Sitting of 12 July 1989

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

  KING'S CROSS RAILWAYS BILL
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That the Promoters of the King's Cross Railways Bill shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further proceedings and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
  That on the fifth day on which the House sits in the next Session the Bill shall be presented to the House;
  That there shall be deposited with the Bill a declaration signed by the Agents for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of its proceedings in this House in the present Session;
  That the Bill shall be laid upon the Table of the House by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the next meeting of the House after the day on which the Bill has been presented and, when so laid, shall be read the first and second time and committed (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read and committed);
  That all Petitions relating to the Bill presented in the present Session which stand referred to the Committee on the Bill, together with any minutes of evidence taken before the Committee on the Bill, shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the next Session;
  That no Petitioners shall be heard before the Committee on the Bill, unless their Petition has been presented within the time limited within the present Session or deposited pursuant to paragraph (b) of Standing Order 126 relating to Private Business;
  That in relation to the Bill, Standing Order 127 relating to Private Business shall have effect as if the words 'under Standing Order 126 (Reference to committee of petitions against Bill)' were omitted;
  That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
  That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Debate to be resumed tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions
  FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

    Foreign Affairs Council
    Mr. Baldry: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what items he expects to be discussed at the Foreign Affairs Council meeting on 17 July.
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mrs. Lynda Chalker): Discussion is expected on follow-up to the European Council and on relations with the United States, eastern Europe, Gulf states and African, Caribbean and Pacific countries.
    Mr. Baldry: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Will she confirm that the Foreign Affairs Council collectively will leave China in no doubt as to Europe's total abhorrence of recent events in that country? Will it clearly signal that any help in relation to China's future economic performance will depend upon its demonstrating a preparedness to behave towards the people of Hong Kong in a manner that commands the support of the European Community? Is not the best guarantee for the people of Hong Kong the preparedness of Europe and the civilised world in general to act together in their relations with China?
    Mrs. Chalker: China should be in no doubt about our view. In Madrid on 27 June, the member states agreed on four actions: the suspension of military co-operation; an embargo on trade in arms with China; the suspension of ministerial and other high-level contacts; and the postponement of all new co-operation projects.
    At the United Nations in Geneva we raised the issue of human rights in China and we are taking every opportunity to enforce our condemnation of the violent repression of peaceful demonstrators and the tragic loss of life. Yesterday, European Community colleagues agreed that the troika should make a demarche in Peking to underline the Community's position and to convey the request for independent observers to have access to trials and to prisons.
    China is in absolutely no doubt that Hong Kong and the remainder of the world believe that matters went very badly wrong, and that it is for China to show its preparedness to work with the remainder of the world.
    Mr. Alton: When Ministers are considering Hong Kong, will they also examine the position of Portuguese citizens in Macau who will be given the right to live in any European Community country after Macau returns to China? Does the right hon. Lady accept that it will create a difficulty—indeed, a major discrepancy—if Hong Kong citizens are not treated in the same way?
    Mrs. Chalker: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. I shall be meeting my Portuguese opposite number next week and we shall discuss these matters.
    Mr. Temple-Morris: During that meeting will my right hon. Friend raise the increasingly important questions of the enlargement of the Community and what constitutes Europe? Will she bear in mind her distinguished school days at Roedean when, I hope, she was taught that Turkey was not part of Europe? Does she agree that the sooner that that is made clear to everyone, including Turkey, the better off we will all be?
    Mrs. Chalker: Turkey's application to the Community, which is currently with the Commission, will produce an opinion by the end of the year. Whatever the aspirations of Turkey and many other countries, I remind my hon. Friend that the Community is united in the belief that its top priority is to complete the single market. Enlargement is a matter very much for the future.
    Mr. Robertson: Should not the next Foreign Affairs Council consider the whole question of economic help for eastern European countries that are struggling towards more democratic systems? Has not the West's response so far been feeble, half-hearted and lamentably inadequate, given the economic plight facing the democratic reformist forces in Poland and Hungary?
    If the West is genuinely interested in the return of political choice to those nations and in keeping a check on the forces of reaction that threaten them, is not a more generous and imaginative response from Europe urgent? When will this country put in hard cash, even if it is tied and conditional? Sympathetic words about freedom are a poor substitute.
    Mrs. Chalker: That matter was discussed thoroughly yesterday under the heading of European co-operation. The Community is in the process of negotiating an economic and commercial agreement with Poland, and the position in respect of other countries will be investigated in detail when the opportunity arises. We have no doubt whatsoever that those countries should be assisted to make their own moves towards real democracy and to the modernisation that they need.
    Mr. Michael Morris: When my right hon. Friend meets her colleagues, will she raise the worrying problems arising in southern Asia, particularly in Sri Lanka? It appears that unless the Indian presence leaves Sri Lanka by 29 July there will be a mass exodus to Europe.
    Mrs. Chalker: That matter is not on next week's agenda, but we shall see whether it can be raised during the discussion that we shall have at lunchtime.

    European Commission
    Mr. Orme: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next expects to meet the President of the European Commission; and what he expects to discuss.
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Sir Geoffrey Howe): I expect to meet President Delors at the economic summit in Paris from 14 to 16 July, where a range of international economic issues will be discussed.
    Mr. Orme: When the Foreign Secretary meets the president, will he discuss the social charter? Will he also withdraw his recent offensive remarks about the charter and recognise that it means a great deal to working people throughout the Community? Why is Britain alone in opposing it?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I do not feel the need to withdraw any offensive remark. I made it very plain that we attach great importance to the social dimension of improving economic co-operation in Europe. We do not believe that a Communitywide charter imposing obligations across the board is the best way of achieving that. To impose a whole range of legislation of a uniform kind on different societies would not be in the best interests of any of them, and would be inimical to our successful fight against unemployment. The best test of a social charter is the way that the United Kingdom has succeeded better than any other European country in bringing down unemployment.
    Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it is high time that the European Community built on the Venice declaration? Following the Likud block vote on the peace process in the middle east, is it not time to look again at Israel's privileged commercial position in relation to the Community?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend may not have noticed that at the conclusion of the European Council meeting in Madrid last week we issued a long declaration on the middle east which built, as he wants, on the Venice declaration. It made a number of significant additions and drew attention to the continuing deterioration of the situation in the occupied territories and to the action that should be taken. Yesterday, European Foreign Ministers agreed that the question of giving economic help to the occupied territories should be examined.
    Mrs. Clwyd: Will the Secretary of State press for the European Community's ambassadors' report on human rights abuses against the Kurds in Iraq to be made public? Will he also condemn, and ask the Community to condemn, the mass deportation of the Kurds from northern to southern Iraq which is a disgraceful abuse of human rights? Will he press for journalists and other observers to be allowed into the Kurdistan section of Iraq as soon as possible?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Lady's points coincide with the views of the Government. I shall seek an opportunity to bring them to the attention of the Community's Foreign Ministers.
    Sir Richard Body: To revert to the supplementary question of the right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme), will my right hon. and learned Friend remind Mr. Delors when he next meets him that he purloined the term European social charter; that it was drafted in the Council of Europe and ratified by our country very soon afterwards; and that we were in the forefront of the countries that put it into practice?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the parallel between the documents, although "purloin" overstates the case slightly. At the Rhodes European Council it was concluded that a study should be made of the existing provisions of the Council of Europe social charter. There is a sharp distinction between that and the present draft of the European Community social charter: the latter would impose obligations across a wide spectrum, in contrast to the former. My hon. Friend is also right to point out that we are among the countries that have ratified the charter; I think that I am right in saying that three Community countries have not yet done so.
    Mr. Kaufman: Following the question put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme), may I ask whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman recalls that, when he last answered questions and I asked him what was Marxist about the social charter, he cited the placing of workers on the boards of companies? Will he therefore—drawing on his knowledge of the work of Karl Marx—provide marked copies of the passages that prescribe that workers should be placed on the boards of companies, and draw them to the attention of Chancellor Kohl of the Federal Republic of Germany, where it is

    957
    Government policy to place workers on boards? I am sure that Chancellor Kohl will be dismayed to learn that he has been pursuing Marxist policies.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: The distinction that we wish to draw is between an approach that depends on dividing industry into two sides and our own approach, which has been exemplified by the massive extension of employee share ownership. At the time of my first Budget about half a dozen schemes were in existence; about 1,600 are available now. We do not consider it helpful, when Britain has been making such massive progress in that respect, to begin creating a new system founded on the division of industry.
    If I were to seek advice about any aspect of the teachings of Karl Marx, I should be delighted to appoint the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) as my research assistant.

    European Political Co-operation
    Mr. Ian Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will report on the outcome of the Ministers European political co-operation meeting of 11 July.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I attended the meeting in Paris. Developments in the Soviet Union and eastern Europe were the main subjects. We discussed Mr. Gorbachev's visits to Paris and Strasbourg. Our agenda also covered the middle east, southern Africa, the Horn of Africa, Cambodia and China. I stressed the importance to Hong Kong of international support. We agreed statements on Cambodia and the conference on security and co-operation in Europe, copies of which have been placed in the Library of the House.
    Mr. Taylor: Was my right hon. and learned Friend able to discuss with his Community colleagues President Gorbachev's latest plans for the architecture of the common European home? Did they note President Gorbachev's warning that the superior western European economic system should not try to tempt the eastern bloc countries away from their Socialist principles? Does that not mean that the eastern European countries are free to live in their own rooms in the common European home, as long as they employ Soviet interior decorators?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: We did not discuss the matter in such meticulous architectural detail as my hon. Friend suggests, but we agreed that Mr. Gorbachev's speech called for no direct response from us. The Twelve will continue to make their best contribution to the development of East-West co-operation by underlining, above all, the attractiveness of the western model. We emphasised the fact that the common European home is based on European Community designs on western European foundations, and we hope that countries in the rest of Europe will be free to follow that example.
    Mr. Tony Lloyd: In pursuing the idea that Community countries should co-operate over their attitude to China, does the Foreign Secretary believe that his position is somewhat clouded by the fact that the British Government, through the Department of Trade and Industry, are still actively sponsoring trade missions to China? Does that not undermine what he is trying to achieve?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman will find that those matters are being considered separately and very carefully, case by case. For example, the proposed Sino-British Trade Council exhibition which was to have taken place in Peking next November has been postponed, and other matters are being treated in a similar way. However, there is no intention—nor should there be—of imposing an economic embargo or economic sanctions on China. None of our European Community partners has adopted that view; nor has the United States or Japan.
    Sir Peter Hordern: Was my right hon. and learned Friend able to pursue the goal of closer European economic co-operation by reminding the Council of Ministers of the admirable speech of Karl Otto pöhl in Munich on 22 June in which the president of the Bundesbank said that he saw no great purpose in forming either a common European currency or a European central bank? Would it not be better to pursue the policy of the president of the Bundesbank—of a step-by-step development—than to go forward in rash philosophical leaps, which seems to be the metier of Mr. Delors?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I share my hon. Friend's admiration of the speech by Karl Otto Pohl. It was very forcibly drawn to the attention of the European Council at the meeting in Madrid, which was attended by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and myself. It was also no doubt in the minds of the Finance Ministers who met on Monday this week to discuss the matter. It was they who discussed it, not we the Foreign Ministers. However, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer certainly underlined the very important point that has been made by my hon. Friend: that we must address the matter stage by stage, according to the principles that he has outlined.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: In the light of the great concern that is being expressed by the people of Hong Kong about their future and of the fact that in his first reply the Foreign Secretary said that these matters were raised at the meeting, what is the position of the various Foreign Ministers? Is there an understanding that the problem cannot necessarily be resolved within the United Kingdom? Do people accept that there must be some form of international settlement?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: The primacy of the United Kingdom's position is accepted on all sides. The Foreign Ministers at their meeting this week recognised—as on previous occasions when they have discussed it—the importance of bringing home to the People's Republic of China our shock at what has happened there. That was why we agreed yesterday that the Community ambassadors in Peking would make specific representations about the need for observers at trials and in relation to imprisonment. We also sustained the decisions already taken in relation to economic, political and military matters and agreed that those principles would be followed.

    Middle East
    Sir Dennis Walters: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, if he will make a statement on progress towards peace in the middle east.
    Mr. Wood: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the middle east peace process.
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Waldegrave): In a major statement in Madrid last month the European Council appealed to the parties to seize the present opportunity to achieve peace. The Twelve made it clear that the election proposals put forward by Mr. Shamir could contribute to the peace process but that the PLO must participate in negotiations. We fear that the Likud decisions last week, if translated into Israeli Government policy, will make progress much more difficult.
    Sir Dennis Walters: Does my hon. Friend recognise that the Shamir offer to hold free elections on the West Bank has now been exposed for the fraud that it always was? He was saying privately weeks ago that it was merely a device to buy time. Now he has had to come out publicly. What do we intend to do now to get the peace process moving in a serious manner?
    Mr. Waldegrave: We intend to deal with the Israeli Government, not with internal party factions. We shall urge the Israeli Government that the peace proposal that they made had the germ of an idea in it, that it should be developed and that it should not be limited in the way that the Likud motions seek to limit it. We shall urge the other side—the Palestinians and the PLO—not yet to despair of developing those election proposals.
    Mr. Wood: Does my hon. Friend think that any international measures could be taken to ensure free and fair elections in the occupied territories? Is my hon. Friend pressing on Israel and the United States the need to have an international peace conference before there is further and much more serious loss of life?
    Mr. Waldegrave: Yes, and the Twelve reinforced that commitment to a peace conference. Our sense of urgency is increasing day by day with every new tragedy, including the terrible killing of 14 people in a bus on the way to Jerusalem. Every one of those tragedies, on either side, shows how little time there is left.
    Mr. Steel: The Minister cannot separate the identity of the leader of the Likud from the identity of Prime Minister Shamir, when they are the same person. Does he think that the recent statements from Mr. Shamir go back on the undertakings that he gave to Her Majesty's Government, the Twelve and the United States Government? Will he therefore take a more vigorous stance on the matter?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I understand the right hon. Gentleman's concern. It would be unwise for me to predict the final outcome of the Israeli Government's position. As we know, there may be changes in the coalition. We stand by our view that that proposal for an election seemed to offer the hope of progress, and the last thing that anyone should be seeking now is to abort it before it is properly born.
    Mr. Ernie Ross: The Minister must realise that Mr. Shamir's statement last Wednesday, as Prime Minister of Israel and as the leader of the Likud party, had two clauses. The first sought to ensure that there should be no negotiations with the PLO, no Palestinian state in any part of the Eretz Israel and no sovereignty over any part of the
    960
    Eretz Israel. Clause 2, which is far more important, sought to make all those decisions binding, in the Cabinet and in the Knesset, on all Likud members. How can we expect the Palestinians or anyone else to accept that any Israeli peace plan remains?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I feel no more optimism than the hon. Gentleman does after the events of that Likud meeting. However, I am well aware, as is the hon. Gentleman, that some members of Likud, such as Mr. Ezer Weizman, take a very different line. Before we despair of the Israeli Government's position, let us finally see what it is.
    Sir Philip Goodhart: Does my hon. Friend really think that the peace process in the middle east will be helped if we refuse to sell gas masks to Israel at the same time as we contemplate selling military aircraft to Iraq, a country which has used poison gas against its own citizens?
    Mr. Waldegrave: The latter decision has not yet been taken. I hope that the House will recognise the difficulty of the former very emotive decision. Equipping the armed forces of a state for fighting with chemical weapons is dangerous and difficult. We, as the principal sponsor of efforts to achieve a worldwide ban on chemical weapons, must be very careful about that. The application that was informally submitted was not simply for children. If such an application was clearly only for civilian and defensive use, we would consider it very carefully. The House would be the first to criticise us if we were seen to be equipping armed forces for chemical warfare.
    Mr. Kaufman: Will the Minister of State join me and my hon. Friends in sending sympathy to the relatives of all who were killed in the bus outrage last week and to the relatives of the Palestinians who are being killed every day in the occupied territories? Does he agree that those sterile, pointless and tragic deaths will continue as long as there is no settlement in the middle east and that instead of putting pressure on the Israeli Labour party to remain members of a Government who are going back on what he agrees was a minimal but perhaps helpful commitment, the United States Secretary of State should be putting pressure on the Likud to go to the conference table? It is unacceptable that one bigoted faction should stand in the way of ending this terrible confrontation.
    Mr. Waldegrave: I gladly associate myself with what the right hon. Gentleman said, as I am sure do my right hon. and hon. Friends. I have been trying not yet to despair of the Israeli Government's position as I hope that there are people in Likud who will take a wiser view and prevent the Israeli Government from drawing back from an already minimalist position.
    Will the House and the right hon. Gentleman forgive me if I ask him to join me in sending one other condolence which is relevant today—to the McCarthy family and other friends of John McCarthy on the death of Mrs. Sheila McCarthy, the mother of the British journalist held in Lebanon? The heartlessness of his captors in the face of his mother's appeals to be reunited with her son before she died can invite only universal condemnation. Obviously, we continue to make every effort to secure his release. We beg those who are in a position of influence to help with that release to do so unconditionally. We recognise that the break in relations with Iran, which was not of our making, has made the task more difficult, but we hope that

    961
    the new leadership in Iran will be willing to help in that task. These people are high on our agenda and are not forgotten.

    Gibraltar
    Mr. Colvin: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the application of European Economic Community directives to Gibraltar.
    Mrs. Chalker: All European Community directives apply to Gibraltar except those in areas from which Gibraltar was excluded in the arrangements for United Kingdom accession; those from which Gibraltar is specifically excluded; and those whose subject matter is clearly of no relevance to Gibraltar.
    Mr. Colvin: Because of the heavy impact of European Community decisions and laws on the people of Gibraltar, no territory would have had a better turn-out in the recent elections to the European Parliament had those people been entitled to vote. The six Members of the European Parliament from Luxembourg represent, on average, 35,000 voters. Does my right hon. Friend agree that on that basis, Gibraltar could have one MEP in the European Parliament?
    Mr. Foulkes: Another Labour Member.
    Mr. Colvin: Perhaps, but so what? Will my right hon. Friend use her best endeavours to secure for the people of Gibraltar the representation in the European Parliament that they deserve and require?
    Mrs. Chalker: There is no comparison between Luxembourg, which is an independent state, and Gibraltar, which is not. The interests of the people of Gibraltar have been well represented in the Community by Her Majesty's Government and in the European Parliament by the group of United Kingdom MEPs known as the Gibraltar and Europe representation group. They have served the interests of Gibraltar well, and I know that they will go on doing so. I refer my hon. Friend to the observations on this matter that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made on 20 June 1984. They still stand.
    Mr. Dalyell: Have British Ministers any reason to disbelieve the claim by the Spanish authorities that the IRA team had six members, not three as claimed? This is the same question that I put yesterday to the Ministry of Defence.
    Mrs. Chalker: I do not believe that there is any validity in what the hon. Gentleman has said.

