is also a small cottage hospital in Easingwold north of York, near where I live. It is vitally important to quite a large area of the rural community. It takes patients who live at home and are cared for by their families or by a carer in order to give them a break —in fact, the respite care which in many cases is urgently needed. There appears to be more and more need for small cottage hospitals of that kind. Help the Aged find that Part III places for respite care are rare. There is obviously a great need for more respite care places.
1178
There has still not been a ministerial response to Griffiths. If there were, it would open the way to better co-ordination of care in the community. Yesterday, in answering questions on the Statement on the National Health Service, the Minister said:
"The interaction of health and social care in the field of community care needs further study. That work is well in hand and the results of the review will help to advance it further".—[Official Report, 31/1/89; col. 1010.]
In regard to community care can the Minister say that the work is well in hand? How soon will that he completed? Will it be quite soon or in the distant future? Should not there he some guidelines set down nationally on targets and standards of services for the local social services to achieve? What measures are being taken to disseminate good practice? Local authorities need to know what others are doing. I understand that York has a good record. Are the Government taking a lead in promoting good practices so that the good quality services do not depend on where one lives? Does the Minister agree that the problem is that there is no one agency with responsibility to ensure the development of adequate services for the elderly? That often leads to confusion, duplication and waste. That point was also raised in Sir Roy Griffiths' Report.
The Royal College of Nursing is increasingly of the view, which has been reinforced by the wide discrepancies in the levels of provision made by local government social services for the mentally ill, mentally handicapped and physically disabled—as shown in the report of the Audit Commission—that a national service must be established under a Minister. Does the Minister agree that some form of co-ordination nationwide is what is needed?
The Family Policy Study Centre feels that the way ahead has to be clarified and responsibilities specified both centrally and locally. Without such a response both health authorities and local authorities face a planning plight. Help the Aged say that voluntary organisations such as Crossroads, which supplies care attendants to families who have elderly infirm in their own homes, are experiencing difficulties. This is because of transfer from the Manpower Services Commission to the new Employment Training Scheme. Under the MSC they had a block grant which they used as they wished but under the new ETS, they take on staff who are to be paid what they would receive from social security plus £10 for each individual. So the voluntary organisation has to find its own finance for management.
I should like to thank the noble Earl, Lord Arran, for his letter in answer to my supplementary question on expertise in the field of community care, in view of the recently published OPCS survey into the incidence of disability in the community. The survey has revealed that there are 4·25 million disabled people with varying degrees of disability who are over the age of 60 out of a total of 6,202,000 disabled adults over the age of 16, again with varying degrees of disability.
Those figures are larger than the original OPCS survey revealed in 1969. That is because the earlier survey only covered physically disabled adults in their own homes. These latest figures mean that 454 people out of every 1,000 over the age of 60 have

1179
some kind of disability. Of course some of them may be living in residential care rather than in the community. It has been found that many infirm or disabled people have to keep up a sustained fight to obtain the services that they need. The younger ones will probably succeed but the elderly or very old will not have the energy. The older people may also feel that they are in receipt of charity and good deeds. They may feel that they should not ask for the services to which they are entitled.
A comprehensive and easily understood pamphlet of information on services should be made available to all the people who need them, as they are unlikely themselves to ask for the available information, as is their legal right. There is also an urgent need for all information to be in the languages of ethnic minorities as well.
No new proposals are needed to improve community care; nor do we have to pass legislation. It can be improved simply through the implementation of the remaining sections of the Disabled Persons Act 1986, and Section 7 in particular. which concerns people who are discharged from hospital. Can the Minister confirm that I am correct in believing that this section is to be implemented this year?
RADAR believes that the needs of elderly infirm or disabled people are insufficiently recognised and catered for. I hope that that is not so.
8.56 p.m.
Viscount Brentford: My Lords, I too am very grateful to my noble friend Lady Cox for introducing this subject, which, like other speakers, I consider very important. It is important for a number of reasons. One is obviously the increasing number of elderly in the community. I gather that it is expected that between the years 1985 and 2001 the number of elderly people over 80 will increase from 1.8 million to 2.4 million, which is another 600,000. A large proportion of those people will doubtless fall within the ambit of this Question; namely, the infirm elderly.
The subject is also important because of the economic issues involved and in particular between the questions of home care, residential care and hospital care. I have tried to discover reliable figures which are averages for those different types of care and I keep coming across different figures. As a generalisation I should like to suggest that it costs at least 50 per cent. more to look after somebody in residential care than it does to keep that person in the community with individual care.
It appears to me that having someone in hospital care costs at least double what it costs to keep him in residential care. The figures for maintaining an infirm elderly person in a hospital seem to be double those for keeping that person in residential care. From the Government's economic point of view it is therefore very important to look at the significance of community care, which, while it is not a cheap option. is cheaper than the other options.
1180
The third point that I should like to make about the importance of this Question is the improved quality of life for the individual who is able to stay in his own home, in his own bed and with his own things around him, with friends not only in his house but also in the street. For those reasons I believe that this is a very important Question we are discussing this evening. Speaking in my capacity as chairman of a small research group called Family Base, which is looking into this issue at the present time, I should like to say that we are hoping to set up workshops in which we can draw together individuals, churches, voluntary organisations and statutory bodies to discuss the setting up of support for the carer, who is someone we feel is greatly neglected.
As a solicitor I am quite often asked whether an infirm elderly person ought to stay in the home, whatever the cost in terms of the time and energy of the people around might be, or whether he should be moved into residential care. I also see the system from that point of view.
We ought to be looking at an elderly infirm person not only as an individual but also as a member of a family, where there is a family. Many people have family relationships that will benefit by keeping an infirm elderly person in the home. That is a matter that cuts two ways. In that connection I should like to refer to the 1981 White Paper entitled Growing Older. It states:
"The primary sources of support and care for elderly people arc informal and voluntary. They spring from the personal ties of kin, friendship and neighbourhood".
It is very important for us all to remember that.