    Greece
    Mr. Cash: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's relations with the Greek Government following that country's general election results.
    Mrs. Chalker: We wish the new Greek Government well and look forward to working with them both in the Community and in the Alliance.
    Mr. Cash: I endorse what my right hon. Friend has said. Does she recall that it was the former Greek Government who introduced the social charter into the cauldron of European politics? Will she encourage the new Greek Government to adopt a slightly less abrasive approach?
    Mrs. Chalker: I am well aware that my hon. Friend shares my view about the proposals that may have been drawn up by the Greek commissioner. The proposals that came forward for the social charter were agreed by a majority of commissioners and are Commission proposals. Discussion on this matter is taking place in Brussels. However attractive the idea may seem, the change of Government in Greece does not affect the position of the commissioner responsible.
    Mr. Dykes: There is a certain amount of puzzlement in Athens because, when it comes to social charter provisions, the differences between countries and traditions are too great to make any similarity possible whereas in respect of the internal market, for economic and financial reasons, it is possible for us to achieve total harmony within a few years. Why is there a difference in the British Government's attitude to those two aspects?
    Mrs. Chalker: As my right hon. and learned Friend said earlier, the difference is that we believe that the social dimension should help to improve economic performance across Europe. It is clear that the Council of Europe social charter, which provided a framework, was a very good text, but it did not extend to deciding at European level those matters that we properly believe should be decided by each nation state. We know that liberalisation and deregulation are the only way to achieve economic growth and a reduction in unemployment. We believe that we should be entitled, in accordance with the Commission's principle of subsidiarity, to decide which way the country goes.

    Afghanistan
    Mr. Ron Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about relations with Afghanistan.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: We have no substantive dealings with the Kabul regime, which has been rejected by a majority of the Afghan people. We look forward to the day when the regime is replaced by a truly representative Government with whom we could have normal relations.
    Mr. Brown: Surely the Secretary of State has to come to terms with the fact, however unpalatable, that Dr. Najibullah's Government have survived, strengthened their position and defeated the forces of reaction militarily. Even Conservative Members have to come to terms with that. It is suggested by many, and even by moderate rebel leaders, that there should be some understanding and means of negotiation so that this so-called Afghan problem can be resolved. Will the Secretary of State take the initiative and arrange a conference so that the various warring parties can come round the table and reach a settlement which will mean peace in Afghanistan, which is so important to everyone?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: The force that destroyed peace in Afghanistan 10 years ago was the invading Soviet army.

    963
    The Najibullah regime was installed and armed by the Russians and was upheld against the wishes of the majority of the Afghan people. It controls less than one fifth of the country and its so-called reconciliation policy has failed. I prefer to accept the judgment of the 5 million Afghan refugees who have still fled the country and decline to return there to that of the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Greg Knight: Did my right hon. and learned Friend take the opportunity recently of thanking Mrs. Bhutto and her country for all the help and support they have given to the people of Afghanistan over the past 10 years? Those people are still suffering the backlash of Soviet occupation.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I took that opportunity. The people and Government of Pakistan have borne a heavy load throughout that time and are much to be thanked by the world community and the people of Afghanistan.
    Mr. Anderson: Is not the reality that the heady forecasts of a quick victory for the mujaheddin of perhaps six months or so ago are no longer valid and there is no realistic chance of a military solution to the internal conflict? The reported decision of the United States Administration to finance one more fighting season is wrong. It will increase the fatalities in that war-ravaged area. Will the Government, therefore, have the courage to say to the United States that the decision to finance one more fighting season is wrong and will they urge negotiations as the only basis for future stability in that country?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: The wish on which everyone is united is the emergence of a Government representative of the people of Afghanistan as a whole and that means a Government to whom the 5 million refugees can safely return, not the Government being sustained by the support of Soviet arms. The hon. Gentleman must recall that before the Russian withdrawal, massive quantities of Soviet arms were entrusted to the Najibullah regime and those supplies have continued in large quantities until today.

    Hungary
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met representatives of the Hungarian Government; what matters were discussed; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Waldegrave: My right hon. and learned Friend met Hungarian State Minister Imre Pozsgay on 25 April. I have just returned from a three-day visit to Hungary where I met Prime Minister Nemeth, Mr. Pozsgay and a wide range of Government, party and Opposition leaders. I also laid a wreath at the grave of Imry Nagy and placed flowers at the memorial to Raoul Wallenberg. I expressed the strong support of the Government, and I believe the House, for the process of reform taking place in Hungary.
    Mr. Greenway: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that I had the honour to teach many children driven from Hungary at the time of the invasion by Russian tanks? They were very fine children and their parents came with them. Many others were driven out by the murderous regime of Jánós Kádar. My right hon. and learned Friend has the support of all parties in welcoming the
    964
    improvements in Hungary. However, will he assure the House that the developments in Hungary will be to the advancement of the people of that nation in a truly democratic form and to the elimination of the past wickednesses they have suffered?
    Mr. Waldegrave: Progress is very marked, and there is free and open discussion of all the issues that my hon. Friend mentioned, including the past and the rehabilitation of Imre Nagy. The reburial on 16 June was truly a watershed. I do not think, however, that any hon. Member should underestimate the deep suspicion with which people in the opposition groups in Hungary view even the most liberal members of the Hungarian Socialist Workers' party which was responsible for those previous regimes.
    Mr. Heifer: Is the Minister aware that those Opposition Members who stood four square behind the people of Hungary during the revolution in support of attempts to create a society which was genuinely democratic very much welcome what has been happening in Hungary recently? Is he also aware, however, that some of us feel even today how regrettable it was that we in this country could not give our full attention and support to the people of Hungary because the Government of the time were involved in a silly business—Suez.
    Mr. Waldegrave: I am not sure that I can reopen the question of Suez. I am sure that there will be quite a lot of agreement on both sides of the House about that. Having said that, I welcome the hon. Gentleman's powerful support for what is happening in Hungary and above all for the openness with which the truth is being told about 1956 and the years after 1956. The memorial to Imre Nagy is not the only moving sight in that graveyard. One also sees monuments to unknown people, many of whom were executed up to five years later, and the truth is at last being told about that.
    Mr. Michael Marshall: Does my hon. Friend agree that, in addition to the ministerial contacts that he described, which I greatly welcome, opportunities are, increasingly presenting themselves for British and Hungarian industries to get together to consider opportunities for inward investment in Hungary as a way of assisting the growth of its economy? Is that a task in which the Government could take an interest and involve themselves?
    Mr. Waldegrave: We have an investment protection agreement with Hungary, which is very welcome. I am glad to see the United States catching up with Britain in some respects, and we welcome what the President has announced, although I am happy to say that some of the arrangements were already in place. Hungary has never rescheduled her debts and deserves a proper response from Western investment now that she is welcoming it, although we believe that there is still a long way to go in opening up a market economy, as one would expect after 40 years of Communist nightmare.
    Mr. Alex Carlile: Does the Minister agree that Hungary is as much a country of central Europe as Austria is? Will the Government take steps to ensure that the European Community regards Hungary in much the same light as Austria, though needing very much more help to assist it towards economic and democratic success?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I know that the hon. and learned Gentleman, who has considerable knowledge of these matters, welcomes the fact that the European Community has a very good agreement with Hungary, and I am glad that the Government played some part in carrying that through. It is true that Hungary is a European country and part of European culture, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said resoundingly in her speech at Bruges.
    Sir Eldon Griffiths: As one who stood alongside Imre Nagy in 1956 when he proclaimed a new deal for Hungary, and who ended up a prisoner of the Red army for my pains, let me ask my hon. Friend whether he regards the rehabilitation of Imre Nagy and the movement of Hungary back towards freedom as one of the remarkable historical changes that we have witnessed in recent years? Is it not true, as the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlisle) suggested, that we should now be trying to open the door for Hungary to become associated in some way with such western organisations as the Council of Europe and, eventually, the EEC?
    Mr. Waldegrave: Hungary does have guest membership—observer status—at the Council of Europe, and that is a good thing. I support what my hon. Friend says. I hope that it means exactly what it says. In his speech to the Council of Europe Mr. Gorbachev said that countries were allowed to choose their own paths. If Hungary is allowed to choose its own path, we know which it will be.

    China
    Mr. John Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has been making to the Government of China on the subject of human rights.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: We and our European Community partners have firmly condemned the brutal actions of the Chinese Government. I made this plain to the Chinese chargé d'affaires on 5 June. On 27 June the European Council adopted a declaration on China, which reiterated our condemnation and called on the Chinese authorities to respect human rights. In accordance with this declaration, ambassadors representing the Twelve have been instructed to seek the admission of independent observers to attend trials and visit prisons.
    Mr. Hughes: In the light of other countries restricting their trade with China, will the Foreign Secretary say whether the 48 group, which includes BOC, Plessey and Pilkington, is still going ahead with its massive trade mission in November? Are the Government giving that trade mission their blessing? If they are, how can they justify the use of Department of Trade and Industry funds to subsidise it, only a month after the Tiananmen square massacre, and when executions are still taking place and human rights are being abused? Are the Government adopting a mercenary manner by ignoring those horrendous happenings and saying that business will go ahead as usual?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: As I have told the hon. Gentleman, the Government, in common with all Governments of the world, have in no uncertain fashion expressed their horror at what has taken place. Equally, Her Majesty's Government, in common with all Governments of the Economic Community and of the economic seven—not
    966
    least that of Hong Kong, strongly urged by the people of Hong Kong—do not believe that it would be right to impose economic sanctions in our relationships with China. I have no doubt about that. Every other Government take the same view. Of course we have postponed consideration of concessional financing for new projects, and of course we are looking carefully at any particular case involving DTI support for trade missions. It is for that reason that the Sino-British trade council announced on 7 July its postponement of the all-British exhibition scheduled for November. The DTI is still in consultation with the 48 group to which the hon. Gentleman referred about its plans to mount a mission to China in the autumn.
    Sir Peter Blaker: Is it not in the interests of China to take early steps to restore the people of Hong Kong's confidence in the future of their rights, for example by agreeing that the People's Liberation Army will not be stationed in Hong Kong after 1997 and that the right of interpretation of the Basic Law shall rest unambiguously in Hong Kong?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: My right hon. Friend has drawn attention to two articles of the draft Basic Law which were most frequently pressed upon me on my recent visit to Hong Kong. On each of those matters I have already expressed a view which my right hon. Friend has just now expressed.
    Mr. Mullin: May I say how much many Opposition Members welcome the Government's rediscovery of human rights in China and hope that they will now extend to Tibet? Who knows, when the Dalai Lama of Tibet next comes to London, perhaps the Foreign Secretary will find time to meet him.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: The scale of events in Tibet and of those in Peking recently were completely different. In any event, at the time of the last tragedies in Tibet, Her Majesty's Government made clear their deep concern about what was happening there. As the hon. Member knows, the Dalai Lama did, indeed, come to London.
    Mr. Adley: As one of the purposes of maintaining diplomatic relations is to pass to Governments messages that sometimes have to be passed, however unpleasant they may be, will my right hon. Friend, through whatever channel is open to him, convey a message to the Chinese Government, advising them against seeking to influence opinion in western Europe with a propaganda booklet entitled "The June Turbulence in Beijing"? That booklet is unlikely to win them friends, change any minds in the West, or to gain them any respect.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing my attention to the book, which I have not yet studied. I shall certainly do so in the light of his advice. He is no doubt well placed to convey similar advice to the Chinese Government.
    Mr. Foulkes: Does the information that the Foreign Secretary gets from missions in China confirm the information that I received today that the purge and repression is much worse than is reported in the western media, and that in the past few weeks, thousands of students have been rounded up in Szechwan province?
    Is the Foreign Secretary aware that trade visits and all other contacts are being ruthlessly exploited by the

    967
    Chinese Government for propaganda purposes? For both those reasons, will he say that the 48 group's October visit must be cancelled, like the Sino-British trade exhibition? Does he accept that we have a moral responsibility to the demonstrators, to whom we gave our encouragement, to stand by them until all the repression is ended in China?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: Nobody doubts the importance of the moral message that the hon. Gentleman is uttering. The entire collection of western Governments has expressed that very strongly. The fact must be faced that Hong Kong, for which the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) claims some responsibility, is intimately dependent, economically and politically, upon what takes place in China. The advice of people in Hong Kong, which is upheld by Governments around the world, is that it would not be helpful to the advancement of the cause of respect for human rights in China to rupture economic links with them.
    Mr. Kaufman: Shoddy.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: It may be shoddy in the right hon. Gentleman's judgment, but it is the universal judgment of all the countries with whom we have been in consultation.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Does my right hon. and learned Friend find it a fascinating contradiction that the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) did not take the same view about the Falklands? Does he agree that we have to face the fact that Hong Kong exists, that we have responsibilities, that we have a very short period in which to ensure the survival of the way of life of Hong Kong, and that that can be achieved only by working with and talking to the Chinese?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: Our responsibility to the people of Hong Kong can and should be achieved by making it absolutely plain to the Government of China how shocked we and the rest of the world were by what took place in Peking six weeks ago, and by seeking at the same time a change, including the method of change. We also seek the continuity of economic relations between Hong Kong and China. That is the view not just of this Government, but of all the Governments of the European Community and of all the substantial trading partners.

    Hong Kong
    Mr. McFall: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proposals he has to encourage the transition to democracy in Hong Kong.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: As I told the House on 5 July, we shall be re-examining current plans for the development of representative government in Hong Kong. As the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs pointed out in its report published on 30 June, the wishes of the Hong Kong people themselves must be crucial to our approach to this question.
    Mr. McFall: In the light of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee report on Hong Kong and of the official opposition view that, by 1991, 50 per cent. of the Legislative Council should be elected and that by 1995, 100 per cent. should be elected, what is the view of the
    968
    Government on these proposals and, more particularly, will they implement them so that, before the handover date of 1997, full democracy is operating in Hong Kong?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: We shall, as I have made clear already, review the rate of progress toward representative government in Hong Kong in the light, above all, of evolving opinion in the territory. The Select Committee on Foreign Affairs pointed out—I have already made this point—that the wishes of the Hong Kong people must be crucial to our approach to this question. The last considered opinion expressed in Hong Kong was that expressed unanimously by the Office of the Members of the Executive and Legislative Councils of Hong Kong on 24 May. It is now reconsidering the matter. It is already clear, as I have made plain, that plans for 1991 will certainly need to be looked at again. We shall consider what needs to be done before 1997 once those views have been expressed clearly within Hong Kong.
    Mr. David Howell: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that he is absolutely correct that it is the wishes of Hong Kong about the pace of democracy which must prevail, although, as he rightly says, there are signs of increasing strength of feeling about the need to have democracy well entrenched by 1997? Will he try to explain to Opposition Members and to those outside this House, when they talk of economic sanctions and other attempts to break links with China, that 40 per cent. of Hong Kong's manufacturing industry is physically placed up the Pearl river in China? The ideas of Opposition Members would put a dagger at the heart of Hong Kong.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for both his comments. It cannot be stated too often that China is the largest commercial and financial partner of Hong Kong and that Hong Kong is the largest commercial and financial partner of China. It would be absolutely catastrophic to begin to approach this matter by deliberately savaging those crucial and important economic links.
    Dr. Bray: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that there is a job to be done by a directly-elected democratic executive and legislature in Hong Kong in securing rights of refuge and settlement of abode—or however he cares to describe it—for larger numbers of people in the world than the Foreign Secretary or any British Government would have the moral authority to secure? Has he therefore made arrangements to receive advice individually from members of LegCo and ExCo, and not solely through the Government?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: The members of LegCo and of OmelCo—the Office of the Members of the Executive and Legislative Councils of Hong Kong—are well placed to extend their advice individually as well as collectively. I had the opportunity of meeting them together when I was there and each expressed strong views. I have no doubt that we shall subsequently hear from them individually as well as collectively.
    Mr. Kilfedder: Will the Foreign Secretary give an assurance that the people of Hong Kong will be allowed to draft and approve a Bill of Rights and when that has been achieved, will he persuade his Cabinet colleagues to provide a similar Bill of Rights for the people of Northern Ireland?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I would not seek to match my hon. Friend in his willingness to seek to address the questions and aspirations of the people of Northern Ireland. However, he can be sure that we intend to introduce a Bill of Rights at an early stage in Hong Kong. Indeed, the Governor will be making an announcement about that in October.

    Totalitarian Regimes
    Mr. Boswell: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what training in the technical processes of democracy Britain can offer to countries emerging from totalitarian regimes.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Tim Eggar): We offer training in the technical processes of democracy through a wide range of visits, seminars, legal exchanges, and media and management training courses.
    Mr. Boswell: Does my hon. Friend agree that the cause of democracy is now advancing widely throughout the world, especially in eastern Europe? While I pay tribute to our hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for his offer to Poland—and, I believe, to Hungary—of support of that kind, does my hon. Friend agree that it is entirely appropriate that the Government should add a measure of cash and training resources to complement our skills, strengths of tradition and knowledge in the processes of democracy?
    Mr. Eggar: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his recognition of the £5 million know-how fund for Poland. In addition, the Great Britain-Eastern Europe Centre is planning a series of seminars on democracy. We also receive and respond to a wide variety of requests for help in this area from emergent democracies throughout the world.
    Mr. Winnick: Can we take it from the Minister's reply that the large majority of the people in South Africa, and people in Chile, Guatemala and other Right-wing dictatorships will also receive all the kinds of assistance that the Minister has just explained, as they move, we hope, from dictatorships to democracy?
    Mr. Eggar: The hon. Gentleman is aware that as part of a long-standing policy, supported by Governments of both parties, we have brought over many of the democratic opposition candidates and that we have assisted with visits by parliamentarians, especially to Chile. That will continue. There is a good case for examining whether there is any more that we can do in that area, right across the board.