Let me next turn to the question of carers generally. Until very recently the scale and scope of the contribution of family carers—who are often called the forgotten army and were so called by the Family Policy Study Centre Report of 1984—were often unknown. Last year, however, the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys published some timely and startling statistics on the extent of informal care. On the findings of the general household survey of 1985 I shall quote some percentages, for which I apologise, but I believe that they are helpful. As many as 19 per cent. of households contained a carer who was typically looking after one elderly relative. Of those carers looking after someone in the same household, 45 per cent. devoted at least 50 hours per week to caring and more than half had had no break of at least two days since they first undertook the task.
Again, these co-resident carers had regular visits from health or social services or voluntary groups in only one-third of the cases. I believe therefore that we have a problem. We ought to be providing more help for carers. We also have a problem because the number of potential carers is declining. The numbers in the lower elderly age group have already been quoted as falling. There is a lower birth rate, as we know. A factor that has not yet been mentioned is that there is higher mobility today than there used to be. It means that families are breaking up. This is also causing a problem because one often has a situation where the younger members of the family have left the area where the infirm elderly person is residing.

1181
We need to ask and to encourage local authorities to do two things. One is to look out for carers. I find that people who are caring for an elderly person often do not realise the back-up support that is available from local authorities. I hope that publicity can be given to that. When a local authority has found a carer it needs to assess the needs of that carer—whether it is respite, as we have already discussed, day centres, care attendance schemes, attendance allowance, or whatever. Every situation i differs. A careful assessment of what is needed is required by the local authority.
Perhaps I may ask some specific questions of the Minister about what I should like to see the Government doing. I believe that not only the local authorities but the Government should publicise the right of carers to contact local authorities. Are there any plans for increasing publicity for that?
The second question has already been touched on. Has the Minister any plans for delineating more clearly the responsibilities of the different government bodies? I mention the health service and the social services as examples. We lose a lot because of different people having different responsibilities with no central co-ordinating body. There must have been a need when the Griffiths Committee was set up. So far as I can see there is no less a need now. I do not know whether my noble friend will comment on the Government's attitude to the Griffiths Report recommendations. Is my noble friend accepting them or rejecting them? If he sets up alternative schemes, different from those recommendations, or if he accepts them, that will be good. But the one course that is had is for no action to be taken on the needs outlined in the Griffiths Report.
I know that the Minister will not want to hand out extra money. However, I should like to stress the need for better deployment of the economic resources that are available. I have already touched on the economic benefit of keeping an individual in community care—in home care rather than residential. What plans does the Minister have to ensure that there is sufficient cash to pay for the needs of carers so that the residential care is not needed? I look forward to his answers.
9.7 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I should like to join previous speakers in the debate in thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, for putting down this Question and for enabling us to debate this very important subject.
Statistics have already been quoted. However, the key ones are worth repeating. It is estimated that by the end of the century the number of people over the age of 65 will have increased by half a million. The number over 85 years will double. It is also estimated that then each of the social service departments may have to cope with an extra 600 persons with senile dementia. The OPCS survey, Disability in Great Britain, which ***has been mentioned, reveals that of the 6 million people defined as disabled in the survey no less than 70 per cent.—that is 4 million —are over 60.
1182
In the survey are a number of categories from 1, which is the least severe, to 10, which is the most severe. To illustrate the crude statistics, in category 2 is a man of 75 who often forgets what he is supposed to be doing when he is in the middle of something, loses track of what has been said in the middle of a conversation, forgets to turn off things like fires, cookers, taps and so on. It is estimated that there are 840,000 people with that level of disability who are living in private households and 16,000 who are living in establishments.
A women of 77 who is affected by old age illustrates category 8. She is so upset that she hits other people, injures herself and forgets people's names, and so on. It is estimated that there are 338,000 people with this level of disability living in private households and 58,000 in communal establishments. In those two categories alone there are one and quarter million people, of whom only 174,000 are in residential care and the rest are in fact being cared for in one way or another at home.
We can all agree on the answer to the problem. We need an easily-understood system which can direct help quickly and efficiently where and when it is most needed. We have had many recommendations and proposals, as has been mentioned. There have been the Griffiths Report, the White Paper in 1987 on primary health care, the 1986 report by Age Concern on the law concerning vulnerable elderly people, and all the other reports from the voluntary sector.
The response made to all this by the Government has been a deafening silence. Only yesterday we had the White Paper, the NHS review, which I fear poses many more questions than it answers. There is real concern about the effects of the proposed changes on elderly and infirm people. The only direct mention of the elderly in the White Paper is the proposal to give tax relief for private health insurance payments to those over 60. Immediately the question that springs to mind is: how much could be done in respect of community care for elderly people if the money proposed for this tax relief were to be used for that instead?
One might perhaps compare the proposal for tax relief in the White Paper with the actual problem of elderly people who are dependent on social security; and I will give just two examples out of many. The first is of a 75 year-old person living alone and in receipt of a severe disability pension. That person has an income of £93·20 per week and is saving the Government perhaps in excess of £6,000 on the cost of residential care. The second example is of a couple aged 75, one of whom is severely disabled and the other is trying to lift, carry, care and cook for the disabled partner. The total income of that couple is £92·05 per week: £1·15 less than the person who is living alone. That sort of anomaly shows that it is quite wrong that people in the evening of their lives should have a burden of that sort and that it should have to be carried by the people I have described.
I cannot help feeling that the resources which are to be devoted to tax relief for the eldely in respect of their payments for private health insurance would be better used to increase the income of old people such

1183
as I have described and to cure the anomalies in the social security system. As has been said by other speakers, these people are saving the Government enormous sums of money by staying out of residential care.
As a final point regarding the NHS review, we all know that the family GP is a very important point of contact for many elderly and lonely people. I wonder just how the GP's sympathetic ear will be costed in the new, cash-limited and budget-conscious general practice which is foreseen in the White Paper.
1184
We all know the action that is required and which is being suggested, as I have said, in many reports and proposals made to the Government, and now the Government, as other speakers have said, must give the lead on community care. The whole community care movement in the public and the voluntary sectors is waiting for that lead. The provision must be needs-led and not resource-led, and the resources which are provided must be properly directed and managed. Infirm and elderly people should be cared for with understanding and, above all, helped to retain their dignity.
9.7 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, my respect and admiration for my noble friend Lady Cox know no bounds. However, in this debate which she has so ably initiated I find myself putting forward a somewhat different point of view. Perhaps that is to be expected.
In his report, as the noble Baroness has said, Sir Roy Griffiths recommended that the local authority should be the gateway for the organisation of community care, which of course includes the infirm elderly about whom I understand this debate is concerned. On the other hand, as the noble Baroness has said, the Royal College of Nursing recommended that the district health authority should act as the gateway and that a national service for community care must be established under the control of a Minister. Age Concern has called for a form of independent inspectorate.
The dictionary defines "infirm" as physically weak, especially for the elderly. "Sickness" is defined as incapacitated through illness. I shall not quote figures because they have already been quoted to your Lordships. It is true that the number of elderly is increasing, and that an increase in the number of the elderly means an increase of the infirm.
As I understand the figures—the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, will perhaps know better than I—the elderly infirm are one-seventh of the elderly population. Therefore we do not want to look on the elderly as an illness problem. I am elderly. The noble Earl, Lord Longford, says that he is elderly. I am only a few years short of him. I feel very fit and I do not wish to be regarded as a medical problem.
The position in the population of the infirm elderly is a problem; but nevertheless we must regard the elderly as people in their own right wanting their own things in their own way. It is very important that we do not try to organise for them when they want to be people of individual independence.
I agree with all Members of your Lordships' House, and with the noble Baroness, that at the moment there is no strategy for the country as a whole. I suggest first that the district housing authorities and the housing associations should have a duty to offer the tenancy of a flat or, if they wish it, only a room to those in need of accommodation. One of the real problems is that in this country people do not plan for their old age. Some people remain in their accommodation which is sometimes quite unsuitable, and then when they get very old they do not have the energy to move. I believe that district housing authorities and housing associations should build in each area the kind of accommodation that people want so that they can be tenants in their own areas.
That presupposes that there must be a network of community facilities. Some noble Lords have mentioned meals on wheels; some have mentioned home helps; and others have mentioned carers. May I spend a moment on the carers which so many Peers have mentioned? There are two types of carers. There are the carers who arc relatives; and as the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, has said, they are people who
1186
sorely need help and support in the way that she suggested.
The number of people who came to me for jobs when I was working in Oxford as director of social services made me very sad. To fit them into a job after 20 years at home looking after somebody was very difficult. It was not impossible, but it was difficult. Therefore they are the people who need the kind of facilities that the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, and the noble Lady, Lady Kinloss, have described.
Then there are the carers who are employed by the local authorities. There is a scheme in Kent whereby the carers who are employed by the local authority are in groups of 20 and each group is, so to speak, organised by a senior carer who covers a district. So the district gets to know the senior carer who gives support and help and perhaps stands in for a carer if she is unable to go to a case. So it is vitally important that we develop the carer system throughout the country. Of course, as has been said by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, they need training. Sometimes when I am visiting I find that it is the home help and the carer whom people welcome. The nurse is welcome, but she visits only once a week, once a fortnight or once a month. In most of the cases that I have visited, the doctor calls perhaps once every three months. However, the carer and home help visit every week. They may thread a needle for the half blind and carry out the tasks which are of value to the person in the home. Many people can stay in their own homes if their accommodation is in the area in which they are known, where they have relatives and have the supporting services of carers.
The housing authorities must supply wardened accommodation to enable those who are not so able to live on their own with the help of community services. The development of day centres is also vitally important. Residential centres are often built next door to day centres and therefore people attending the day centres become used to going to the area. When it is necessary to provide a rest for relatives or people looking after the elderly and infirm, they will go naturally and easily next door into the residential centre. That is most important, but it has only recently been carried out.
We are deeply indebted to and dependent on the medical and nursing professions. However, from the organisational point of view, the setting up of a network using volunteer organisations needs to be carried out by the social services. There must be a multi-disciplinary planning committee in each area. That requires the involvement of not only the social services and nursing bodies but also the housing departments. I also believe that there must be a multidisciplinary case committee to discuss where important cases must go. I agree with the noble Baroness that social workers need help to diagnose cases at an early stage.
I turn to the training of social workers. Your Lordships' House will become bored with me because every time I rise to speak I talk about the training of social workers. We must ask the Government whether they will ensure that social workers receive adequate training and are sufficient in number.

1187
Although it is less expensive to have people living in the community rather than in an institution, good community care is expensive. That fact must be acknowledged and unless it is we shall never have a good system.
This would be an historic debate if the Minister made a statement concerning the recommendations contained in the Griffiths Report. Will those recommendations be implemented? There is at present a downward slide in social services and in the health service. It is now some time since the Griffiths Report was published. Even if the Government make the wrong decision we implore them to make a decision one way or the other. I profoundly believe that the social services should act as the key organisers and the gateway. We ask the Government to make a decision concerning the recommendations in the Griffiths Report so that the strategy can be implemented.
9.25 p.m.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: My Lords, I too am very grateful to the noble Baroness for giving us the opportunity for this debate. It is very interesting that in this House the Question is being asked by one of our youngest Members and being answered by one of the youngest Ministers. What has already been said about the estimate of the number of people over 75 and over 85 is absolutely true. They are very important predictions for those who are planning the health and social services because the very elderly, whose numbers are increasing, also make the largest demand on statutory services.
It is estimated that health and social services expenditure on a person over 75—somebody like myself —is two and a half times that in respect of a person aged 65 to 75 and four and a half times that of the average covering all ages. Therefore, it is quite expensive in terms of the statutory services. What is more, it is estimated that a very high proportion of the over-75s find themselves needing 24 hour nursing care. That is also important.
Having said that, quite a small percentage of people of that age need care. The vast majority are living ordinary lives and should be helped and encouraged to go on living ordinary lives. I believe that the emphasis must be on trying to keep people in their own homes but, more than that, trying to keep them active and motivating them into being active. For example, I have never been too sure that it is wise to have a low limit—because the limit is rather low—on what people can earn when they become pensioners. They should be motivated to go out and earn and to keep active. The motivation should not be the other way round. I have never been sure about the wisdom of that. To allow people to remain at home and to help them to be independent enables them to run their own lives. It enables them to have the freedom and autonomy to structure their own lives in the way they wish.