    Drugs
    Mrs. Maureen Hicks: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress is being made on negotiated reciprocal arrangements with other European Community members to combat drugs.
    Mr. Eggar: On 26 June my right hon. and learned Friend signed a bilateral agreement with Spain to trace, freeze and confiscate the assets of drug traffickers and combat the misuse of drugs. We are currently in active discussion with four other European Community countries with a view to signing similar agreements.
    Mrs. Hicks: In congratulating my right hon. and hon. Friends on the recent agreement that has been signed with Spain, and in view of the fact that this is only the first agreement with one of our partners since the introduction of the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986, may I ask whether he is convinced that our European partners recognise the urgency of the escalating problem now facing us and that they are ensuring that Latin-American drug traffickers are not using Europe as a distribution centre and as the front door to the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Eggar: We must accept the fact that Europe as a whole is being targeted by the cocaine barons and, as part of Europe, we face a considerable threat both from crack and from cocaine. I have no doubt about our Community partners' commitment to fighting the menace from drugs. It is, however, a difficult technical matter to reach agreement with countries that have a different kind of legal system to ours. We are working hard at it, and I am hopeful that we will soon be able to sign further agreements.
    Mr. Cryer: Is it true that the number of seizures of drugs at United Kingdom borders by Customs officers exceeds the number of seizures by every other EEC state? If so, will the Minister assure the House that borders will not be dismantled after 1992, but that we will still maintain scrutiny, against, for example, drug merchants and terrorists, to ensure that traffickers are stopped? Otherwise, the Minister could be accused of subordinating the interests of United Kingdom citizens to the interests of the multinationals.
    Mr. Eggar: I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern. It is, of course, essential that we maintain the ability to impose frontier controls after 1992 for the reason that he has given and for other reasons too.

Community Care
3.30 pm
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement on the Government's proposals for the future organisation and funding of community care. I apologise for the fact that I have a fairly lengthy statement to make, but it is a complex matter which is difficult to abbreviate more than I have.
Community care is a policy to which successive Governments have been committed for almost 30 years. The key aim of the policy is to enable people to live as full and independent a life as is possible for them to do in the community for so long as they wish to do so. For many people, that means providing the services and support that they need to continue to live in reasonable comfort in their own homes for as long as possible. For others, who may have experienced long stays in hospital and have more intensive care needs, it means helping them to re-establish their lives away from large institutional settings. I am sure that the vast majority of people wish to live in or near their own homes until or unless age or disability make that impossible. It is the Government's purpose to help them and the people who care for them to achieve that aim. Success depends crucially on the availability of adequate services in the community.
The background to the developments that I am about to announce is one of tremendous growth in both resources and manpower for community care. To give the House some examples of the progress that has been made between 1979–80 and 1986–87—expenditure by the NHS on the community health services has risen by 40 per cent. in real terms and local government spending on the personal social services has grown by almost 27 per cent. Indeed, that local government figure is almost 39 per cent., if it is brought up to date.
The number of day centre and day hospital places for mentally handicapped people between 1979 and 1987 rose by 10,000. The number of home helps grew by 20 per cent. and the number of day centre places for elderly people by 18 per cent. The number of residential places for mentally ill people rose by more than a half, and places in day centres and day hospitals by a third. Between 1981 and 1986, the number of community psychiatric nurses doubled.
That growth in resources has been taking place alongside a dramatic change in the delivery of care and the movement of people out of hospitals and into community settings. Between 1980 and 1986, the number of children in mental handicap hospitals fell from 2,500 to fewer than 400, and the number of mentally handicapped adults in hospital fell by around 14,000, while the number in local authority, voluntary and private community based homes rose by 11,000. In additional, we have, through the benefit system, put huge additional resources into supporting people in private residential care and nursing homes. The amounts spent on supporting these people have increased from £10 million in 1979 to £878 million in 1988.
None the less, I am sure that we all agree that progress has not been as even or as rapid as we should like. The rapid growth of residential and nursing home care has been unplanned and largely based on the availability of social security benefits. The Government recognised the need to see whether the arrangements for delivering
972
community care could be improved when we askd Sir Roy Griffiths in December 1986 to report on ways by which the better use of public funds for community care might be achieved.
We are indebted to Sir Roy for his report entitled "Community Care: Agenda for Action", which we published in March last year. The report has succeeded in stimulating valuable public debate. More than 280 organisations, professional bodies and members of the public, have sent us their varying views on it, many in support of the recommendations, but some favouring other options. We have taken full account of the wide range of views expressed, and considered a wide variety of options. Our conclusions are as follows.
We accept the distinction Sir Roy Griffiths makes between health and social care. Our proposals do not alter the functions or responsibilities of health services. The community health services will continue to play an essential part in meeting the medical and nursing needs of people outside hospital.
We are proposing to make important changes in the way in which non-health care is provided and, where necessary, funded at public expense. The great bulk of community care will continue, as now, to be provided by family, friends and neighbours. The majority of carers take on those responsibilities willingly, and I admire the dedicated and self-sacrificing way in which so many members of the public take on serious obligations to help care for elderly or disabled relatives and friends. Our proposals are aimed at strengthening support for those many unselfish people who care for people in need.
At present, people who are unable to support themselves and need help with social care can look to two separate sources of statutory help: to social security offices for payments towards the cost of places in residential care and nursing homes; and to local authorities, for home care, day care and residential care services. We accept that these present arrangements are flawed, because they cannot ensure that priority is given towards supporting people at home where that is possible or desirable.
Social security payments for residential and nursing home care are subject to no assessment of individual needs for care. The public agencies have a financial incentive at the moment which no one ever intended to give to them, to rely as much as possible on the availability of social security for residential care. We do not believe that those present arrangements secure the best possible outcomes for people in need, or indeed, the best possible use of taxpayers' money.
We therefore accept Sir Roy's recommendation that those two sources of public funding should be brought together and allocated on the basis of a proper judgment of each individual's needs. By creating this unified source of funding for the full range of social care services, we can ensure that the objective of sustaining people in their own homes wherever possible be given the necessary priority.
We propose to introduce a new funding structure for those seeking help from public funds for the cost of care. In future there should be a single budget to cover the costs of care whether in a person's own home or in a residential or nursing home. This will enable sensible decisions to be taken about the type of care that best meets an individual's needs and provides best use of public money. At the same time we will remove the perverse incentives in the present benefit system by making all claimants eligible to income

973
support and housing benefit on a similar basis, whether they are living in their own homes or in independent residential or nursing homes.
We have considered carefully which care authority should hold this new budget and take on the responsibility for the assessment of need and provision of care. Local authorities are already responsible for the full range of social care services and have a great deal of expertise in this area. We have concluded that the best way forward will be to build on local authorities' existing responsibilities. We accept Sir Roy Griffiths's proposal that local authorities should assume responsibility for the care element of public support for people in private and voluntary residential care and nursing homes, and for making the best use of those funds in relation to an assessment of people's individual needs and wishes. Collaboration between medical, nursing and social services agencies will be essential in assessing individual needs, and in designing suitable arrangements for care. We shall look to local authorities to ensure that suitable multidisciplinary assessment procedures are in place and to health authorities to make their contribution to those procedures.
We attach great importance to securing a smooth transition to this new structure, avoiding uncertainty for people currently living in homes and for their relatives. We therefore propose that the new arrangements for social security benefit entitlement will apply to people not already in residential or nursing home care after the date on which the new arrangements come into force.
Residents of homes who are in receipt of income support when the new system is introduced will therefore retain their entitlement to help through the existing system. People who are self-financing residents of registered homes when the new system is introduced will also be able to apply for income support under the existing arrangements if their funds become exhausted subsequently. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security is today announcing further details of these new arrangements.
We accept that further efforts will be needed to improve co-ordination between health and social services in the arrangement and delivery of services to individuals. We believe that the clarification of roles in our proposals will make it easier to achieve this.
The local authorities' responsibilities, in collaboration with others including doctors and other caring professions, will be to assess individuals' needs, design suitable care arrangements, and secure their delivery. It is not necessary for local authorities to provide all this service directly themselves and they should make maximum possible use of the voluntary, not-for-profit and commercial sectors so as to widen individuals' room for choice, increase the flexibility of services and stimulate innovation.
The Government have long urged local authority social services departments to act in an "enabling", and not just a "providing" capacity. Some authorities are already moving in that direction. To minimise disruption and to ensure that local authorities have every incentive to make use of the independent sector and offer people choice, we propose that they should continue to meet the full cost of accommodating people in local authorities' own homes, subject to their existing powers to make charges according to residents' ability to pay. My right hon. Friend is not therefore proposing to change the benefit rules for residents of these homes.
974
We believe that these new financial arrangements will give local authorities the necessary incentives to develop better services for people at home, and make greater use of independent providers. But it will be important that local authorities should have clear plans for the development of community care services, worked out in collaboration with health authorities and the independent sector. I shall expect all authorities to have such plans, and shall ensure that they are open to inspection by my social services inspectorate. I also propose to take powers to call for reports on local authorities' community care services.
Local authorities will need adequate resources for their new responsibilities. That means that we shall transfer to the local authorities the resources which the Government would otherwise have provided to finance care through social security payments to people in residential and nursing homes. The aggregate amount of transferred resources will allow for the projected growth in the number of people needing support. Resources will be needed by the local authorities in addition to carry out their new tasks of assessing individuals' needs, arranging appropriate care services for people at home, and buying residential and nursing home care.
We are confident that the proposed funding changes, by putting more emphasis on supporting people in their own homes, will provide both more suitable services closer to individuals' wishes and needs, and better value for money from public spending than under the existing arrangements. We shall be discussing the detailed financial implications with local authority representatives. The necessary decisions on the resources to be transferred will be taken in the public expenditure survey next year.
I have summarised our conclusions on the main proposals in Sir Roy Griffiths's report. They represent a major challenge for local authorities and social services departments. There are a number of associated issues on which the House will also expect me to make the Government's position clear.
First, we have been especially concerned to ensure that care for severely mentally ill people is properly managed. Here, as in other areas, we have concluded that the right course is to ensure that the existing responsibilities are discharged effectively. On the health side, I will ensure that discharges of seriously mentally ill people from hospital will take place only when adequate medical and social care is available for them outside hospital. More details of the initiatives we are taking here will be announced shortly. On the social care side, we have decided to create a new specific grant directed at encouraging local authorities to make their necessary contribution to services, in line with health authority plans and objectives. To achieve that, we have decided that the grant should be payable by health authorities, acting as my agents, on the basis of plans and targets put to them by the relevant local authorities. The details of this proposal will be worked out in discussion with health and local authority representatives.
Secondly, both Sir Roy Griffiths and Lady Wagner made recommendations about the registration and inspection of residential care and nursing homes. Local authorities will be asked to establish inspection and registration units, at arm's length from the management of their own services, which should be responsible for checking on standards in their own homes, and to involve independent outsiders in these arrangements. We have concluded that, for the present, existing statutory functions should remain unaltered.

975
Thirdly, we would expect general practitioners to ensure that social services departments are aware of their patients' needs for social care as recommended by Sir Roy Griffiths in his report.
I have outlined our conclusions on the main issues. I am grateful to the House for its patience in sitting through a long and complicated statement. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales are today announcing separately our conclusions of particular relevance to them. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will be doing the same early next week. We propose to spell out our proposals in more detail in a White Paper that we aim to publish in the autumn. It will be necessary to ensure that the necessary legislative framework is in place before implementation, which we propose should be in 1991.
Our proposals bring the policy of community care up to date, and will improve the way in which it is put into practice on the ground. Community care is no longer primarily about providing the alternative to long-stay hospital care. The vast majority of people needing care now have never been, nor expect to be, in such institutions. The policy aim now is to strike the right balance between home and day care on the one hand, and residential and nursing home care on the other, while reserving hospital care for those whose needs truly cannot be met elsewhere. The changes we propose will for the first time ensure that all public moneys are devoted to the primary objective of supporting people at home wherever possible. They provide a solid basis for the future, and are founded upon the principles of preserving individual independence and freedom of choice and of providing services in a sensitive and personal way.
I believe that they deserve whole-hearted support, and commend them to the House.
Mr. Robin Cook: I begin with the two points in his statement on which we can unreservedly congratulate the Secretary of State. First, we welcome the fact that he has finally got round to saying anything about the Griffiths report. Will he confirm that Ministers have taken longer to think about their response to this report than Sir Roy took to write it? Even after all that time, the Secretary of State still has to ask the House to wait another four months for a White Paper to explain the meaning of today's statement.
Secondly, I congratulate the Secretary of State on persuading the Prime Minister that providing community care means swallowing her distaste for local government. This is a major achievement, which deserves full recognition. We welcome the Secretary of State's acceptance of Griffiths's central conclusion that the lead agency in community care must be the local authority, which belongs and is accountable to the community.
Why, then, has the right hon. and learned Gentleman rejected Griffiths's recommendation that residents of local authority homes should be entitled to the same financial support from central Government as residents in private homes? If he really believes that elderly people should be given the widest possible choice, why has he decided to deny them income support and housing benefit only if they choose a council home? Surely even the Secretary of State
976
will admit that, rather than widening choice, that narrows it, and does so simply to fit the Government's prejudice against local authorities.
Since the statement calls for greater co-ordination and collaboration between health authorities and local authorities, could the Secretary of State enlighten the House as to how that co-ordination and collaboration will be helped by his intention to boot council representatives off every health authority?
The Secretary of State was good enough to recognise that most care in the community will continue to be provided by family and friends. Does he not mean by that the nearest available female relative, often exhausted by providing constant nursing, with no training, with no break and usually with no help? The Secretary of State informed the House that he admires them. If he really admires them, why does the statement contain no mention of respite care to give them a break, or a single mention of care attendents to give them a night off? If he really admires them, why have the Government proposed to slap on an extra poll tax charge for taking in granny? If he really admires them, why does he not bring back national guidelines for home helps? What has he to say to the half-dozen councils—all Conservative—whose provision of home helps is half the national average? Is that the standard of community care that is acceptable to the Conservative party?
The Secretary of State said that services should be sensitive to the needs and wishes of users. What will he do to encourage that? Will he begin by telling his colleagues on Bradford council not to proceed next Wednesday with the sale of a dozen old folks' homes without consulting the residents? Is that the sensitivity to the wishes of users that is acceptable to the Conservative party?
Now that we have persuaded the right hon. and learned Gentleman to use the words "community care", could I tempt him to use the words "disabled persons Act"? Why did he not take this opportunity to implement section 7 of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986, which would have given patients discharged from mental health hospitals the right to an assessment of their needs? Is he aware that last week was the third anniversary of Royal Assent to that Act? How can he expect the House to believe in the Government's commitment to community care when they have yet to implement half that Act?
The biggest omission from the right hon. and learned Gentleman's statement was money. He knows that Sir Roy Griffiths recommended an annual grant for each local authority to fund its community care programme. Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman like to rummage through his notes in case he left out the passage announcing such a grant? Does he not appreciate that, without resources, the plans and the reports that he has announced today are mere window-dressing? Why does he not at least accept that local authorities should have the property fortunes that health authorities are making from the sale of mental hospitals? Should not the first charge on that money be the capital costs of new homes to house the patients put out so that the hospitals could be closed?
The right hon. and learned Gentleman began with a description of the Government's record on community care that oozed complacency from every sentence. It ignored the fact that the number of places at day centres for the elderly has fallen per thousand of the elderly population. It ignored the fact that the numbers