Having said that, I come to the adverse side of the matter. The resources available to enable people to remain in the community are much too low and quite
1188
inadequate. It is necessary to face that squarely. The question we need to ask and that needs to be answered by the Minister is: what will the Government do about increasing those resources? We read about the money that is coming into the Treasury at the moment and the amount that is available to the Chancellor. In the next breath we are told that there is not the wherewithal to provide services for people who served the community when they were younger and who now need some support.
I am unable to understand what is motivating those who are responsible for dealing with these matters. I believe it is possible for us to do much more. What is more, although it is expensive to keep people in the community it is more expensive to keep them in residential care. However, the expense of keeping them in the community is high when they are first moved from residential care into the community. That is one fact not being properly faced by the authorities. They need to be prepared to spend much more money to transfer people from residential care to the community knowing that in future they will not have to spend so much because, once in the community, the cost is less. I do not believe that the planning takes that into account. I get the impression of an attitude that says, yes, one wants to make the transfer but at the same time keep expenditure at its present level. It cannot be done. And that important aspect needs to be faced.
Elderly people need to be treated as equal and ordinary members of society because that is what they are. They need to have their wishes, tastes and needs treated with the same consideration that other people expect. They need to be able to participate in the social, cultural and leisure activities of society. They need also to be fed, housed, and kept warm. I was glad to hear what the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, had to say because housing is one of the areas where problems arise from the approach that authorities adopt in dealing with the elderly.
Many old people are living in houses which are dilapidated and which they cannot repair. So another aspect that needs to be looked at is the extent to which we could provide much larger grants to owner-occupiers. The Government are pleased about the way in which they stimulate owner-occupation. Let us accept that there will be people who are owner-occupiers and ensure that there is provision for them to live in good houses, not in houses which are dilapidated. There must be proper grants. It should be possible to give grants which will enable houses to be repaired and modified to make them suitable. In many instances houses are not suitable for old or infirm people and the occupants do not have the wherewithal to make alterations. Therefore, adequate grants should be available to deal with that. Insulation is also important because old people need to keep warm.
I was glad to hear what was said about community care, volunteers and respite care. That is of the utmost importance. There is also the question of mobility. I have concentrated upon keeping people in the community in their own homes rather than in residential homes. But they also need to be mobile. Attention should be given to that point. I remember

1189
at County Hall, when trying to give Londoners free transport passes, we had to battle with central government—incidentally, a Labour government—to get them to understand that we were not seeking to take over the activities of the social services, which are the functions of boroughs, but trying to help the citizens of London to become more mobile. That was the basis of the scheme.
Finally, I must say something about Griffiths. As noble Lords have heard from previous speakers, Griffiths has suggested that care in the community should be the responsibility of local authorities under the direction of a Minister. We have heard from the noble Baroness that the nursing profession is not too happy with that. In addition, the medical profession is not entirely happy because, like the nursing profession, it also believes that the social services departments of local authorities have in the past not shown themselves to be quite capable of dealing with these jobs. They are not at all sure about this matter.
On the other hand, the General Medical Services Committee which is the committee of the BMA that deals with GPs, has agreed to accept Griffiths provided that the Government implement the Griffiths Report in its entirety. I shall read from the report because it comprises part of the GMSC's reply to the Government. I believe it is important that this should go on the record. Griffiths stated that:
"Merely to tinker with the present system would not address the central issues and would forgo the benefits that could be obtained from more concentrated action. The opportunity exists to create a partnership in the delivery of care—between central and local government; between health and social services; between government and the private and voluntary sectors; between professionals and individuals—to the benefit of those in need. The proposals as a whole—and no single one on its own—are aimed at enabling that opportunity to be taken".
The GMSC is prepared to accept that. It states further that as the committee sees it,
"In practice, these very sound ideas (and the committee regards them as sound) demand universal implementation of the 'Primary Health Care Team' … concept with social workers attached to PHCTs by the Social Service Authority to act as 'care managers' for cases referred by the PHCT".
That is relevant to the acceptance of Griffiths. The commentary continues by saying:
"Should the Government decide to implement the report piecemeal we should resist any attempt to amend the GP's contract, to make the GP responsible for informing the Social Service Authority of possible Community Care needs of any patients registered with him and for satisfying himself that the Social Service Authority had considered the case. Most GPs already do this anyway, though often with a sense of frustration at the lack of response from the Social Service Authority. The contractual responsibility should be that of the Social Service Authority".
That is what Griffiths has recommended and if it is implemented in that way the GMSC will accept it. It will not accept it the other way round. The commentary continues:
"The GMSC considers that the report is a broad package of proposals and should be implemented as such, subject to discussions with the GMSC on the details".
I believe that I should put this point of view on record. Your Lordships will know that I am quoting from the reply of the GMSC to Griffiths. I am sure that the Minister will not be able to tell us that the Government have accepted the recommendations of the Griffiths Report, but I hope that he will tell us
1190
how soon we can have an affirmative reply to them. As the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, said, there is great concern all around about what the Government are going to do.
9.40 p.m.
Lord Hunter of Newington: My Lords, I shall be very brief. First, I should like to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, on two counts. She spent this morning dealing with social services in Europe and then she introduced this debate, for which I thank her. I apologise to the House for being absent at the beginning.
Personal social services were last reorganised 20 years ago. There is now general agreement that something further must be done for community care; but what? The Audit Commission has highlighted policy conflicts which exist in the impact of supplementary benefit payments for residential care on community care policies. In the 20 years I spent working in the National Health Service l felt that the health service should be the prime promoter of community care services. That was because I had a high regard for the activities of the medical officer of health and his social services associates. The good ones got the social services to develop naturally. The medical officer of health was the co-ordinator of things, and it worked.
The medical officer of health, as we knew him. disappeared in 1972, but there have been many partnerships embracing health authorities, housing associations, voluntary bodies and local authorities. They have important lessons for us now that we are looking at the situation. Some things have been tried and some lessons have been learnt. As David Hunter, King's Fund health policy analyst, said:
"Central government must take community care more seriously".