977
discharged from mental health hospitals are three times the growth in the number of day centre places. Those outside this place will ask how that description could be made by anyone who has noticed the dramatic growth in the number of mental health patients now living in hostels for the homeless, or the steady rise in the number of them in remand centres, or even the increase in the number sleeping rough behind the right hon. and learned Gentleman's ministerial office.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman ended his statement by informing the House that his proposals will not be in place for another two years. Our pledge to those in need of community care is that, by then, no longer will he and his Government be in power.
Mr. Clarke: The hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) began by talking about the time that it has taken to produce our response. I cannot win on timing. For anything of which he disapproves, he accuses me of being too fast and a bull at a gate; for anything of which he approves—despite his attempts to find disagreement—he accuses me of taking too long. It is easy for him; he has only to see the words "local government" in a White Paper to ring NALGO—when it is not on strike—and ask what to say—[AN HON. MEMBER: "That is a poor joke."] It is a very good joke. The hon. Gentleman obviously takes footnotes from NUPE, as was shown by his questions.
The truth is that the hon. Gentleman agrees with my proposals. We have taken considerable care, first in deciding exactly how to sharpen the responsibilities of local authorities; secondly, how to transfer resources to them to enable them to do so; and thirdly, how to ensure that we have some assurances that they will live up to those responsibilities and properly discharge their role. The hon. Gentleman knows that he approves of that policy.
The hon. Gentleman apparently dislikes the fact that we are not allowing a large increase in local authority provision of council homes. Indeed, we are not proposing any change to the existing arrangements for residents of local authority homes, and there is no case to do so. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that there is a need to change the arrangements artificially to stimulate a sudden upsurge in local authority provision, my answer is that my statement is a challenge to local government and gives it important new responsibilities. It probably would not be right for most councils to combine with that a growth in the management role of the day-to-day running of more and more homes. We have struck the right pattern, because more and more local authorities think of themselves as enablers, looking to other people to deliver the care.
The hon. Gentleman made some curious remarks about my reference to relatives and friends. He rightly said that many of them are female members of the family looking after their relatives. The whole point of my statement is that we are enabling local authorities to give more support to those people. The hon. Gentleman gave a list of provisions that they are likely to need, including respite care and care attendants. The whole point of transferring resources and of clarifying responsibilities is to make available the very kind of support that local authorities should be enabled to provide in the light of our policy. The hon. Gentleman's snide remarks were unintelligible to me. I shall not get into bashing Bradford council, which the hon. Gentleman also irrelevantly introduced into his
978
arguments. New control in Bradford is bringing great improvements to that authority and to its capacity to deliver enhanced care to the city's residents.
Section 7 of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986 is overtaken by my remarks today. Section 7 divides responsibility for mentally ill people between those who have been in hospital for six months or more and those who have not —and there is no logical basis for that arrangement. Of course I agree that care in the community policy for the mentally ill needs to be improved, and our proposal will ensure that pump-priming resources will be available to local authorities.
The key to those resources will be held by health authorities, which, as my agents, will release money when they are satisfied that the right local provisions are in place. That should reduce the number of patients who are rightly released from hospital into better provision, but who then leave that accommodation or become lost, are not followed up, and wind up in the unfortunate circumstances that the hon. Gentleman described.
As to money and resources, we are following Sir Roy Griffiths's recommendation to transfer resources and the care element of social security to local authority budgets —making allowance, as we will have to do, for anticipated growth and the new duties of local authorities. We have not followed Sir Roy's recommendation for a specific grant. The transfer of resources will take place, but the specific grant was a control mechanism suggested by Sir Roy. For my central Government Department to seek to use a specific grant to control directly the community care policies of all local authorities throughout the country would not be the right way of enabling those authorities to discharge their responsibilities.
That is why I prefer the route of community care programmes drawn up together with health authorities and voluntary bodies, of giving powers to my social services inspectorate, and of having the power to call for reports and to intervene when an individual authority poses a problem. The transfer of resources is in line with Sir Roy's recommendation. That transfer and the new responsibilities begin a new era in community care. It has always been right to pursue the policy of keeping people in their own homes for as long as they wish to remain there, and the implementation of that policy will now be greatly improved.
Sir David Price: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the House is grateful to him for acknowledging the role of private carers in looking after the elderly and disabled in our midst? Is he aware also that if those carers decided to take industrial action, the statutory services could not cope? As my right hon. and learned Friend acknowledges the important role of the private carer, will he explain how he intends to "strengthen support" for the private carer? The hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) made a number of points that pertained directly to that aspect. Do the Government intend to increase the invalid care allowance, which would be of enormous help to people who give up work to look after a person who is insufficiently handicapped to be eligible for a disabled attendance allowance? Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that there are more people out there needing help than have been acknowledged until now?
Mr. Clarke: I agree with my hon. Friend's final point, and I think that it is acknowledged now that the vast majority of care of the people in question is provided by dedicated friends and relatives. We are trying to tackle the situation of when it becomes increasingly difficult or near impossible for the family to cope. At present, they find it much easier to obtain social security, to enable them to move the relative into a nursing home, than to secure the additional support that might help them to keep that relative at home much longer. I refer to respite care, domestic help and the other provisions that local authorities should be enabled to provide.
The money for that is readily available, but is currently diverting people into residential care when perhaps that is not the best choice. Those resources will be placed in the hands of local authorities, who will use a lot of it to back up the carers and give the support that they require to carry on with their task—which they would do willingly, with the support of the statutory authorities.
There is no change in the benefit arrangement for carers. That matter is for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security and it is not dealt with in the Griffiths report. However, there have been some advances. There has been a huge growth in the number of people receiving invalid care allowance since it was extended to married women, increasing elevenfold after the law was changed three years ago.
We are trying all the time to find other ways of helping carers, and we are encouraging the demonstration projects that are going on all over the country to show local authorities what is best practice in the provison of support.
Mr. Ronnie Fearn: We welcome the statement, and, indeed, the fact that social services departments will now be the lead authority: we have asked for that for a long time in our discussions with Sir Roy Griffiths.
Does the Secretary of State accept, however, that the GPs now have a considerable role to play, and that the GP lists should be smaller? Does he agree that training is needed for social services departments? They have called for it through their directors, and it will certainly be an important aspect of the arrangements.
Hon. Members have already mentioned the role of carers. Can the Secretary of State specify one or two measures to help them? I am connected with the Association of Carers, which will not be too sure, from a reading of the statement, what is to happen. Perhaps the Secretary of State for Social Services could enlighten us.
It appears that there will be rather a dearth of housing for those who are sent out—I will not say "thrown out" —of institutions. Clearly local authorities must play a major role. Will the Secretary of State direct in any way that they should receive more finance for the purpose?
Mr. Clarke: A high proportion of referrals to social services departments—of people in need of community care—come from general practitioners at present, and I accept that GPs have an extremely important role to play. They will be able to perform that role if they take advantage of one of the elements in the new contract: we shall pay them a much higher fee if they carry out an annual social assessment of all their patients over the age of 75.
I agree that small lists will help GPs to carry out their new duties. None of my proposals will increase the average
980
size of lists; they have been getting smaller ever since the Government came to office, and I confidently expect them to continue to do so.
I agree entirely that we must continue to strengthen training of social workers and local authority employees. Specific grants are already available—for example, to increase the amount of training for social workers caring for the elderly.
I gave some examples to my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price) a moment ago of the kind of assistance that carers can expect from local authorities, which are being given their new responsibility in the transfer of resources precisely so that they can step in and help people to obtain the support that they require to live in or near their homes.
I note what the hon. Gentleman said about housing, but I honestly do not think that housing finance is remotely related to what I am talking about today, and it is not a matter on which I can announce any new policy.
Dame Jill Knight: I welcome what my right hon. and learned Friend has said about the improvement in the arrangements for the discharge of mental patients, whose plight has been worrying many Conservative Members.
May I ask my right hon. and learned Friend to consider two factors that make it very much more difficult for private residential homes to fulfil their important task? First, patients in such homes are not eligible for ordinary NHS ancillary treatment: that is a serious problem. Secondly, payment to such people to meet their bills is all too often not passed on to the managers of the homes, who are experiencing severe losses.
Mr. Clarke: I am grateful for what my hon. Friend has said about the worrying problem of mentally ill patients, who nowadays are increasingly treated and cared for outside rather than inside hospitals. As I have said, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health will be making a further statement in the form of a written answer tomorrow, setting out more details of our NHS policy towards such patients. Lest anyone should speculate further along the lines of press reports, let me add that that will not include a moratorium on the discharge of patients from hospitals, or anything of that nature. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] Well, some may want it. It will strengthen the policy of care in the community for those who ought to be cared for in the community and will ensure that the policy works. I am afraid I have forgotten my hon. Friend's other point.
Dame Jill Knight: NHS ancillary medical treatment for patients in private residential homes.
Mr. Clarke: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. In my experience, people who are living in private residential and nursing homes are not deprived of all rights to NHS ancillary care, but I agree that the practice varies widely from place to place. If I may, I shall either write to my hon. Friend or will answer a parliamentary question, if she cares to table one, setting out the basis on which those who live in private homes are entitled to NHS treatment, thus aligning them with other citizens. It is a matter that often gives rise to local worries.
As for my hon. Friend's point about social security, various difficulties can arise when people get social security payments to pay for their stay in a nursing home, including

981
the fact—particularly when they are first admitted—that large sums of money can sometimes be handed over to someone to pay for the treatment, and owners sometimes say that it does not reach them. I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security is aware of that. He will have heard my hon. Friend's points, as he is in his place. I know that he is considering the matter and that he will keep it actively under review.
Mr. Frank Field: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement, but does he not agree that what he has said this afternoon could mean everything or nothing, depending on the level of funding? As for his most welcome statement that people should remain in their own homes or in their children's homes, if that is at all possible, what is the projected increase in expenditure from the total budget which would ensure that that objective is kept to over the next five years? To take him back to the important point that has just been made by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight), will he assure the House that from now on no one will be expelled from a long-stay mental hospital, only to find himself a dosser?
Mr. Clarke: On the hon. Gentleman's first point, decisions on resources can only be made in the public expenditure round next year. [AN HON. MEMBER: "It may not be forthcoming."] No. Most Departments of State and the Treasury are concerned about the public expenditure round this year. There is no point in expecting us to come to final decisions on a part of the public expenditure round for 1991 at this stage. However, the question of resources is important, so that everyone can plan. What my statement contained was a very clear, explicit statement binding the Government to the principles that we shall adopt in working out the right transfer of resources. When that transfer of resources takes place, the final figure will emerge in the public expenditure round next year.
I entirely share the hon. Gentleman's desire that no mentally ill patient should be discharged from hospital and touch is then lost with that patient, or care breaks down, so that he or she winds up in undesirable circumstances. Therefore I intend to ensure that National Health Service hospitals do not discharge patients until they are satisfied that proper arrangements have been made.
Mr. Frank Field: What is the Department going to do?
Mr. Clarke: It would not be realistic for every patient's case to be referred to the Department of Health so that the Department of Health can be satisfied. The practice has much improved, although there are places where it does not work now. In the past, there were some dreadfully bad examples of failure. Hospitals are no longer pushing people out, knowing that they will get into difficulties. The difficulty is that they were pushed out into what appeared to be adequate facilities. Then they left, went away and touch was lost with them.
We are ensuring that responsibility is clearly placed on the local authority, but a specific grant will be available which will be released by the health authority when it sees that local authority plans are there to keep in touch with patients and to provide them with the social care that they need. I very much share the desire that all of us have that there should be a big reduction in the number of incidents whereby mentally ill people fall into dreadful and destitute circumstances.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Will my right hon. and learned Friend assure the House that the National Health Service will continue to have responsibility not only for the treatment of the mentally ill, the mentally handicapped and the elderly, but also for the care of the mentally ill? How can he give the House an assurance that the social services of this country are competent or qualified to deal with the problems relating to the mentally ill?
Can my right hon. and learned Friend give the House an assurance that in his view there is a continuing need for long-stay hospital care for the mentally ill, particularly those suffering from schizophrenia? Despite what he said in his statement this afternoon, how will he ensure that mentally ill people will not end up in prison—as was discovered in an inquiry carried out by the Social Services Select Committee—in doss houses, in totally inadequate accommodation, on park benches and under the archways of such places as Waterloo station? Will he ensure that health authorities do not concern themselves more with the realisation of assets than with the care of people who require their help?
Mr. Clarke: I am entirely satisfied, in the light of my experience, that health authorities are concerned with the care of mentally ill patients in their charge and not with asset management, as my hon. Friend implied. Of course that must continue. Nothing that I have said today in any way reduces the responsibility of the National Health Service for hospital services for the mentally ill and the community care services, which have been so greatly expanded in recent years by community care units. The number of psychiatric nurses has doubled in five years in the 1980s and their number needs to increase further. Of course I accept the need for long-stay care in hospital, as that will always be required for those who suffer from acute illness or bouts of acute illness. However, the balance of provision between hospital care and community care is greatly changed. It has been changing for 20 years and it will continue to change. We are concentrating on ensuring the success of community care for those who ought not to be treated in hospital.
We have to avoid the scandals that my hon. Friend has described. I wish that some of the television exposeés of those scandals were accompanied by exposés of some of the scandals that used to exist in the long-stay mental institutions which we have closed, which were nightmarish institutions. We do not wish to go back to them. We now have the opportunity to link local authorities with health authorities, giving the health authorities the key to unlock the money for the specific grant that will pump-prime new and improved provision of social care for patients for whom the Health Service is trying to provide medical care in the community.
Mr. Alfred Morris: How does the Secretary of State square what he said about appropriate care for the mentally ill with the closure this Friday of a 24-bed hospital ward for the mentally ill in south Manchester, which, in the words of their consultant, means that his patients will have to wander the streets with nothing to do and nowhere to go? Will he stop that closure? Moreover, how does he reconcile what he said with the insistence by local authority leaders of all political persuasions that, due to lack of resources, they can no

983
longer meet their legal duties under the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 which, as he knows, is all about community care?
Mr. Clarke: I know that South Manchester district health authority is the centre of enormous controversy about its services and their provision. It is financed on the same basis as any other health authority. If it wishes to make a closure that is contested it is referred to us and is approved by a Minister only if we are satisfied that there is a good health care case for doing so. We should leave South Manchester district health authority to discharge its responsibilities in the way it judges best. Half the Members of Parliament representing Manchester regard everything there as a political decision, but we are satisfied to approach them as health care decisions. I am quite satisfied that South Manchester district health authority is responsible for arranging its own services. If there is a contested closure, we shall consider it in the usual way.
Local authorities have had an enormous increase in resources—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where?"]—on personal social services. Local authority spending on personal social services has gone up by almost 39 per cent. above inflation in the lifetime of this Government. The last time that I was in Stockport, which is near Manchester, I was shown a letter by the director of social services explaining that he could not care for a patient because he needed another £1,500 million to bring his services up to the standard required. Frankly, many local authorities can discharge their responsibilities on present resources, continue to improve them and will look upon today's statement as a great challenge to enable them to improve them further.
Mr. Ray Whitney: I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on his long-awaited statement, which brings together a complex network of community care services. Given the uneven level of provision of personal social services and properly managed residential care homes by certain local authorities, will my right hon. and learned Friend in implementing his proposals take careful account of the need to stablish an effective national monitoring mechanism? In that way, the funds, which will undoubtedly continue to increase, will be properly used and the best national standards obtained throughout the country.
Mr. Clarke: I endorse the excellent objectives that my hon. Friend sets for us in monitoring local authority performance. As I said, all local authorities will have to produce community care plans in collaboration with health authorities and local voluntary bodies. We will, of course, consider those plans.
We have not gone down the specific grant route of trying to control all the plans, but are very much using the inspectorate route. My social services inspectorate will have an increased ability to step in and inquire into the delivery of services. I shall have increased powers to order reports and inquiries. Our inspectorate is producing advice on the management of local authority homes, which should give a clear guide to those local authorities that are not achieving adequate standards. This should ensure that, if they follow that guide, the standards of most will be brought nearer the standards of the best.
Mr. John McAllion: I deplore the fact that there has been no separate statement for Scotland and that Scottish Members must await a written reply to a planted question on today's Order Paper.
Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman explain why he has ignored Sir Roy Griffiths's recommendation that the public finance of residential home care should be the same whether it is in the public or the private sector? Does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that, by announcing his intention to discriminate against the financing of local authority homes, he throws into utter confusion the planned provision of care in many areas such as Dundee, where a new major residential home is being built?
Mr. Clarke: My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has been involved in the production of the Government policy that I announced today. It is entirely proper for him to produce a written statement setting out particular Scottish aspects of the policy, just as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security is producing a written statement on the social security implications.
The Gentleman's second point shows that he has misunderstood what I said. There is no change in what I am proposing for the financing of residents of local authority homes. If anything, the discrimination against them is greater under the system that we are replacing. At present, there is an incentive to put people in private residential homes instead of assessing the possibilities of the local authority making other provisions for them. Local authorities will find that, if there is any discrimination in the provision, it will be lessened by my proposals, not increased.
Mr. James Couchman: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for his statement. As a former chairman of social services and of a health authority, I know only too well the gaps and overlaps that exist. Clarification of responsibility will be welcome to all those who have followed community care matters for a long time.
What will happen to the funds that have been released by health authorities when people have been discharged from long-stay hospitals and that form a kind of dowry to those who now look after them? What will happen to the joint funding money that has been passed from the Health Service to social services as an enabling fund? What plans does my right hon. and learned Friend have for increasing the level of day activity for those who have been discharged from long-stay hospitals where day activity has been provided on site?
Mr. Clarke: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's opening remarks. He has considerable expertise which is relevant to both sides of the local authority and health authority fence. Joint funding will continue. We are considering whether we can improve its effectiveness and the way in which it is applied and used. The White Paper that we will publish in the autumn will provide more details.
The amount of day activity is increasing. The provision of an adequate level of day activity for mentally ill people is one of those matters that should definitely be addressed in the community care plan, when it is produced by local authorities in collaboration with health authorities. In future, it should be much easier not only to carry on increasing the level of day activity but to ensure that,

985
between them, the authorities know exactly what is required, so that plans are drawn up and they know where day activity is provided.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: The Secretary of State has touched briefly on training. Does he accept that if we are to marry the assessment of need with the provision of service, there will be a clear requirement for a vast number of additional trained, qualified and professional social workers in field work and day care? Has he made any assessment of a budget for the provision of additional training for such people? Does he intend, unlike his right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, to ensure that people who suffer from degenerative mental illnesses, such as Alzheimer's disease, will be exempt from the community charge, which has placed an added burden on those who undertake care in the community at this stage?
Mr. Clarke: Social services is a labour-intensive activity, so the continued growth in the provision of personal social services is bound to lead to a growth in the number of staff employed. However, I am not setting a target, and we should not look for growth in the administrative staff as opposed to those delivering care. I recognise the need for training, and we already have some specific grants designed to encourage an increased level of training in care for the elderly. We shall continue to look at the case for any new specific grant, if that is required. I am sure that one of the first actions of local authorities with the new resources transferred to them from the Department of Social Security will be to consider how they will now be able to finance training to bring their staff to the required level of skill.
Mr. Jerry Hayes: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the frail, the elderly and the most vulnerable will welcome his statement? For the first time, they will have clear guidance on health care packages, backed with cash. However, will he be vigilant in ensuring that local authorities, which will be vested with vast resources, spend those resources specifically on community care and that the resources are not abused?
Mr. Clarke: I welcome my hon. Friend's remarks about the frail, the elderly and the vulnerable, who are meant to be the point of the policy and who will be the beneficiaries of it. I am glad that my hon. Friend has concentrated on that, rather than on the interests of particular groups inside the local authority world, as some Opposition Members appear to be doing. It is important that we stimulate a high level of performance by local authorities. They now have a great opportunity and it is up to them to deliver a good standard of care. I have therefore already stressed the drawing up of the new plans, the involvement of health authorities in them, and the role I expect my social services inspectorate to play. It will be necessary to ensure that some local authorities raise their present standards and use the new resources to catch up with the best practice elsewhere.
Mr. Michael Foot: As it is almost impossible to exaggerate the agonies and anxieties of individual families and the individuals concerned with this question, and as those anxieties are bound to be intensified in a period of transition, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell us whether he has had any consultation with the people who work in the service, including the
986
Royal College of Nursing? When I asked the right hon. and learned Gentleman a similar question about his general health care plans, he passed it away with a sneer, but he should have learnt better by now. Should he not consult the people who do fine work in this respect, even finer than in the rest of the service, if that is possible?
In the transitional period and even over a longer period, will the Secretary of State and his Department retain, in one form or another, control over the reassessments that will take place of when people will be discharged into the community generally? The assurance for the whole system is bound to depend on those reassessments. The right hon. and learned Gentleman must do his best to give firm guarantees to the people concerned.
Mr. Clarke: On consultation, Sir Roy Griffiths and his team went round all those concerned with the subject in the first place before introducing their report. On production of the report, all those concerned made representations in the light of it. We received over 200. The Royal College of Nursing, which did not agree with all Sir Roy's recommendations, was one body which put representations to us, and we considered them carefully.
I agree entirely with the right hon. Gentleman that nothing worries a family more than the whole process of seeing an elderly relative reach the stage where some care will be required to ensure that he or she can cope and the transition period may be worrying. That is why I emphasise that all those who are in private residential homes and nursing homes now, and all those who will be there in 1991 when the new system starts, can rest assured that their present entitlement to social security and their resort to the social security system will continue unchanged. We do not want to start reopening the provision for all those who are now resident in private nursing homes.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about the discharge of mental patients. I do not think that this was what the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) had in mind but, in case it was, I said that we could not take responsibility for each patient. Plainly, we accept responsibility for monitoring the performance of health authorities and ensuring that they carry out the clear policy of the Government and the National Health Service that mentally ill patients should not be discharged from hospital unless satisfactory arrangements for their care await them in the community. Through our accountability procedures, we shall seek to ensure that all health authorities live up to that.
Mr. David Nicholson: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that there will be a widespread welcome for the consultations which preceded and are to follow today's statement? Is he also aware that we welcome the emphasis on public moneys devoted to such purposes being concentrated wherever possible on keeping people at home and in the community? Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware, however, that Tone Vale mental hospital is in my constituency, and staff and the families of patients are anxious that patients should not be discharged until proper mental care and social support is available?
Mr. Clarke: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. As he said, consultation will continue after today. There will be a White Paper in the autumn, but before we produce it we must start discussions with the local authorities and with health authorities about how we should prepare for the

987
new policy in 1991. That will include discussions of the resource implications, about which Opposition Members have asked.
I know of my hon. Friend's interest in the patients in the mental hospital in his constituency and I share his desire, and that of the staff, to ensure that no patients are discharged unless good-quality community care is available for them. The mental hospital in my constituency was closed about six months ago and I believe that in that case, over a long period, the transition was achieved successfully. The policy has certainly been implemented successfully in other parts of the county, although I quite understand how annoyed and distressed people become when the policy falls down in practice, as it has in the past.
Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Does the Secretary of State accept that, if people welcome the general direction that he is taking towards more community care, it will be to the extent that community care is right for the individual and not because it is a cut-price option? Does he accept that, in providing the right domiciliary services to enable people to stay in the community, we shall inevitably incur expenditure on services such as paramedical services —physiotherapy and so on? Does he realise that his statement cannot mean anything unless it is accompanied by additional resources to make it meaningful to those dependent on it?
Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman also clarify the position on the Disabled Persons (Services Consultation and Representation) Act 1986, in view of the doubts arising about section 7 from his earlier comments? Does he not realise that that Act provides a specific mechanism for assessing people's needs before they return to the community—an essential feature of any structure such as this? If the right hon. and learned Gentleman does not know the answer to that question now, can he arrange for a statement to be made on the 1986 Act as soon as possible?
Mr. Clarke: I agree with the hon. Gentleman's first two assertions. Community care is not a cut-price alternative to institutional care and it is not being promoted as a means of cutting expenditure. We foresee greater expenditure as demand increases, with the changed age profile of the country. As I have already said, expenditure on Health Service community care has increased by more than 40 per cent. during the Government's term of office, and expenditure on local government personal social services has increased by almost 39 per cent. My statement made clear our views about resources for the future. All that we can do at this stage in preparation for 1991 is to say that the final decisions must be made in the public expenditure round.
Now I have forgotten the hon. Gentleman's last point.
Mr. Wigley: The 1986 Act.
Mr. Clarke: Our policy on that Act has not changed. We made it clear at the time that, although the Act had been passed by the House, we could not commit ourselves to providing resources for it. We are not bound by that Act in tackling community care. I do not find section 7 very attractive. It tries to lay down a legalistic basis on which to assess individual patients and divides the mentally ill into categories, setting out one method for dealing with those
988
who have been in hospital for more than six months and another for dealing with those who have been in hospital for less than six months. As the new policies unfold, we shall all have the opportunity, no doubt, to re-examine the continued relevance of section 7.
Mr. John Hannam: I welcome my right hon. and learned Friend's statement, but I am slightly disturbed by his last answer. Does he accept that an integral part of care in the community must be efficacy, assessment, rights of appeal and pre-discharge planning? Does he agree that the 1986 Act contains the necessary statutory requirements for all those facilities to be provided? I therefore plead that he again looks at sections 1, 2, 3 and 7 of the Act to ensure that the patients' interests are properly met.
Mr. Clarke: As I said, I was not proposing to announce a change of policy on the 1986 Act. I had better repeat that I do not believe that I have. The Act was passed by the House, and the Government made their attitude to it quite clear then. What we have announced today is an improvement of policy. It opens the possibility of more service of the kind that my hon. Friend, who always closely follows matters concerning disabled people, was quite rightly urging. We have not changed the policy. We do not think that, on this occasion, it is right to use the 1986 Act to implement any part of what we are doing today.
Mr. David Hinchliffe: The free-market experiment in private care may have done a great deal to revive the fortunes of rundown seaside boarding houses and dilapidated Victorian institutions, but it has set back the development of genuine community care for generations. I am concerned that the public perception of care has been affected by the fact that people now believe that an institution is the only answer to elderly people's needs, the consequence being many elderly people in institutional care when they do not need to be.
In proposing to leave determination of provision largely to the private market, what guarantee have we that the market will help to develop alternatives to institutional care? In changing the role of local authorities to that of enablers rather than providers, what will a local authority's role be when it is asked to provide part III accommodation for people who are turfed out of the private sector and whom it does not want to know, and it no longer has that part III accommodation available?
Mr. Clarke: If I can disentangle what the hon. Gentleman said from the political jargon in which he wrapped it up, there is not a great deal between us. I agree that there should be no prejudgment in favour of residential institutional care vis-a-vis community care. We want someone to make a sensible assessment of what best suits an individual, taking account of that person's own wishes and desires. That is the key role that local authorities should play. There should not be any prejudgment that a local authority should provide it all. It is for a local authority to decide how best it can make suitable provision for individual people. I do not think that there is much difference in policy. I always find it difficult when the hon. Gentleman insists on seeing everything in terms of free-market this or local authority that. [Interruption.]
Mr. Hinchliffe: The Secretary of State has some room to talk.
Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman attended, uninvited, my meeting in Leeds the other day on the National Health Service review. I hope that he found it interesting. When he realised that it was a serious discussion of how we were to implement it, he promptly left. No doubt he was expecting to listen to a debate about free-market versus Socialist solutions. He knows perfectly well that we are talking here about the sensitive delivery of care to individual people in the way that best suits their needs. That is what we want local authorities to do.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Bearing in mind that some appalling local authorities despise private enterprise and involvement in this matter, when drawing up the legislation, will my right hon. and learned Friend take care to ensure that, in exceptional circumstances, he has power to step in to ensure that services are provided properly if a local authority abysmally fails, as some hon. Members may expect them to do?
Mr. Clarke: As I have said, I agree that this is important. I am proposing to take additional powers to ensure that I can inspect and call for reports on the way in which local authorities are carrying out their responsibilities. When drafting legislation, I will certainly consider what my hon. Friend says about the need for possible reserve powers to step in and provide services, although the experience of central Government in trying to step in and provide services when local authorities completely fail is not very happy. I hope that we are making them draw up care plans alongside the other agencies that are responsible—health authorities and voluntary bodies—and then giving my inspectorate the right to get in in time and give warning that they seem to be falling down on the job. The vast majority of local authorities will improve on the very good job that they are doing now in the light of the new policy, and we will take some new powers to ensure that we can chase the few that lag rather badly behind.
Mrs. Rosie Barnes: The Royal College of Nursing has made it clear that, according to its calculations, the number of totally dependent elderly people will increase by 100,000 by the year 2000. At present, more than one in five people over the age of 75 suffer from dementia and need round-the-clock care, and there is no evidence that this ratio will decrease. I am therefore interested to know what increased levels of funding the Secretary of State expects to be made available to increase the number of residential places available for a clearly defined and growing need.
Mr. Clarke: I agree entirely with the hon. Lady's analysis of the growing demand and the growing need. The continued expansion of psycho-geriatric services will be very important, exactly as she described. Today, we are dealing with a policy which will increase local authorities' ability to provide social services support to those people and to their friends who look after them in the community, or to pay for them to go into private residential or nursing homes, as many will, because that is the best way in which to care for them.
Other aspects of the policy need to be looked at, however. I quite agree that, when developing community health services within the National Health Service, we must give ever-increasing priority to psycho-geriatric
990
services. We will have a huge rise in the number of elderly people who suffer from Alzheimer's disease and other psycho-geriatric disorders.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. It is clear that it will not be possible to call every hon. Member who wishes to ask the Secretary of State a question. I shall therefore call four from each side, and then we must move on.
Sir Geoffrey Pattie: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that there will be widespread support for his statement today, particularly that part of it which relates to the mentally ill? Will he repeat the assurance that no mentally ill patients will be discharged into the community unless resources for their care are made available?
Mr. Clarke: I will certainly repeat it. I note again my right hon. Friend's interest in this matter, which I suspect is connected with his concern for the mental hospitals near his constituency. I think that the policy has always been correct in principle, but its implementation in practice has often left a great deal to be desired. Although things are improving, we now have to ensure that patients are not discharged unless there is adequate provision, and arrangements are improved to keep in touch with them once they are discharged.
Mr. Tony Worthington: Does the Secretary of State accept that, in two respects, he has left some confusion about the care of the mentally ill? First, he referred to giving money to allow local authorities to start pump-priming projects. Such projects start things off and someone else picks up the funding later. Who will pick up the funding later?
Secondly, it will be for the hospital boards to give a grant to local authorities when they are satisifed that a patient will be well looked after. What successful precedents have there been for one authority giving money to the control of another, thus losing control over the budget? That has been one of the problems with the current policy. Will the Secretary of State comment?
Mr. Clarke: I will attempt to clarify that. I am sorry if I have confused. I used the expression, "pump-priming" because we are talking about specific grants to be used for new services. Local authorities already provide some community care services for mentally ill people, although it is only about 1·5 per cent. of total social services expenditure. I used that phrase to make it clear that we are talking about a specific grant to 'encourage new provisions.
I also used the word "pump-priming" to make it clear that it would not be the only source of finance for new services. We want local authorities to carry on expanding of their own volition. There are plenty of precedents for specific grants, and this one will mean that the money is made available only to provide community care for mentally ill people—it is ring-fenced and can be used only for that purpose.
There is no exact precedent for the health authority acting as my agent for the release of that money in response to bids. However, I see no difficulty in that arrangement. It will ensure proper collaboration between the health authority and the local authority and will ensure

991
that the local authority's provision matches the health authority's expectations of needs for service arising from, for example, the pending closure of a hospital.
Mr. Andrew Rowe: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that there was a typical misuse of statistics when the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) claimed that the statistics on home helps show that care is failing, when many local authorities such as mine are pioneering new services that are much better targeted than the old home help service? Does he further agree that the central pivot of the new process is the assessment procedure and that that entails collaboration between the Health Service and social service departments, which will be professionally touchy and difficult to achieve? Will he give an undertaking that, over the next two years, training will be made available for both sides involved in that difficult procedure, because otherwise I suspect that it will run into great difficulties?
Mr. Clarke: I agree with my hon. Friend's first point. The Opposition will never accept the inescapable fact that the background to this is 10 years of growth of expenditure and, even more importantly, of growth of the service for all the people we are talking about. At the moment, there is a growth of successful provision in most local authorities.
I also agree that collaboration between the health authorities and the local authorities is a key feature. We have introduced two new ways of encouraging that directly. The first is that those authorities will have to work together to draw up the community care plans. The second is that a specific grant will be released by the health authority when the local authority plans and the health authority plans for mentally ill people have been put in line.
We are now starting a process of discussions with local authorities and health authorities about the implementation of the policy. I am not sure that it requires the training of the senior staff concerned, but my Department's efforts will be bent to ensuring that, as they both prepare for the new policy, we do everything we can to encourage them to get together at local level in every case, involving the county councils and district health authorities.
Mr. Paul Boateng: Social workers and those who train them will read the Secretary of State's statement with interest, but they know—and surely he knows—that the reality is vacant places and case loads which have increasingly reached intolerably high levels. What is the Secretary of State going to do about the current national shortfall of social workers and especially about the crisis in London, where there are real problems in the recruitment and retention of social workers, because unless those central issues are addressed, all else is rhetoric?
Mr. Clarke: Of course, there is likely to be a continuing need for a growth in the number of social workers. The policy that I announced today of reinforcing the responsibility of local authorities and of the pending transfer of resources to enable them to do that will further that process. I know that the provision and condition of social services varies from place to place—this is not the time to go into that—but it is the management of the services in some of the London boroughs to which the hon.
992
Gentleman has referred which most urgently needs to be addressed if the authorities are to get the best out of the opportunities that we have announced today.
Mr. Keith Raffan: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that his statement will be especially welcome to hon. Members such as myself who represent seaside communities, who have witnessed with considerable concern the proliferation of residential homes of an uneven quality in recent years, and who want to see a much better balance between home care and institutional care? What further measures does he envisage to raise the standard of those residential homes, following the Registered Homes Act 1984?
Mr. Clarke: Local authorities and health authorities have an existing duty to inspect and register such homes. The position remains unchanged for those who are residents in public homes. Residents of private homes who need public support will have help from the local authority in financing their place. Therefore, the local authority will not only inspect and register the home if it is a residential home—the health authority will perform that function if it is a nursing home—but will be buying that provision, having decided and accepted the responsibility for saying that that is the most suitable accommodation for the old person in question. The risk of people with public support entering homes that are sub-standard or to which they do not want to go will be greatly reduced by what we have announced today.
Mr. Terry Davis: Is the Secretary of State aware that many elderly people in Birmingham prefer to live in homes that are run as a service by the city council instead of living in private homes that are run to make a profit? Why does he insist on continuing what is, in effect, a financial penalty on the city council for seeking to meet the wishes of elderly people?
Mr. Clarke: We have all been around many old people's homes and nursing homes. I have not found many people who are obsessed with whether the home that they are in is being run for profit or by the council. They are more concerned about whether a good standard of care is achieved in a good residential setting. That depends on the quality of the staff and on the quality of the care provided, regardless of ownership.
We are not changing the method of financing residents in local authority homes and we see no case for doing so for the reason that I gave earlier. No new discrimination is being introduced. We believe that most local authorities will want to concentrate on their new responsibilities and will not want to see a big expansion of their own management role in providing a service that they can get from others.
Mr. Alastair Goodlad: Will my right hon. and learned Friend accept that his statement will be widely welcomed in many homes throughout the country and by those who work in community care—especially his confirmation that the arrangements affecting the mentally ill will be amplified by the Under-Secretary tomorrow? Does he recognise that the availability of hospital treatment for those who need it—especially for those suffering from conditions such as schizophrenia, which recurs at unpredictable intervals—depends as much as

993
anything else on the continued dedication and skill of those who work in our much too frequently maligned mental hospitals?
Mr. Clarke: I gladly agree with that. Schizophrenia is a particularly worrying condition; hospital treatment is absolutely necessary for all those who suffer from acute schizophrenia. Sometimes people are released into the community where they can satisfactorily enjoy a higher quality of life, but if they suffer a recurrence of acute schizophrenia they may require urgent readmission to hospital. I hope that the arrangements that I am proposing will enable us to keep in touch with those patients to ensure their prompt return to a secure and caring hospital setting whenever that is required. At the moment, such patients sometimes get lost and are found acutely ill and not being cared for, and that is something that we wish to avoid.
Mr. Tom Clarke: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that he will have to clarify the question about section 7 of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986 before he leaves the Chamber? If he has a word with his right hon. Friend the former Minister for Health, the present Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, he will find—this will be confirmed by his hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) and by the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley), among other sponsors of that Bill—that that section, which the Secretary of State has criticised today, was included at the positive insistence of his right hon. Friend the former Minister for Health? Furthermore, some of the criticisms that we have heard this afternoon were advanced by the sponsors at that time. However, the then Minister for Health refused to budge one inch, and it would have jeopardised the whole Bill had we insisted upon the measures that the Secretary of State has advanced this afternoon. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman clarify that position?
Does the Secretary of State accept that, although the laudable objectives that he explained to the House about making proper arrangements and assessments for psychiatric patients leaving hospital and going into the community are welcome, they are not, at the moment, embraced in any legislation? If the Secretary of State is not going to implement section 7, is he going to amend it or to introduce new legislation to achieve his own objective? Has he therefore changed Government policy? Every Minister, including the Prime Minister, has said that it is the Government's intention to implement section 7 when the resources become available.
Finally, when the Secretary of State said that a White Paper would be made available in the autumn, did he mean during the recess?
Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I will gladly take the opportunity, when next I get it, of refreshing my memory of the debates in which I did not take part a few years ago. If I find that the hon. Gentleman was then expressing the doubts about section 7 that I have expressed today, I will review the position in the light of that.
I am not changing policy in relation to the 1986 Act and I am certainly not announcing today the implementation of section 7. We must now proceed with the new policy
994
which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. Goodlad) said a moment ago, will be widely welcomed; we must then reassess the relevance of section 7 in the light of that.
The White Paper will be produced in the autumn. I do not have a firm timetable in mind, but it will probably be in the recess. If it is, I am sure that there will be plenty of opportunity to talk about it thereafter, because the policy will not be brought into effect until 1991.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: I am sorry that I have not been able to call—
Hon. Members: On a point of order.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Let me get my point of order in first.
I am sorry that I have not been able to call those hon. Members who were rising today, but I will certainly bear their claims in mind for the next opportunity to discuss the matter, possibly when we have Health questions.
Mr. William O'Brien: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Secretary of State's statement skipped over the important issue of housing. Could we have a report on the important issues of aids and adaptations to stairs in housing at some time in the future—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am afraid that this looks a clear case of continuation of questions on the statement.
Mr. Bob Cryer:: Mine is different.
Mr. Speaker: A point of order?
Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Have you had any requests from the Secretary of State for the Environment to come to the House to make a statement, because many important matters are at issue, about the selling off of old people's homes by the Tory spivs on Bradford council? This was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), but the Secretary of State did not respond to the point, possibly because it is not his direct responsibility. It is something of serious concern about which we should have a statement.
Mr. Speaker: I am sure that that has been heard.
Mr. William McKelvey: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Is it a point of order for me?
Mr. McKelvey: Yes, Sir. Is it in order for an answer to be given in reply to a written question on an important issue affecting the whole of Scotland, when the planter is not here to hear the debate and there is no Minister for Scotland on the Government Bench? It is disgraceful that that practice is allowed to continue.
Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter for me, but I did my best to bear in mind the claims of Scotland by calling a number of hon. Members representing Scotland.