It is suggested in the Griffiths Report that a Minister should give policy leadership and direction. It is suggested also that not the National Health Service but local authorities' social services departments should take the lead role within the guidelines specified by central government and in collaboration with other agencies. It is very significant that the starting point of Griffiths's examination of the problem was the need of the individual; in this case, the frail elderly. He did not start with territorial negotiations between the various agencies—the National Health Service arid voluntary agencies. I find myself very much in agreement with this approach.
The social services would design, arrange and regulate care and apply funds provided from different sources. But immediately there is uncertainty in the health service. Health service professionals such as nurses will no longer be the prime movers in the development of community care services. We have learnt of the concern among them in this regard. But central government will only provide guidelines and not dictate policy. If these proposals are successful local government and its social services departments will regain the central role in the care of the elderly and infirm people it was elected to serve.

1191
There is a precedent in the United Kingdom for such an approach. It is the All Wales Strategy for Services for Mentally Handicapped People, introduced by the Welsh Office some five years ago. Under this strategy social services departments are the lead agencies for the production of joint plans with the health authorities. This has been a very successful experiment and should be studied by others.
But will central government be willing to delegate new responsibilities to local authorities? Are central government willing to provide central leadership and undertake the executive part of monitoring local plans? It is perhaps a job for the new social services departments. Will local government social services departments be able to cope and adopt new roles? Will it be possible to set clear boundaries around health and social care responsibilities? The answer to that question is no, it will not. Any guidelines will have to allow effective exchange between providers operating in the front line. The health and social services interface.
Doctors, nurses and others must become less insular. But the most important thing is the change of thinking and attitudes among those involved. Behind all that lies the dark shadow of the strained relationship between central and local government. Whatever the reason for that, one has to admit that it exists. There will be little progress in the community care of the frail elderly until there is a better and more sympathetic understanding on both sides. The significance of the creation of such an understanding extends far beyond the social services.
The creation of this new framework between local and central government is essential to success. The creation of a new framework for the National Health Service which is now proposed must facilitate that. This framework is also vitally important, and neither will be efficient and cost-effective without the research and development base as suggested for the National Health Service by the report of the Select Committee on Science and Technology of your Lordships' House on the subject of medical research.
Members of a range of professions will watch with interest and concern, and we hope they will co-operate. Perhaps in association with those developments there should be a new charter describing an enhanced role for many of the professions allied to medicine. Their contribution to the National Health Service and social services, outside the hospital service, will be a vitally important matter in the future. They include pharmacists and many others.
Radical proposals that there should be a combination of community health services and community care parts of priority care services, currently within health authorities, together with family practitioner services, do not commend themselves to me.
The Griffiths Report proposal could work quite well provided that there is tight financial control and good monitoring. It could be an important step in separating the proper responsibilities for medical and health care of central government from the provision
1192
of social and domestic care by the elected local authority.
9.47 p.m.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I should like first to repeat what has been said by other noble Lords in thanking the noble Baroness for the way in which she introduced the debate. I often find myself profoundly disagreeing with many of the things which she says in the House; but every time she rises to talk about nursing, I agree with her. I think that she made an outstanding speech. I do not agree with the conclusions of the RCN about the Griffiths Report, but I profoundly agree there must be a decision. However, I shall say a word about that in a moment. The noble Baroness timed the debate very well, partly because of our feeling about the Griffiths Report, but also because it comes just after the release of the Government's White Paper on the new proposals for the National Health Service.
I must say that I am deeply concerned with the new style health service which has been put forward by the Government. My concern is that while some people may benefit, the principal losers will be the chronically ill and the elderly. My fear is that because such people are not in the bracket for the making of profits, either within the new independent-style hospital or within the independent GP practice, they will get a bad deal out of the health service. I see the noble Baroness nodding in agreement and I think that part of our task in the debate which follows is to ensure that that is not the case. If the health service is for anyone, it is for the elderly as well as for the rest of us.
Secondly, I agree most strongly with the views which have been put forward about the urgency for the Government to say something about the Griffiths Report. The Minister said last week in answer to a question from me that there would be an answer very soon. Tonight may be "very soon", but I have a feeling that I shall not have an answer today. The Government may not realise how much damage has been done by their failure to say anything for 12 months. A debate has been going on in the country, but it has almost died down. There is no doubt that the urgency to move forward has done great damage to local authorities faced with the uncertainty of where responsibility will lie and what sort of a lead agency there will be. The Government dare not allow the issue to wait much longer.
I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Hunter, said: the relationship between local and central government has hit a low level. It is up to the Government to try, with all the support that the Griffiths proposals have, to ensure that a new relationship is established if we are to get community care right. It must be done in close co-operation with the health authorities and the social services departments. The lead agency needs to be at community level. It is a community service. It is at the level of the social services, not so much with the medical model, that we need the whole field of community care, and not just for the elderly.
The RCN said in its paper that until the late 1970s the debate on care in the community was dominated

1193
largely by the issues affecting the mentally ill and the mentally handicapped. That is true. In 1978 when I was Secretary of State I published a Green Paper called A Happier Old Age. I was much involved in it personally. I wanted to produce a document which did not present elderly people as a burden upon society. The Green Paper was written in what I thought was an up-beat manner. It showed that of course the community had responsibilities but that the opportunities for the elderly in our society arc enormous. They do not stop at 70. We can see from your Lordships' House how much of a contribution to national life can be made by people of an advanced age. I shall not look in any direction, but some of us begin to feel old about 20 years before some of the others seem to be old. When my noble friend Lord Carter talked about senile dementia, I began to think that I perhaps had some of the first signs, such as forgetfulness about names and other things that start one worrying.
The Green Paper put forward—I want to see a repetition by the Government at some stage—all the opportunities that exist for the elderly. How can we help them to play the fullest possible role in society? I was worried when I saw the Prime Minister's comments about wanting everyone to be paid to work and not to retire before they are 70. Old age gives people a great opportunity to enjoy their retirement. Many people will retire earlier. I am in favour of people retiring at whatever age they think best for them. Some people want to be at work at 70, others want to be in retirement. I hope that the Government's approach in the White Paper Growing Old—in rather a different mood from A Happier Old Age—will not be repeated.