BILL PRESENTED
  CONTROL OF TOXIC WASTE RESIDUES
  Mr. Frank Cook, supported by Ms. Marjorie Mowlam, Mr. Ted Leadbitter, Ms. Joyce Quin, Mr. John Cummings, Ms. Hilary Armstrong, Mr. Don Dixon. Ms. Joan Ruddock, Mr. Allan Roberts, Mrs. Ann Clwyd, Mr. Tony Lloyd and Ms. Joan Walley, presented a Bill to protect the environment by controlling the manufacture and by regulating the disposal of toxic waste residues; 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 181.]

Energy Efficiency (Labelling)
4.52 pm
Mr. Malcolm Moss: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to introduce compulsory labelling of all domestic electrical appliances and devices to indicate the amount of energy that they consume; to impose penalties upon manufacturers and retailers who fail to provide such labelling; and for connected purposes.
One of the most surprising results of recent opinion polls on the environment was that in The Times, in which 12 million people said that they were prepared to pay substantial premiums for "environmentally friendly" products.
Without question, one of the most significant environmental problems facing the planet today is that of global warming, or the so-called greenhouse effect. While in no way would I wish to pre-empt the report of the Select Committee on Energy on the linkage between energy and the greenhouse effect, many facts pertaining to that phenomenon are already in the public domain.
It is generally agreed that about 50 per cent. of the contribution to greenhouse gases is made by carbon dioxide gas—the rest is made by methane, CFCs, nitrous oxide and surface ozone. At the Toronto meeting of world experts last June to consider the threats posed by changes to the global atmosphere, it was agreed that substantial global reductions of carbon dioxide emissions would be necessary over the next 40 years.
The United Kingdom production of carbon dioxide is 542 million tonnes a year, of which 205 million tonnes—about 38 per cent.—are produced by generating electricity, mainly from coal-fired power stations. To emphasise the direct link between electricity and carbon dioxide emissions, I shall take the simple example of a 100W light bulb. When lit for 10 hours, it produces 1 kg of carbon dioxide. Over the average lifetime of 1,000 hours, 10 such light bulbs would produce 1 tonne of carbon dioxide. If we continue much as we have in the past, carbon dioxide output is likely to increase by more than 100 million tonnes—20 per cent.—by the year 2005. Any reduction, therefore, in electricity consumption will have a direct effect on carbon dioxide emissions and help to combat the greenhouse effect.
At a time of economic growth—both actual and predicted—demand is more likely to increase than decrease. The options are consequently rather limited and range between fuel substitution—that is, substituting gas for coal in our power stations—more nuclear power, which produces no carbon dioxide, and more energy conservation and efficiency.
The opportunities for improvements in energy efficiency lie in four main areas. First, the generation of electricity could be improved. It is worth noting that, for every 1,000 MW of coal-fired capacity replaced by renewable or nuclear generation, there is a reduction of 6 million tonnes of carbon dioxide, which is 3 per cent. of our total electricial sector emissions. Secondly, we could improve electrical motors, which is by far the largest single category in industry. Thirdly, we could improve lighting. Fluorescent light bulbs are already available in this country that reduce the running costs of lighting and the consumption of electricity by a factor of 80 per cent.
Fourthly, by the use of the correct electrical appliances, there is potential for a reduction in electrical consumption.

997
There are wide differences in electrical consumption between appliances available in this country. A closer look at the differences between appliances reveals some remarkable figures. The average United Kingdom stock of refrigerators will each consume about 1,100 kW hours per year, but the best available mass produced refrigerator consumes only 180 kW hours per year, which is a reduction of 80 per cent. The same figures are true for freezers. For washing machines and dishwashers, the energy saving is 50 per cent.
Those machines are manufactured in Canada, the United States, Japan, West Germany and Denmark. I point especially to the latter two producers, because, come 1992, I can see that we will have considerable competition for appliance imports from those sources.
It has been postulated that if each household replaced current appliances with the best available, annual running costs would reduce by 75 per cent. Such a reduction in electricity consumption on electrical appliances alone would cut the United Kingdom's carbon dioxide output by almost 6 per cent.
It is generally agreed that no one policy option alone can ensure the necessary reduction in carbon dioxide emissions. The Toronto conference suggested 20 per cent. reductions by the year 2003. However, in a recent paper to Ministers, Mr. Ken Currie, of the energy technology supply unit, said that the Toronto targets were going to be very difficult to achieve.
The debate raging at present—manifested in the amendment to the Electricity Bill before their Lordships—is whether or not the newly privatised electricity supply industry gives sufficient powers to the Secretary of State or the director general to ensure changes in energy efficiency practice that will make progress towards a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions. The Bill states categorically that the director general will have powers to promote energy efficiency, but it stops short of ideas such as "least cost planning" and any fiscal measures.
According to Mr. Currie, energy efficiency offers on paper the greatest scope in combating global warming through carbon dioxide emissions. However, despite great economic and technical potential for improved efficiency, it is very difficult to make it happen. The reasons are that it requires very large numbers of small and disaggregated actions—every light bulb in every home, so to speak; those actions are peripheral to the interests of many consumers; there is a slow turnover in equipment and buildings; and the problem is exacerbated by market imperfections, such as the lack of specific and unbiased information for the users.
I submit that it would be irresponsible not to make a start somewhere to break into this somewhat vicious circle, and where better than in the task of educating the public, as responsible consumers, by providing better information on energy efficiency? As a first step, we could introduce an energy efficiency labelling scheme for electrical appliances, which is exactly what my Bill attempts to do.
At present it is impossible to discover in the showroom or in the literature whether an appliance is efficient. A simple labelling scheme would give customers such information and would allow them to take energy and environmenal effects into account at the time of purchase. Schemes have been tried in the United Kingdom— unfortunately, unsuccessfully. John Lewis undertook a scheme for fridges and a pilot scheme was undertaken by Eastern electricity under the guidance of the Energy
998
Efficiency Office. Ecological labelling has been a feature in many other countries. Consider, for example, the success of the Blue Angel scheme in West Germany. Currently, Ministers of the Department of Trade and Industry and of the Department of the Environment are discussing a green labelling scheme for this country. Labelling is not therefore a new concept for the country or the Government.
To be effective, labelling must not be over-regulatory or nit-picking. There is little point in using labels on those appliances where the difference in operating costs is minimal—for example, on microwave ovens, televisions, clothes dryers and home-heating equipment. Labelling would be of little use on those appliances that have small electricity consumption—for example, toasters and blenders.
Labelling therefore must be concentrated on those major appliances that have the most significant differences in electricial consumption—refrigerators, fridge-freezers, freezers, water heaters, washing machines, dishwashers and room air conditioners. Successful appliance labelling schemes are in operation in Germany, Australia and in the United States, which has by far the most comprehensive scheme.
The three essential characteristics of a good labelling scheme would be simple and clear presentation, relevant and understandable information and attractive, eye-catching design. My Bill would make it compulsory for manufacturers and retailers to label their electrical appliances to a standard and a regularised format. There would be three types of label, along the lines of the American model. First, an energy cost label would apply to fridges, freezers, water heaters and washing machines. That would show the actual electricity consumption, the estimated annual cost to operate based on average electricity prices, and the range of operating costs of competing brands of similar size and features. Secondly, there would be a generic label for boilers and furnaces; and, thirdly, an energy efficient rating label that would apply to air-conditioning equipment. The labels would have to be prominently displayed on the appliance and of a standard size and design, and would comply with European Community regulations.
I agree with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister who said last December at the Royal Academy that we must heed the dangers posed by the greenhouse effect and that to ignore it could expose us to climatic changes whose dimensions and effects are unpredictable. She also said that energy efficiency is crucial.
Energy efficiency is a complex subject, not open to simplistic or easy solutions. Energy efficiency measures should be practical and workable. My Bill seeks to achieve those ends, and I commend it to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Malcolm Moss, Mr. John Hannam, Mr. Roger Knapman, Mr. Michael Morris, Mr. David Curry, Mr. Michael Brown, Mr. Chris Butler, Dr. Michael Clark, Miss Ann Widdecombe, Mr. Ian Taylor and Mr. Peter Rost.

ENERGY EFFICIENCY (LABELLING)
Mr. Malcolm Moss accordingly presented a Bill to introduce compulsory labelling of all domestic electrical appliances and devices to indicate the amount of energy that they consume; to impose penalties upon manufacturers and retailers who fail to provide such labelling; and

999
for connected purposes; And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Monday 24 July and to be printed. [Bill 182.]

Orders of the Day
  Finance Bill
  Not amended in the Committee (and as amended in the Standing Committee), further considered.
New Clause 4

  PRIVATE MEDICAL INSURANCE (No. I)
  '(1) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 56 concerning certification of contracts, premiums paid under such contracts shall be eligible for relief under section 54 whether or not the costs which are the subject of the indemnity in the contract relate only to charges levied by a certified provider.
  (2) For the purposes of this clause a certified provider is either:

  (a) the National Health Service, or

  (b) a person providing treatments and medical services who

  (i) undertake training of staff to a standard which is certified by the Department of Health to be at least comparable to that provided within the National Health Service,

  (ii) when recruiting and employing staff trained within the National health service make a payment to the NHS to reimburse that service for the full cost of the training provided, and

  (iii) are certified by the Department of Health as providing a full range of treatments and medical services for the elderly.

  (3) An annual report shall be made by the Board distinguishing relief available in respect of certified contracts covering certified providers.'.—[Dr. Marek.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  5.3 pm
  Dr. John Marek: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 10—Private Medical Insurance (No. 2)—
  `(1) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 56 concerning certification of contracts, no premiums paid under such contracts shall be eligible for relief under section 54 unless the costs which are the subject of the indemnity in the contract relate only to charges levied by a certified provider.
  (2) For the purposes of this clause a certified provider is either:

  (a) the National Health Service or

  (b) a person providing treatments and medical services who:

  (i) undertakes training of staff to a standard which is certified by the Department of Health to be at least comparable to that provided within the National Health Service,

  (ii) when recruiting and employing staff trained within the National Health Service makes a payment to the NHS to reimburse that service for the full cost of the training provided; and

  (iii) are certified by the Department of Health as providing a full range of treatments and medical services for the elderly.'.

  Dr. Marek: New clause 4 seeks to tighten up some of the handouts and giveaways that the Government propose with their tax relief on private medical insurance.
  When the tax relief was hinted at in the Budget it came as a great surprise to the Opposition. That relief is contrary to the principles and statements that I have heard in Committees considering Finance Bills. It is certainly

  1001
  contrary to the principles that have been espoused by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury and by the Economic Secretary to the Treasury. They know that there is only a small difference between the way in which the Opposition would tackle the reform of certain parts of taxation and the way in which they have done it. We are completely at a loss to understand the introduction of tax relief on private medical insurance. The only explanation is that they have had their orders and that, faithful to their mistress, they have simply jumped to it and ordered their civil servants and the parliamentary draftsmen to allow her to get her way once again.
  I shall not be accused of not telling the truth when I say that that tax relief is not wanted by the Treasury. For the life of me, I cannot perceive the principles that allow the Treasury to include this relief in the Finance Bill. The Financial Secretary will be replying to this debate, and we and people outside will want him to explain why that tax relief should be in the Finance Bill; after all, Government Members will have to vote for it later.
  This tax relief is contrary to many of the financial principles that have been espoused by hon. Members on the Treasury Front Bench in recent years. It is also a dangerous proposal as it represents part of the scheme to break up the National Health Service. This afternoon we had a statement on the Griffiths report; it is difficult to say what the outcome of that statement will be in the long run. No doubt it will depend on the amount of money that the Government make available for the proposals that the Secretary of State for Health outlined. If the money is not there, however, it is likely that that part of the Health Service connected with community care will suffer and wither away. What is left will provide a second-class service for people who depend on the NHS while a first-class service will be provided in the private sector. The Government's proposals on medical insurance will play their part in that as tax relief will be given to people who have private medical insurance.
  Mr. Ian Taylor: The argument has been rehearsed in Committee. The hon. Gentleman should know that that tax relief does not mean the destruction, or even a move towards the destruction, of the NHS. In a sense the proposals are a means of strengthening provision to elderly people across the board by enabling those people, many of whom have already opted for private health care, to continue it during their retirement. It is an wholly interesting proposal and I am sure that the Treasury is as enthusiastic for it as are my hon. Friends on the Back Benches.
  Dr. Marek: The Treasury will have to speak for itself in due course. Many hon. Members are extremely concerned about those proposals. New clause 4 would make the operation of those proposals more open and more available to the public for scrutiny.
  If many people are already paying for private medical insurance, as the hon. Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor) suggested, what is the point of giving them further money in the form of tax handouts from the state purse? The hon. Gentleman cannot argue that the relief is an incentive to take out private medical insurance if people have already done so. From figures available to me it is clear that only 2·6 per cent. of pensioners are paying the 40 per cent. tax rate. It is those pensioners who will receive the greatest tax handout as they pay the highest rate of income tax.
  1002
  We have a deep-rooted objection to the proposals in the Finance Bill. We tried to defeat the relevant clauses in Committee, but the Government had a large majority and we did not have a chance. It was impossible to effect any opposition.
  Even though I suspect that at the back of their minds and in their hearts many Conservative Members realise that this runs counter to many other policies in the Finance Bill, they are not prepared to stand up and say so. They are not prepared to say, "We have had to do this simply because the Prime Minister has decided for some reason or another that this tax handout is to be given to the rich and the super rich." I say that because the Financial Secretary would be disappointed if I did not use that form of words at some time while proposing the new clause.
  If the proposals are not available for the public to scrutinise, a great deal of money will be given away, the public will be none the wiser and an activity that we believe to be dreadfully wrong will be carried out from year to year without public scrutiny. The new clause would prevent that. We seek to expose what is happening because we believe that the National Health Service is about to be broken up. We believe that not just because of the proposals that we heard this afternoon, but because of the Government's proposals in relation to the elderly and mentally ill, hospitals being able to opt out of the National Health Service and doctors being able to run their own budgets. Our worry is compounded by these proposals because people who take private medical care and opt out will receive tax handouts.
  Mr. David Curry: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that by repeating the words "opt out of the NHS" he is deliberately misrepresenting the Government's proposals? Hospitals are being invited to opt for self-governing status within the NHS. Will he cease to perpetrate this myth, which is carried on in the media and forms part of a campaign that simply misrepresents the Government's proposals? Can he not see that there is a distinction between hospitals governing themselves and being governed by their own management within the system and the "opt out" to which he refers? It does him no credit to keep perpetrating this myth in the hope that eventually it will be repeated, parrot-like, across the country.
  Dr. Marek: For every time that the Opposition can be accused of trying to mislead the public, they can levy the charge 10 times against the Government for using selective statistics or figures. They start in 1979 when it suits them, or in 1983 when 1979 figures are not so suitable, or they use those for the past two or three years when 1979 or 1983 figures are unsuitable.
  The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Peter Lilley): The hon. Gentleman admits to misleading the public.
  Dr. Marek: I do not admit to trying to mislead the public, as the Economic Secretary suggests; I am being accurate. Hospitals will opt out of an integrated National Health Service that is free at the point of need. If they become self-governing, the cheque book mentality will come to the fore. But I shall not pursue that line because I could stray a little too far from the new clause, although

  1003
  that would ensure that any of these activities is open to public scrutiny and scrutiny by the House and that annual reports will he prepared.
  The problem with medical tax insurance is that people must be rich enough to afford it. If they do not pay income tax, the Government will not give them anything. If they pay only a little bit of income tax, they will not receive much. They have to be rich to be able to afford to take advantage of the Government's proposals. The richer one is, the better off one will be. The Government's philosophy is that, to those who have shall be given.
  Not only do people have to be rich enough, but they must be well enough to sign up. If they are chronically ill or have a bad medical history, no insurance company will take them on. It is yet again to a small class of people that this Government seek to, and will, give money from the Treasury which could well be spent elsewhere. We are being asked to subsidise, from our taxes, the private medical insurance of people who are already wealthy enough and who, by and large, already pay for private treatment without the need for subsidy.
  Our new clause would constrain the Government by making them open their books and to account publicly for how the money will be given away. It also makes them justify the scheme's operation.
  Mr. James Couchman: The hon. Gentleman has just talked about people who are "wealthy enough" and do not need the help offered under the Government's proposals. He will be aware that old-age pensioners receiving state pension use almost all their age allowance with the state pension. Anyone who has a modest occupational pension or even earnings above that level will pay income tax at the standard rate and will therefore benefit from the proposals. By no stretch of the imagination could those people be called wealthy.
  Dr. Marek: Exactly—there is much sense in what the hon. Gentleman has said. People with small occupational pensions, who, I agree, are certainly not wealthy, will not have enough money to take out private medical insurance and still have enough left for their daily needs and to be able to lead sensible lives in their old age. Those people are not the targets of this tax handout and giveaway. The targets are those who are much wealthier than people with ordinary occupational pensions. I hope that the hon. Gentleman understands that point.
  Of course, it is possible for people who are paying income tax to benefit from this tax handout by obtaining private medical insurance. However, I suspect that people in those circumstances will be able to say, "I am sorry. The money that we have available at our disposal at the end of every week is insufficient for us to afford the luxury of private medical insurance." They could rightly say, "We shall stick with the National Health Service."
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett: The hon. Gentleman uses the terms "rich" and "super rich". For those of us who have not had the advantage of serving on the Committee, will he define those terms? Which level of income constitutes "rich" and which "super rich"?
  Dr. Marek: The hon. Gentleman must sign up, become a member of the next Finance Bill Committee and take part in our discussions. The question that he posed has
  1004
  been asked before. I shall disappoint the hon. Gentleman if he thinks that I am about to give a cast-iron definition so that people with a penny less than the sum stipulated will not be in the super rich category and those with a penny more will definitely be in it. He must take me for being slightly naive. Perhaps I am sometimes, but I am not naive enough to give such a definition.
  Some people are extremely rich and have so much money that they do not know what to do with it. They cannot even find out how much money they have. There are people in this country who do not know how much they are worth. They have millions of pounds—or at least hundreds of thousands of pounds—of ready, available liquid assets over and above any insurances, houses or property. They would fall into the class of the super, super rich. There are people who are not in that class, but I shall not take up any more of the House's time with that definition. I hope that I have been able to educate the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) a little.
  The Opposition object to the proposals because they represent bad taxation policy. There is no case for them. Hon. Members need only to cast their minds back to debates in Committee and yesterday when pleas were made for concessions. Hon. Members from both sides of the House said that this was not the right way to run a fair tax policy with a level playing field. The Opposition would be the first to say that, in some circumstances, we would not want a level playing field, but there must be justifiable reasons for it. Those reasons do not exist in this case.
  For private medical insurance to receive tax relief is clearly against every principle that the Financial Secretary and the Economic Secretary espoused in Committee. It is the equivalent of the Financial Secretary going to Lord's on a dark night and digging up the cricket pitch. He had a level playing field but has now decided to roughen it up so that it slopes upwards and forces those without money to bowl uphill, whereas those with money can bowl the other way. That is a reasonable analogy for what the Government are doing.
  The new clause would also bring under public scrutiny the point that the relief is not well targeted. Instead of targeting those who need more medical care or medical insurance, the Government are targeting those who can stay with the NHS or who already have money and do not need extra handouts. The Financial Secretary does not have up his sleeve an argument to contradict what I have just said. We accept that benefits have to be targeted, and we have listened to the Secretary of State for Social Security, the Secretary of State for Health and other Ministers tell us that every benefit must be targeted so that relief goes to those who need it. However, there is no targeting with this provision. It is a straightforward handout to people who have money and are already using it for medical insurance. There is no incentive argument or targeting argument for it.
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett: The same argument applies to child benefit. Why is the Labour party opposed to targeting child benefit and taxing that?
  Dr. Marek: I do not want to stray too far, but I can answer the hon. Gentleman. There is a difference with child benefit. It goes to the mother, there is a 100 per cent. take-up and, although the targeting is not perfect, it is not bad. The targeting percentage score for child benefit is between 60 and 80 per cent., but for this measure it is zilch.