The noble Baroness gave some statistics which I need not repeat. She said that there would be a need for an extra 10,000 residential and nursing home places. I wonder whether the Government accept that figure; whether they see the need; and whether they think that the need can he met. The noble Baroness referred to the drop in new residential places between 1985–86 and 1986–87. I wonder whether that trend has continued or whether there has been an increase in the number of places available.
The RCN is worried that in all the debates about future needs for care in the community there has been a failure to identify the scale of the problem among those people who cannot be cared for in the community. I refers to the over-75 age group and those with senile dementia. We were reminded in our debate on mental health a few months ago of the enormous and growing problem of those with senile dementia. I think it was mentioned in that debate that by the year 2000 there will have been an increase of 250,000 people in each of the age groups 75–84 and 85-plus since 1975. That is imposing a huge burden.
I was asked by the Alzheimer's Disease Society particularly to raise their concerns with the Government. With the growing number of elderly (and therefore the growing number of those with Alzheimer's disease) are the Government satisfied that they will be able to meet the residential and nursing care needs and domiciliary support which these people so desperately require? I hope that the
1194
Minister will be able to say something about that in his reply.
There seems to be a very broad acceptance of many factors: the size of the problem and the urgency: that the Government should give some clear recognition that as we have a growing elderly population there must be growing resources to enable us to meet its needs.
I think there is a wide measure of support in favour of the Griffiths recommendations. Certainly there is a great deal of support which I hear wherever I go on the need for the carers. I am glad that reference was made by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, and the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, to the fact that over 75 per cent. of elderly people are looked after by their own families. Almost always one woman, usually a daughter, sometimes a daughter-in-law or grandmother, has the burden of care for a physically or mentally infirm relative. The financial sacrifices involved are very considerable.
The response of Age Concern to the Griffiths Report was a very substantial and carefully thought out document. Age Concern argued, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, that due regard should be paid to the costs of carers and that the level of the invalidity care allowance should be substantially raised. It is a problem which the Government must face. Age Concern also said that consideration should be given to the concept of a community care allowance as recommended by the Wagner review. At the same time as we arc waiting for a response to Griffiths, we are also waiting for the Government to respond to Lady Wagner's recommendations.
I think that there is a wide measure of support for the idea that there should he a Minister for Community Care. He would have very special responsibilities for the elderly and would be able to do for elderly people and others in the community who desperately need aid what Aft Morris was able to do for the disabled in his time when he was Minister for the Disabled, bringing together those responsible in all government departments.
I hope that in his reply the Minister will answer some of the very pertinent questions put to him by the noble Baroness. If he does not reply in the Government's response to Griffiths, then quite clearly we shall have to have a very early debate on the subject. I believe that the Government are doing great damage to the cause of community care and the needs of the elderly, especially the very elderly, by totally failing to give a lead. That is what we expect and need from the Government.
9.58 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the very first time I replied to an Unstarred Question in your Lordships' House was in regard to the National Health Service. As I rose on that occasion, all my notes fell to the floor. Your Lordships' House was very forgiving, as noble Lords received a very confused reply to an Unstarred Question from a very confused younger man.
We are all greatly indebted this evening to my noble friend for the opportunity that she has given us

1195
to discuss this matter of great importance to the wellbeing of elderly people. As many noble Lords will be aware, in common with many other industrialised nations, we are in the midst of an unprecedented expansion in the numbers of elderly people, particularly the very elderly.
As my noble friend Lord Brentford pointed out, on the latest estimates, by the year 2011 the number of elderly people will have increased by a million to about 8 million. The number of very elderly people will have more than doubled to well over 1 million. Those figures have profound implications, both in the amount of care that will be required for infirm elderly people and the way in which that care is provided.
Community care remains the cornerstone of our policies for the long-term care of elderly people. This has been the case for many years under successive Governments. I think I can say quite confidently that it will continue to be so. Most people want to continue living in a home of their own, in touch with family, friends and everyday life. I must add, of course, that the Government also recognise that there will be some people for whom care in a nursing home or residential care home would provide the best quality of life which they are able to enjoy. Our concern is that such homes should provide proper standards of care in an atmosphere which is as much like a person's own home as possible. It is important that a prospective resident should be actively involved in decisions about his or her future care and should enter the home, if that is what is decided, as a matter of positive choice.
Finally, if a frail elderly person does need to enter hospital, this should be for some form of active treatment or rehabilitation. Spells of inpatient treatment should be kept as short as possible and wherever they can still cope elderly people should be returned as quickly as possible to their own homes, as the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, pointed out.
But to come to standards, which is the subject of my noble friend's Question this evening, the Government are naturally concerned that whatever frail elderly people's care needs are and wherever and however they receive services to help them cope with daily living, they should receive the highest quality of care it is possible to provide within the resources available.
Before I go on to say something about good quality of care and the measures the Government are taking to secure it, let me show that I fully recognise that there have been well publicised failures in the past. particularly in the field of residential care. No one could be complacent in the face of some of the gross failures of care in all sectors which have come to light. I should, however, add that we believe that these failures are the exception and that in most homes a high standard of care is provided by caring and hard working staff. Nevertheless this Government are not complacent, as I hope the remarks I shall make in the next few minutes will show.
I should also like to say something at this point on the subject of resources. This matter was brought to your Lordships' attention by the noble Lords, Lord
1196
Pitt of Hampstead and Lord Ennals, and by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. The noble Baroness said that care does not come cheap. The noble Earl, Lord Longford, said that the Government were trying to provide care on the cheap. I agree with the noble Baroness but disagree very strongly with the noble Earl.