  1005
  We should like to bring under public scrutiny the fact that if anybody wants family credit or income support, he has to fill up forms and be interviewed, and snooper squads come round to his house if there is any hint of impropriety or if a jealous neighbour tries to get his own back. The full panoply of state supervision and state regulation, and the overburdening authority of the state, are put on those people by the Government and the Conservative party.
  However, if one wants private medical insurance, one need only send a little note to one's accountant and he will fix everything. There are no snoopers and no reams of forms to fill in. It is all straightforward. One does not have to appear in a social security office, wait in a long queue and waste a morning to get one's entitlement. The philosophy is completely different. That is another difference between the Government's attitude towards income support and family credit and their attitude towards this measure.
  Mr. Couchman: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his generosity in giving way again. On this point, will he concede that there is a difference between making an allowance against income tax—that is, not taking away so much income tax—and distributing public funds by way of income support, which is distributing new money to the recipient? The hon. Gentleman said that there would be no snooping, but the Inland Revenue takes a healthy interest in our tax affairs, and if it has any suspicions, I am sure that it will be there just as enthusiastically as would be the Department of Social Security investigating team in other circumstances.
  Dr. Marek: I hope that, if the new clause is passed, some of the reports that will be produced will bear out my point. If the Government appointed enough income tax inspectors so that the Inland Revenue could take proper control over those whom it thought were fiddling income tax returns—most of whom have something to do with the City—it would be more efficient. I know that most people in the City are honest, but some are not and they fiddle enormously large sums. Furthermore, if income tax inspectors were paid properly, they would not fly off to private industry as they do because of the Government's Scrooge-like policies.
  On the hon. Gentleman's second point, the only difference is administrative. The effect of giving money, either as a tax allowance or as a grant, is to ensure that people can lead decent and dignified lives. Whether people receive that money by way of tax allowance or by way of grant from the Department of Social Security is neither here nor there. There is no effective difference. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will think about that. We have to treat people on the same basis even though the circumstances of some people are different from those of others.
  I have here an important figure on which I hope that some of my hon. Friends will expand later: two thirds of pensioner households pay no income tax. Therefore, they will not benefit from these tax handouts. Only 2·6 per cent. of pensioners pay the top rate—40 per cent.—of tax. Only 2·6 per cent. of pensioners will benefit from this measure. It will be worse than that, because pensioners do not have to pay for these benefits. Often their yuppie children will pay for them, so this measure is a licence to allow a yuppie who wants to to pay money for the care of his or her elderly parents.
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Norman Lamont): Why does the hon. Gentleman think that it is impossible for non-taxpayers to benefit from what is in the Bill?
  Dr. Marek: It is not impossible. I have not examined the statistics, but I think that I am right to say that, by and large, pensioners who do not pay income tax cannot pay income tax and are not in a family group with yuppies so rich that they can pay for private medical insurance. I am prepared to be persuaded by the right hon. Gentleman, but he will have to see whether his civil servants can provide any statistics for his assertion. I think that they probably cannot.
  We are against these proposals because treatment in the National Health Service is much cheaper than treatment in private hospitals. I can give a simple example. In the NHS, the cost of a tonsillectomy is £360, but the private cost can be anything from £600 to £1,400. This tax relief is aimed at the wrong target. Instead of using the money by way of tax relief, it should be given to the NHS so that it can provide for the medical welfare of our old-age pensioners direct, and when they need it.
  We have tabled the new clause because we object to the original proposals and we want to make sure that the results of the clauses that the Government insisted should be included in the Bill are open to public scrutiny in due course. The sum involved is large—the Treasury suggests £40 million, but we suspect that it will be about £200 million. Some people suspect that it is an open-ended commitment.
  5.30 pm
  I hope that the Government will recognise our need to be given the details of the scheme. Without those details, the new clause was restricted to providing that an annual report, covering various matters, should be made by the board. The Chief Secretary wrote to my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) on 6 June, enclosing a copy of a letter to medical insurance companies asking for details of how the proposed scheme would operate. I believe that a copy of that letter has now been placed in the Library.
  There are some curious aspects to the scheme. For example, treatment must take place at an NHS hospital, at a hospital instituted by a special Act of Parliament or incorporated by Royal Charter, or at premises registered under part II of the Registered Homes Act 1984. Does that mean that the public will be giving tax handouts to rich people staying in registered old people's homes? What is the substance of the Government's argument? Is the scheme supposed to be some sort of incentive? Earlier today the Secretary of State for Health said that, wherever possible, old people should be in the community. The proposals are contrary not only to previous Treasury policy, but to the policy of the Department of Health.
  I am glad to note that there will be some rules and regulations on qualifying benefits. According to the consultation document, accommodation charges will qualify, including those for parents accompanying a child. Home nursing charges will also qualify. The only people who will benefit from that are the very rich, who would have home nursing anyway and do not need to be given a cash handout as a little sweetener. There will be a cash maternity benefit. It is surely no part of the state's job to give cash handouts to people who want to insure against

  1007
  maternity. Of course, it is part of the state's job to ensure that there is adequate maternity and paternity leave for all, irrespective of wealth. Parents should be able to bear a child without hardship. A proposal to give a cash handout to the rich people who want to insure against maternity shows the Tory party for what it is, who its friends are, what its priorities are and who it supports.
  When we consider other amendments later, I might adopt a different tone because some of the Government's amendments are helpful. However, the medical insurance clauses are ill-advised, ill-thought-out and badly targeted because they serve only the rich. The Government have not even drawn up the regulations. I commend our new clause to the House.
  Mr. Kenneth Hind: As is usual in these debates, the Opposition have shown a mindless objection to anything that smacks of individual initiative or of benefit to those prepared to put their hands in their pockets to pay for it. Underlying the Opposition's arguments is their fundamental objection to private medical care. They will oppose any measure, no matter who it benefits, on that principle alone.
  I wish to raise one important aspect of our health care. Britain's health spending in the public sector is comparable to that of most European Community and OECD countries. However, on health spending in the private sector Britain is a long way behind. The Opposition forget that, in general, the two expenditures are added together, so they criticise the Government and claim that other countries—especially West Germany—spend far more than Britain.
  The Bill will help those in need to redress the imbalance by increasing the amount of private health spend and so provide a more realistic view of our overall health spending. The medical insurance clauses prime pump additional resources into Britain's health care facilities and will attract resources that otherwise would not come into the system. Without those additional resources, the cost of providing health care for the elderly would fall entirely upon the NHS and the taxpayers who fund it. It could even reduce the overall standard of care for all in our community.
  Currently 14 per cent. of the population are old-age pensioners, but by the year 2010 the figure will rise to 18 per cent. With that demographic change will come heavier demands for the care of the elderly, especially home and hospital care and community care as a whole. The Bill will assist the provision of future health care for the elderly. Fewer people will be earning a wage by the year 2010, so fewer people, through tax and national insurance, will have to carry the burden of supporting a larger number of pensioners. The Bill looks to the future and provides sensible planning to meet future needs.
  The new clause is an attempt to disrupt the Government's plans—
  Mr. Couchman: It is a wrecking amendment.
  Mr. Hind: My hon. Friend is right; it is purely and simply a wrecking amendment. The Opposition want to make it as difficult as possible for the Government to give the elderly an opportunity to benefit from private health care. The major aspect of this wrecking amendment is the annual report by the board
  1008
  "distinguishing relief available in respect of certified contracts covering certified providers."
  As usual, the Opposition are suffering from quangoitis. They want to set up a national body to administer the system, but to restrict the number of people who can provide health care by confining it to certified providers. The Opposition's usual tactic when they cannot defeat an argument because of its intellectual soundness is to try to wreck it by introducing unworkable practices.
  The Opposition's new clauses ignore those elderly people who, when they retire, will find that it is far more costly to obtain medical insurance. I emphasise the word "insurance" because it carries with it a risk. The older one is, the greater the risk and the higher the premium—and the less likely it is that people will enter into such a contract. New clauses 4 and 10 will allow people who want private health care to invest in it if they have the means to do so, and at the same time assist the state in providing increased resources.
  My experience as a constituency Member of Parliament is that many people who have enjoyed private health care all their lives find it disheartening that they cannot afford it when they grow older. The new clauses, together with the increase in the number of pensioners and other demographic changes, will not help to provide good health care for the older members of the population.
  The Opposition amendment adds nothing to the Bill. It is not helpful but rather attempts to undermine the Government's proposals. I have no hesitation in saying that my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary should see the Opposition amendment for what it is and dismiss it.
  Mr. A. J. Beith: Although the hon. Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) may speak sincerely on behalf of the elderly, he allowed himself to present a series of fallacies. One is the belief that it is impossible to be in favour of private health care and opposed to the provision of tax relief as an incentive to subscribe to such care. That is manifestly not the case. Even people on the Right among those who advise the Conservative party are in favour of private health care but do not believe that the tax system should subsidise it.
  Similarly, it is not the case that we welcome the clause. The Social Services Select Committee, which has a majority of Conservative Members, commented in its fifth report:
  "In our judgment, the creation of new tax subsidy on private health insurance cannot be demonstrated to extend total availability of health care. It would reduce the total public expenditure from which Health Service resources are drawn while at the same time narrowing the tax base still further."
  There are many critics of the Government's proposals in all parts of the House, and the authorship of those proposals is the subject of some discussion and dispute. To me, they are the Dulwich clauses, based on the Prime Minister's concept of retirement and of how she and her husband will be able to provide for their own. The clauses are not based on the perspectives of most ordinary people, on how they must provide for retirement, and on their dependence on a properly funded National Health Service.
  The vast majority of people depend on a properly funded Health Service. If any money is available for health care, they want to see it invested in the Health Service, yet

  1009
  at the time when the NHS is under considerable pressure the public can see money being diverted to subsidise those who are able to take advantage of private health insurance.
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett: The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), like the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek), who has left the Chamber, speaks in vague terms about a "properly funded Health Service". Given that there has been a 40 per cent. increase in real terms in Health Service spending since 1979, what percentage increase does the hon. Gentleman think would have been appropriate, and what is his party's projection for the future?
  Mr. Beith: In our last general election manifesto, we said that a 2 per cent. increase in Health Service resources is required over and above that projected to meet the immediate pressures on the service. The Social Services Committee presented its own proposals for further funding of the Health Service. The hon. Gentleman cannot go anywhere in the National Health Service without finding people who are well aware that it cannot be properly run without additional resources. If the hon. Gentleman cannot see that, he is blinding himself to the obvious.
  5.45 pm
  The resources that the Government are currently directing at the Health Service cannot keep pace with the considerable pressures that it faces, which include the increasing number of elderly people—the vast majority of whom are dependent upon the NHS—and the opportunities and demands that improving medical technology create, and of which we are all aware from our constituency case work. They all place on the Health Service a funding requirement that the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) must be alone in not understanding.
  Treasury Ministers in particular have some difficulty defending and explaining the proposals to which new clause 4 are directed. I am sure that in the Prime Minister's mind they are the beginning of a process whereby the private sector will be asked to bear much greater responsibility for the health of the people, based on the mistaken assumption that the private sector is capable of meeting that responsibility. I am not saying that the private sector cannot contribute to the country's health care, but it will inevitably select those activities that are most profitable and which best fit its framework. That will create even more work for the public Health Service. The more that the private sector can contribute to an increase in hip operations, for example, the more aftercare will have to be undertaken by the public service.
  Treasury Ministers have moved to a different standpoint. They argue, as suggested by the hon. Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind), that the clause is much more limited in scope and will assist only those elderly people who already have private health insurance and who will find it difficult to continue to meet that commitment when they reach retirement age. If that is the Government's objective, they could have drafted the clause more narrowly, which was the purpose of my earlier amendment. It is difficult for the Government to sustain that argument while maintaining the deadweight argument against other proposals.
  1010
  Last night, the House debated child care and workplace nurseries. I presented an amendment to provide tax relief for workplace nurseries and for wider child care provisions. The Financial Secretary responded:
  "I have to reject his new clause on the grounds of cost and of its very large deadweight element … The effect of the new clause would give a large tax subsidy to people who are already making this provision."—[Official Report, 11 July 1989; Vol. 156, c. 896–97.]
  That is the same argument that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury used to defend the provisions of the Bill. He commented:
  "In a ringfence way it will help many elderly people who wish to continue medical insurance cover on retirement but who are unable to do so because they have lost the benefit of the employer scheme."—[Official Report, 4 May 1989; Vol. 152, c. 351.]
  The clause apparently exists to help people who already make provision for private health care to continue doing so. It will also benefit many who do not suffer from the particular disadvantage to which the Chief Secretary referred, of starting in an employer's scheme and then finding on retirement that they no longer benefit from the employer's contribution.
  The Government cannot have it both ways. They oppose tax reliefs that have a high deadweight cost because they give a subsidy to people who are already making their own provision, and then argue that the clause's primary purpose is to give just that type of relief. That is a nonsensical argument for the Government to make, and it illustrates that Treasury Ministers are being forced to adopt the Prime Minister's baby.
  Mr. Hind: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that private medical care, with tax relief for pensioners, will be a pump-priming measure that will attract greater resources into the totality of our Health Service, both public and private, and that that will not happen unless the clause is implemented? The cost of providing extra health services will otherwise fall on taxpayers overall. The clause will help to improve the standard of health care, not the reverse.
  Mr. Beith: I have never heard Treasury Ministers argue that the purpose of the clause is pump priming—that its objective is to enlarge the private health sector through the use of a public tax-relief subsidy. Perhaps they will decide to introduce that argument tonight. The Financial Secretary shakes his head: clearly he does not accept the pump-priming argument. In his view, the measure will help a limited number of elderly people who have already made commitments. The right hon. Gentleman would find it difficult to extend the pump-priming argument, because he must be aware—if he were not, I suspect that the Department of Health would have made him aware—that, far from reducing the total burden on the Health Service, the legislation is likely to increase it. In so far as it has any benefit, it will leave the most expensive kinds of provision in the hands of the Health Service. The Health Service will still be picking up the tab for all the tasks that the private sector cannot perform—all the long-term care, aftercare and residential care—and possibly adding to the volume of work.
  Sir William Clark: The Health Service—in other words, the taxpayer—is doing precisely that now. The scheme to provide medical care for the elderly is intended not only to help the elderly, but to take some of the burden away from the National Health