We sometimes hear it said that if only the Government gave health and local authorities more money, there would be no problem about standards of service. The Government entirely reject that line of approach. Spending on both health and social services has never been higher. Gross spending on the National Health Service in England in 1988–89 is now 37 per cent. higher in real terms at £19·4 billion pounds than it was in 1978–79. The estimated local authority expenditure on personal social services in 1988–89 at £3·2 billion shows a similar real terms increase on local authorities' actual spending in 1978–79. Further real term increases have been announced for 1989–90. But securing good quality of services must also be a matter of making the best use of those resources already available. It should be the concern of all those who work in health or personal social services, especially those with management responsibilities.
I noted that the noble Lady, Lady Kinloss, had suggestions for special community care allocations. The joint finance scheme meets this need to some extent. The level of funding has risen by over 60 per cent. in the lifetime of this Government to over £110 million. That is in addition to the service developments planned for social services and health authorities from their own provision.
The financing of care is, of course, under review in the light of Sir Roy Griffiths' recommendations. I shall come to that later on. What are the basic characteristics of good quality care? First and foremost, it must clearly meet the particular needs of the person concerned. This means that care needs should be assessed on an individual basis.
Secondly, the people needing care and their families should be actively involved in decisions about the services to be provided. The Department of Health has commissioned two research projects to examine the information needs of elderly people and the outcomes where they are involved in care decisions.
The Government support a consumer approach to the provision of social services. We look to customer choice and competitive pressures to help ensure that standards are high and service is good. It is important for all providers of services to realise that the consumers include carers. I fully endorse the numerous remarks that have been made about the importance of respite care in meeting That need as an important part of a wide range of community care services.
The service provided needs to respect the dignity and automony of the elderly person concerned. The aim of any support service, from a home help to a place in a nursing home, should be to give elderly people as much freedom and control over their lives as possible.

1197
Those are some of the characteristics of good quality care, characteristics which we want to see adopted by providers of care in all sectors. The position is that central government, through the Department of Health, do not provide any of those services themselves. For that we need to look to the statutory providers of care, health authorities and local social service authorities and to the growing number of private and voluntary providers, as pointed out by my noble friend Lady Cox and many other noble Lords.
We must also recognise, as my noble friend Lady Cox has poined out this evening, the invaluable service provided by informal carers. Informal carers hear a heavy and continuing burden and we are increasingly acknowledging the importance of providing support. We have for several years provided funding for voluntary organisations concerned with the needs of carers, with grant aid exceeding £1 million in the last financial year. My right honourable friend the Under-Secretary of State has just provided a three-year grant to the Carers National Association and Contact and Family for a project concerned with the training of carers.
The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, referred to carers. I recognise that they will be helped by patterns of service provision which take account of the needs of carers themselves, including the need to continue employment. I hope that local providers of care who are responsible for deciding the pattern of service will keep that firmly in mind. I am encouraged to hear from my noble friend Lady Cox of at least one case where that seems to have been done.
I have carefully noted what my noble friend Lady Cox and the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, had to say about the financial needs of informal carers. I can assure them that the points made will be considered carefully in the proper quarter.
Turning to social services provision, the Social Services Inspectorate within the Department of Health was set up to provide my right honourable friend the Secretary of State with professional advice and contact with field authorities, and to provide field authorities with help in planning and managing their services. The inspectorate has an important part to play in helping to disseminate good practice and in assisting authorities to provide services to high professional standards. To this end the inspectorate carries out detailed examinations of different areas of the work of social services departments and publishes reports. For example, recent reports on a sample of home care services indicated that policy towards home help services is often poorly formulated at local level, management both of individual cases and of staff is weak and resources tend to be spread thinly over a very large number of clients rather than being targeted according to levels of needs. Providing a sensitive home care service means strengthening management at all levels, better targeting of services on those in greatest need and efforts to improve and diversify services within available resources.
Those findings were confirmed by another recent report on first line managers in social service departments. That report recommended that first line managers of both domiciliary and day care facilities should be involved more closely in drawing up policy
1198
and should be made aware of the financial consequences of their decisions. The inspectorate will continue to work with social services departments towards the improvement of services.
The question of regulating standards of care in residential care homes and nursing homes is important. The Government have long recognised the need to ensure proper standards of care in homes of all types. To safeguard such standards the Registered Homes Act 1984 and its associated regulations were secured. These provide statutory control of voluntary and private homes through a system of registration and inspection with local social services and health authorities.
For each establishment the authority must satisfy itself that the statutory requirements and the conditions of registration are being met. It is crucial to establish the means of achieving good quality care as well as monitoring to ensure that those standards are maintained. This means good management and a trained staff. The Department of Health's social services inspectorate is undertaking a major study of the management of local authority homes which should help to enhance the quality of management. As regards training, the Government have introduced a programme of direct support towards the training of local authority staff working with elderly people. The programme covers £10 million of expenditure this year and attracts £7 million of government grant. It has enabled about 70,000 staff to receive training who would otherwise not have had the opportunity. For 1989–90 the programme will cover some £l0·4 million of expenditure including a government grant of £7·3 million.
I should now like to turn to improvements in health care for elderly people. Our discussion this evening has rightly revolved around the quality of care. The major improvements to the National Health Service which will result from the changes announced in yesterday's Statement are all designed to meet that goal. The Government are equipping the National Health Service to meet the challenges of the 1990s. And responding to the needs of elderly people will be a crucial part of that.
So what do the review proposals mean for elderly people? I can assure noble Lords of one thing: they do not just mean tax concessions for elderly people, as was suggested earlier this evening. First of all, they mean greater concentration on quality of care from everybody within the National Health Service: doctors, nurses and managers. We expect every health authority to institute a systematic programme of quality improvement, looking in particular to improve still further the personal service delivered to individuals. Noble Lords do not need me to tell them how important it is for frail, elderly people to be treated with the dignity and respect which they deserve. I believe that the systematic approach to quality which is now being taken will ensure that that is achieved.
Secondly, we are making improvements to the acute sector, in particular with an attack on long waiting times. Many elderly people, who are otherwise able to lead independent lives in the community, need acute treatments, such as hip

1199
replacements or cataract removal. The 100 additional consultant posts announced yesterday will be targeted at just such areas and, taken with the reforms in funding, will help to ensure that patients receive the necessary treatment as early as possible. This expansion will build on the significant progress already achieved through the waiting list initiative and the planned expansion of consultant numbers through the Achieving a Balance programme.
Thirdly, we are acting to strengthen the general practitioner service, often the main point of contact for elderly people with the health service. The introduction of the GP practice budget will give doctors greater freedom to develop a wider range of services to care for their patients. Such developments—for example, the employment of more practice staff to improve primary care—may well allow people to be treated in the community rather than visit hospital for out-patient examination. Let me make one point about these budgets perfectly clear. The level at which they are set will reflect the age of people on the doctor's list. The more elderly and dependent are the people on the list, the larger the budget will be. There will thus be no incentive whatsoever for GPs to refuse to admit elderly people to their care. And the improved management role that we are giving to family practitioner committees will ensure that any abuses are quickly identified and remedied.
Fourthly, improvements in management will benefit all patients, not least elderly people. We are looking to delegate as much responsibility as possible to the operational level to improve decision-making and management of resources. That lesson is just as relevant in the long-stay sector and community services as it is in acute hospitals. The arrangements for funding core services will protect these facilities and self-governing hospitals will he required to continue providing existing core services under contract where necessary.
I should like to make this one point. In yesterday's Statement the Government made it very clear that they were talking about the consumer. The fastest growing group of consumers in the health service is the elderly. We could not have made that statement unless we fully understood that that was the case because that was what we were talking about.
I have spoken at some length about the way the review affects services for elderly people because I believe that it is important to demonstrate how quality of care is at the heart of all our proposals.
Many noble Lords have today, as before, encouraged us to give an early response to the Griffiths Report. My noble friend Lady Faithfull went so far as to say that she would like us to make a decision, right or wrong. I believe it is very important that when the decision is made it is the right decision. We shall take full account of all the points that have been made this evening. In framing our own programme we remain committed to bringing forward our own proposals as soon as we sensibly can.
I fully appreciate that the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, will understand that when I said "shortly"
1200
yesterday, it did not mean that there would be an answer tonight. However, I listened with care to what my noble friend said about the possible role of primary health care teams, and I can assure her that the points are being carefully considered. Her remarks underline the fact that various options are available for the management of community care and it is right that we study them thoroughly before making decisions. Quality of care will be essential to our proposals when they emerge.
The remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, also show that there are different perspectives on community care from different professions. We need to weigh these views carefully. However, I should like to underline that all the caring professions have a contribution to make and co-operation will remain essential. There are many examples of such co-operation in action—for example, that cited by the noble Lord, Lord Hunter, in his example in Wales. Our proposals on community care will take full account of the need to develop valuable initiatives.
To return to the subject of residential care, I should like to take this opportunity to say something about the Government's reaction to A Positive Choice, the report of an independent review of residential care carried out by the committee set up by the National Institute for Social Work with the support of the then Secretary of State for Social Services and chaired by Lady Wagner. First, I should like to pay tribute to Lady Wagner and her team for their two years' hard work in producing the review of residential care. Their report was published in March and was widely distributed. We welcome the emphasis in their report on freedom of choice, protection of dignity, and personal life. These are matters to which the Government attach particular importance.
We believe that that is a valuable report and will prove to be of lasting importance. Many of the recommendations in the report are primarily for consideration by local social services authorities and other providers of local services. We hope that all agencies will give careful thought to these recommendations. By no means all of them have significant financial implications. Some of the recommendations overlap with Sir Roy Griffiths' Report on the financing and management of community care, to which I have already referred, and are being considered in that context.
Finally, there are the recommendations on which central initiatives may possibly be needed to carry them forward. The Department of Health has been considering what action might usefully be taken within the current legislative framework to promote action in line with these recommendations.
I am pleased this evening to be able to announce that my honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health has decided to launch a three-year centrally funded development programme and £0·5 million has been allocated for 1989–90. Funding for later years will be determined when the programme is further advanced. We aim to assist local agencies by exploring through the development programme the practical application of the recommendations in Lady Wagner's report aimed at improving the quality of life for residents. The aim will be to set up demonstration projects in several locations covering

1201
all client groups so far as is practicable and appropriate. Overall, the Government are keen to see practical solutions explored. It is on the whole not difficult to agree on broad principles. It is harder to turn those principles into worthwhile affordable service developments. That is where the effort now needs to be directed, building on the work of Lady Wagner's review.
In doing this the department will take account of the work of the development group set up by the National Institute for Social Work. This group is considering how certain of Lady Wagner's committee's recommendations might be put into effect. The group is representative of a wide range of interests. This is a valuable development with which the department is keeping in close touch.
I hope that what I have said has helped to show my noble friend that the Government take seriously the need to ensure satisfactory standards of care for elderly and infirm persons both in institutions and in the community. The task of caring for the increasing number of elderly people in the years ahead means that the search for cost-effective methods of providing good quality care must continue.
Although it is important to secure adequate provision to meet the care needs of elderly and other vulnerable people, it is equally important that quality is not sacrificed to quantity: the two must go hand in hand. That lies behind the work the Department of Health has in hand in many fields, some of which I have briefly described this evening.
I apologise if I have spoken for a slightly lengthy period of time. However, many important points have been raised this evening, and I am sure I shall be given the indulgence of the House; and I thank your Lordships for it. Many tasks, particularly those flowing from the Wagner and the Griffiths reports, are only just beginning. I am confident that when they come to fruition we shall have a range of both health and social services of a quality of which we can, as a nation, be justifiably' proud.
House adjourned at twenty-one minutes past ten o'clock.

  DRINKING WATER QUALITY
  DRINKING WATER QUALITY
  BOARD AND LODGING ESTABLISHMENTS: HEALTH STANDARDS
  BOARD AND LODGING ESTABLISHMENTS: HEALTH STANDARDS
  YOUNG PERSONS: PERMITTED HOURS OF WORK
  YOUNG PERSONS: PERMITTED HOURS OF WORK
  SUDAN: DEBT OBLIGATIONS
  SUDAN: DEBT OBLIGATIONS
  OVERSEAS LOANS AND GRANTS
  OVERSEAS LOANS AND GRANTS