  1011
  Service. It will mean more resources for the NHS, because some elderly people will take advantage of private health care.
  Mr. Beith: It will not take the burden away from the NHS. It will take away staff who already do the work in the NHS—consultants who perform operations, and a work force that the NHS has trained—who will then be used to carry out a much more limited range of functions. The NHS will be left to provide aftercare for the same patients, and to care for all those for whom the private sector has made no attempt at provision.
  All the publicity for private health care makes it pretty clear what cannot be obtained from it. It is obvious from a reading of that literature that the private system will be highly selective in what it offers. Many of those who work in the Health Service know full well how they could enhance the service if they had either £40 million or the much larger sums that may go into this form of tax relief in the future.
  If Conservative Members really believe that the burden on the Health Service would be reduced by extensive tax relief for private care, they will not stop the pensioners; tax relief for private health care will become a general provision. I hope that the Minister will deal with that. His hon. Friends' case is that the measure will relieve the NHS of its burden so effectively that the effects will be seen most clearly where the burden is lighter. If the Minister accepts that argument, he will have to explain what further plans the Government have to extend tax relief throughout the system rather than confining it to the elderly. [Interruption.]
  I hear hints that some Conservative Members may wish the Government to do that. If they took such a step—which many of us believe to be in the minds of some of their members, if not those of Treasury Ministers—they would deal a terrible blow to the Health Service and its morale. They would also convince the majority of people that they believe in a two-tier Health Service, with a private system for those who can afford it and a public system for the rest—the rest being the majority, who will be expected to accept second best. Those who work in the Health Service do not want to give second best: they are capable of, and have given, the very best, and they are entitled to the resources that they need to provide that level of service.
  Mr. Couchman: I had not intended to speak, but I have listened with a growing sense of wonderment to the blind prejudice and dogma emanating from the other side of the Chamber. It was ever thus. It is worth reminding Opposition Members that it was Barbara Castle, when she was Secretary of State for Health and Social Security, who killed off paybeds in the National Health Service—no doubt with the support of every Labour Member who is present now. They would have seen them all go; and very few are left.
  Mr. Tony Worthington: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Couchman: No, I will not give way so early in my speech.
  The new clause defines a certified provider as the National Health Service, but there is little private practice
  1012
  in NHS hospitals: that, of course, is the point of this wrecking measure. Subsection (2)(b)(i) goes on to give the extraordinary definition of a certifed provider as someone who will
  "undertake training of staff to a standard which is certified by the Department of Health to be at least comparable to that provided within the National Health Service".
  What staff? Nurses? Doctors? Paramedical staff? Porters? The new clause does not say, but I think that the royal colleges, which determine the appropriate places in which training can take place, might well have something to say.
  Subsection (2)(b)(ii) provides a further definition: a person who will,
  "when recruiting and employing staff trained within the National Health Service, make a payment to the NHS to reimburse that service for the full cost of the training provided".
  Will that apply for ever? If a nurse has given 30 years of service to the NHS and, in her twilight years of nursing, decides to do some work in a private hospital, will that private hospital then have to reimburse the NHS for the full cost of her training 30 years previously? What nonsense. It is blind prejudice and dogma—but what else would one expect?
  What the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) said was not much better. He talked in a rather pejorative way abut the "Dulwich clauses". That, of course, is the kind of slogan that would appeal to the Liberals—or are they the Liberal Democrats, the Democrats or the Social and Liberal Democrats? Anyway, it would appeal to whatever party the hon. Gentleman currently supports.
  Mr. Worthington: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Couchman: Certainly not. I have not got into my speech yet.
  I said earlier, when the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) generously gave way to me, that it was not the rich who would primarily benefit. Many people, until they reach the age of 60 or 65, are members of private health care insurance schemes, for which they may pay under a company scheme or which may be paid for by the company. Alternatively, they may purchase individual health care insurance. When they reach the age of 60 or 65, their income drops and their ability to pay for private insurance becomes that much less. An allowance such as my right hon. Friend proposes would provide precisely the incentive that many such people need to continue paying for private health care insurance when they have retired. They have made their contribution through national insurance and income tax, and they will continue to contribute if they continue to pay income tax, as part of that tax funds the NHS. They are only being given back some of their own money.
  The elderly, after all, make the heaviest use of health care generally, and private health care resources provide many of the services that enhance their quality of life—cold surgery, hip operations and so forth. It relieves pressure on the NHS at just the point where the pressure is greatest and the waiting lists are longest.
  I shall have no difficulty in supporting my right hon. Friend and rejecting the silly, dogmatic ideological prejudice expressed in this new clause.
  6 pm
  Dr. Lewis Moonie: I had not intended to refer to the speeches of the hon. Members for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) and for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman), and my generally charitable nature will lead me to forbear from commenting in this instance. They may, however, wish to intervene during my speech in order to make the same idiotic points as they have already made, using the ludicrously constructed briefs that they have obviously had from the Whips Office.
  Mr Hind: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Dr. Moonie: No, I shall not give way on that point.
  This is one of the least popular and least needed measures in this Finance Bill. The Government are proposing to give a large handout from the Exchequer to suppliers of private medical care, with no requirement being placed on them to account for how the money is spent. The new clauses are a very small attempt to remedy that failure.
  Let me explain the reason behind those statements. The proposed tax break will be given to individuals or their relatives, regardless of need. The intention is to encourage more people to take out private health insurance, despite the fact that there must be a large question mark over the advisability of using public funds to entice people to make such a choice, one which they have clearly been free to make up to now but which they have chosen not to make. It surely cannot be a sound use of public money to prop up an expensive and unattractive service.
  Moreover, a huge deadweight cost is involved—a tax break of up to £200 a year for all those currently holding such policies who, by definition, can afford to pay the premiums and who are healthy. If they are not healthy, they will not be covered by private medical insurance. Why on earth should we be spending taxpayers' money on people who are healthy and wealthy and who are so manifestly not in need of such help?
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) has made clear, we cannot believe that the Treasury Ministers favour such a stupid move. It is against all the principles of fair taxation and also of those principles that are involved in constructing a broad tax base. Where will the money go? Health care is expensive, especially in the private sector where it is up to four to five times dearer than in the National Health Service. Premiums have risen at a fantastic rate over the last few years. They will rise even faster, now that the Government are to subsidise up to 40 per cent. of the cost. Can any Conservative Member deny that that will be the case? It has been so in every other instance where the Government have stepped in to subsidise private insurance. Instead of the money being used to benefit the individuals concerned, it will go directly or indirectly into the pockets of those who provide health care through increased premiums.
  Private medicine does not pay the true costs of the service that it provides. It is not complementary to the National Health Service. It exists in a parasitic relationship with the public service, preying on its skilled staff—nurses, laboratory technicians, scientific, medical and paramedical people, to name the main areas involved. All these staff are trained within the National Health Service. Their training is paid for out of the public purse. All the staff are either in short supply or need to be
  1014
  employed in much greater numbers within the National Health Service to make up for the disgraceful shortages that exist in so many areas.
  The statement on community care that was made earlier today, which I welcome, will place additional pressures on the need for trained staff within the National Health Service. It is high time that the private sector showed that it feels some sense of responsibility to the service on which it preys. The new clauses would do just that.
  If we look at them carefully, we see that new clause 4 provides that a register should be kept of private medical concerns which either provide training themselves or make a payment to the NHS to reimburse it for the full cost of the training of the people whom they employ. New clause 10 goes further. It stipulates that tax subsidies will be paid only to firms that do provide some form of reimbursement for the costs that have been incurred. For example, they would have to undertake staff training to a standard that is similar to or comparable with that in the National Health Service, or they would have to reimburse the National Health Service for the cost of the training that has been provided. Who could quarrel with such a reasonable proposal?
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett rose—
  Dr. Moonie: Obviously the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) wishes to quarrel with it.
  Mr. Bennett: Given that this country employs large numbers of teachers who have been trained abroad and large numbers of nurses who were trained in other countries, is the hon. Gentleman proposing that a Labour Government, should one ever be elected, would reimburse those countries for the staff who have been trained in those countries and who work over here?
  Dr. Moonie: That sounds an excellent idea, one which I could not have imagined would be thought of by the hon. Member for Pembroke, since he contributes so much nonsense to our debates on health care, as witnessed by his comments earlier this afternoon.
  The new clauses are reasonable. No fair person could possibly object to them. They will ensure either that private firms which recognise their responsibilities are given fair recognition for their investment or that this subsidy from everybody else's pocket to the private sector is paid only to those who carry out their responsibilities. I commend the new clauses to the House.
  Mr. Tony Baldry: The debate provides us with a useful opportunity to highlight the Labour party's inherent hostility to private medicine. Much of the debate on the National Health Service in recent months has naturally tended to concentrate upon the proposals in the White Paper "Working for Patients", supplemented by the Budget provisions that we are considering. Very little attention has consequently been paid to the Opposition's policies relating to health care.
  There are two things that we know about the Opposition's health care policy, both of which are damaging. First, they would abolish private practice in medicine, something which Barbara Castle sought to do in 1966. Secondly, they would undermine the concept of competitive tendering.
  It is interesting to consider what the implications of the proposals would be if private health care in Oxfordshire

  1015
  were to be undermined, and also how much income private health care brings to the National Health Service. Private patient income in Oxfordshire amounts to approximately £2·5 million in this financial year. Competitive tendering will save the Oxfordshire district health authority approximately £700,000 this year.
  If one combines the effect of private patient income and competitive tendering, the saving amounts to £3,200,000. If competitive tendering were to be abolished and if no private patients were to be treated within the National Health Service, as each NHS consultant costs approximately £46,000, the effect of the Opposition's proposals on Oxfordshire district health authority would be that the funding of about 96 consultants would be removed. That would be wholly negative, wholly damaging and wholly detrimental to the National Health Service, for no reason other than to satisfy Opposition dogma as to private health care and to meet the demands of certain public sector trade unions about competitive tendering.
  If the Opposition ever came into office, it is important to highlight the fact that almost overnight they would considerably undermine the funding of district health authorities. The effect on one district health authority alone—Oxfordshire—would be the loss of 96 consultants.
  Mr. Worthington: The major savings after privatisation have related to staff wages and staff conditions. Does the hon. Gentleman concede that, if we were to pay the staff nothing, we should be able to employ an enormous number of consultants?
  Mr. Baldry: It must be for the hon. Gentleman to judge whether he really feels that that was a sensible contribution to the debate.
  Competitive tendering has led to substantial savings in the National Health Service. Those savings have been and are being used for better patient care. The Opposition are blinded by ideology and trade union commitments.
  Mr. Couchman: Does my hon. Friend agree that the tax allowance proposed in the Bill would generate more money than the actual saving in taxation? The figures show that two and a half to three times the amount given away will be generated in additional health care resources.
  Mr. Baldry: My hon. Friend makes a very good point, which I had hoped would he taken on board much earlier in the debate. I had hoped that many of the points would be taken on board in Committee of the whole House. For many of us there is a sense of deja vu about the debate. We have covered the ground before, but it seems that the Opposition are incapable of taking on board the essential facts.
  Mr. Norman Lamont: Deja non vu.
  Mr. Baldry: I bow to my right hon. Friend's superior knowledge of French. Whether it is deja vu or deja non vu, the Opposition are not grasping it, so we have to take them through it yet again.
  Many people have private health care as part of their remuneration package. Many employers negotiate private health care packages for their employees. Many trade unions now negotiate private health care. While those people are in employment, that private health care subscription is paid as part of their remuneration. When
  1016
  they retire, not only does their income drop but their health care subscription is no longer paid for them. That is nonsense. The provision in the Finance Bill encourages those who have medical insurance cover during their working lives to continue it in retirement. That is a perfectly straightforward provision. Many people in group schemes when their employers negotiate insurance cover for their employees could keep that cover, given some fiscal encouragement.
  The Opposition have said on a number of occasions that that encouragement will simply go to those who are better off. That canard should be dismissed at every opportunity. About 5·5 million people—or one in 10 of the population—are now covered by medical insurance schemes, many of them through company or trade union schemes. The great majority of the tax relief that the provision would produce would go to standard rate taxpayers. About 80 per cent. of the provision would go to basic rate taxpayers aged over 60 or to those who are not liable to tax. The benefit of the provision will go mainly to those who have worked throughout their lives, and whose employers paid into a medical insurance scheme, and will enable them to continue that scheme into retirement.
  Dr. Moonie: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us how many people he knows who pay no tax but could pay £600 a year in private medical insurance? I should dearly like to know.
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths: Ken Dodd.
  Mr. Baldry: I hope that the hon. Gentleman accepts the general thrust of my point, that the provision will not affect primarily the higher rate taxpayer, as the Opposition have suggested, but will go to those paying the basic rate. The humorous interventions from the Opposition demonstrate that the Government and the Conservative party have won the intellectual argument. Clearly they are now finding it difficult to make any points of substance against this perfectly sensible provision. The Opposition have to make it clear to the country exactly where they stand on private medicine.
  6.15 pm
  If one in 10 people now benefit from private medical insurance schemes, and if whole groups of employees throughout the country benefit from private medical schemes, what do the Opposition intend to do for them? Do they intend to revert to the position under Barbara Castle, when private medical health care was forced out of the National Health Service and consequently a number of private hospitals were set up so that the benefits of that did not go to the National Health Service? What is intended? There is no doubt that private medical care makes a considerable contribution to health care in Britain. It relieves pressure on the National Health Service and increases scope for co-operation between the National Health Service and the independent sector.
  Dr. Moonie: What evidence is there of that?
  Mr. Baldry: The hon. Gentleman asks what evidence there is for private medicine relieving pressure on the National Health Service. I am not sure where he goes, but certainly in Oxfordshire a considerable amount of screening is carried out by the independent sector which, by definition, relieves pressure on the National Health Service. If my constituent, Mrs. Jones, can be screened privately more quickly than she could by the National

  1017
  Health Service, and consequently the National Health Service can fulfil its screening targets much more quickly, that will have relieved pressure on the National Health Service. If the Opposition cannot grasp that or understand how the private sector can contribute to enhancing standards in the National Health Service, I weep, as clearly they have a total lack of understanding of how the National Health Service operates.
  Dr. Moonie: Will the hon. Gentleman explain the possible economic benefit to a country with a public health service to spend four times as much on providing the service privately? Is he aware of the least-cost approach to analysing expenditure? How can he possibly justify spending that amount of money?
  Mr. Baldry: That intervention begs a number of questions. It begs the question whether the National Health Service inviting the private sector to work for it costs four times as much. Often, taking into account all the costs, the independent sector is cheaper. That is one reason why the National Health Service and district authorities have been inspired and have the incentive to look to the independent sector. The independent sector can often deliver services such as screening and ancillary services more cost-effectively than the National Health Service can.
  Mr. Jeremy Hanley: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is irrefutable that the major pressure on the Health Service is the growing number of elderly people, who, quite rightly, turn to the National Health Service? Many of the people who will benefit by the provision will already use private medicine, and because of the withdrawal of tax benefits through their firm will automatically have to turn to the National Health Service when they retire. They will be new patients for the National Health Service; therefore, the provision would be of great benefit in reducing pressure on the Health Service.
  Mr. Baldry: My hon. Friend is right. It is incredible that the Opposition find it so difficult to understand that point. Of course, all the money that comes into the independent sector of private medicine is—
  Dr. Moonie: It is wasted.
  Mr. Baldry: It is not wasted. It is extra money for health services in this country as a whole. This year, in Oxfordshire alone, £2·5 million extra is going into the Health Service because of private medicine by way of fees to Oxfordshire district health authority. In addition to those direct contributions there is the money that the National Health Service saves because people who might otherwise go into NHS hospitals are treated by private or independent hospitals elsewhere. The private sector's contribution to health care overall is considerable.
  I understand that the Opposition are saying that they do not believe that there is a place for private medicine or independent health care. I hope that they will explain that clearly throughout the land, so that each district health authority can note the impact that that would have on their financing. Taking just competitive tendering and private health care in my district health authority, it is the equivalent of 96 consultant posts.
  Dr. Moonie: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way to me again. I appreciate that I have intervened twice already. He has twice mentioned the method of tendering and the money coming from private medicine. Is
  1018
  he aware that the money raised from competitive tendering is taken into account and that the Government have calculated the extra money that the health board should get in the following financial year? Surely the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that the £2·5 million to provide private medical treatment all goes in as extra money. That would be nonsense. About 95 per cent. goes into the costs of administration and the treatment of that group of patients.
  Mr. Baldry: The hon. Gentleman is wrong about competitive tendering. On occasions too numerous to particularise, Secretaries of State for Health have made it clear that the moneys raised by district health authorities and saved by competitive tendering redound to their credit. That has certainly happened in Oxfordshire and in every other district health authority. The money raised by private health care—£2·5 million in Oxfordshire this year—is money that would otherwise not go into the district health authority's coffers. If one removes the potential for the district health authority to treat private patients, that £2·5 million will no longer go into those coffers.
  We have demonstrated beyond peradventure two points about the Opposition. First, they have no intellectual arguments with which they can challenge this sensible provision. Their general hilarity and levity are testimony to the fact that they have run out of sound arguments. Secondly, the Opposition have a continuing and inherent antipathy towards private medicine. Much of their opposition to these provisions, such as it is, is born of their opposition to private health care. They do not understand that, despite their protestations, there is already a growing partnership between the NHS and the independent sector. Through our reforms, that partnership will open up further opportunities for the public and private sectors to work together to provide services for each other, sharing the use and spreading the cost of expensive hospital facilities. That will redound to the benefit of NHS patients and health care as a whole.
  I hope that the House will pass these provisions, which will enable those who have had medical insurance until retirement to continue with it into pensionable age. I am sure that in five or six years' time we will see that they are continuing to be of considerable benefit to health care.
  Mr. Worthington: The provision to which new clause 4 responds is part of the Government's long-term consistent attack on the Health Service. Conservative Members have made several interventions, saying that it is not the Government's intention to attack or undermine the NHS, but we cannot take consolation from that. We know that the Prime Minister takes her principal intellectual support in the Tory party from those who believe that Socialism should be driven out of this country, and the NHS is the prime example of successful Socialism.
  Some Conservative Members do not believe in the post-war consensus that part of the rights of citizenship should be access to the best possible health care, regardless of issues such as class, income, age, gender or ethnic origin. We want to defend that belief. This provision, giving tax relief for private medical insurance, is but a small part of the larger attack that is being mounted against the NHS. The NHS should give us a universal right to a comprehensive range of services of the best quality.
  There is a fundamental division between the Opposition and the Government. Why would people invest in a

  1019
  private medical sector unless it were better? There are no grounds for selling a private medical service unless it is better. Imagine going to a consultant who said, "On the one hand, you can have an operation on the NHS and it will be available in two weeks. On the other, we can offer you an operation in the private sector and it will be available in six months' time." Would people like to have that service in six months' time? Of course not. The success of the private health market depends on being able to offer something better—especially reduced waiting times—than the NHS.
  It is clear that the Government are stimulating the private health sector so that the comparisons between it and the NHS become increasingly invidious. The intellectual justification for the NHS will become increasingly weaker and people will withdraw their support from it.
  Mr. John Butterfill: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that in some cases—I can cite cases in my constituency—the delay time for certain disciplines is identical in the NHS and the private sector, but the advantage for the person who buys private treatment is that he can specify the date more precisely? For those who need a precise date, it may be worth paying the money.
  Mr. Worthington: I have no alternative but to accept the hon. Gentleman's assurance. If that were the normal pattern of relationships between the private sector and the NHS, the prospect for private medicine would be grim. That is not the position. There are long waiting lists for some NHS operations.
  Let us nail one myth. We are not talking about two separate services—a private sector and a National Health Service—but about services that are intertwined. A consultant may operate on a patient in the NHS or the private sector. National Health Service premises provide the opportunity for the private sector to lay out its market stall so that the private consultant can say that if one stays with the NHS the wait will be six months, but if one goes into the private sector the wait will be two weeks. It is strange that an employee of the NHS can increase his income by being able to sell his private services on NHS time.
  6.30 pm
  Mr. Couchman: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He is more gracious than 1 was to him.
  Is the hon. Gentleman deprecating the fact that some NHS doctors who are not contracted full time to the NHS operate outside the NHS in private hospitals? Has he chapter and verse of anyone who has had a six-month wait for an operation on the NHS, but has been offered an operation tomorrow if he goes into a private hospital?
  Mr. Worthington: Every hon. Member has chapter and verse on that because constituents constantly come to our surgeries—a fortunate use of the word in this case—and tell us what has happened to, for example, their children. I can give an example of the condition of glue ear. The consultant said that he could deal with the case within a fortnight if the child became a private patient, but that he regretted to say that if the child simply went on the NHS list there would be a wait of several months. If there is a single hon. Member who cannot give chapter and verse on
  1020
  that constantly occurring, he is not in touch with his constituency, because such cases happen repeatedly. In effect, one goes to see an NHS consultant sitting at an NHS desk, who can sell another product while being employed by the NHS. It is a strange relationship in which one's primary loyalty is not to one's major employer.
  Undoubtedly, the major inspiration for this provision came from the Prime Minister, and I cannot see Treasury Ministers denying that. The Prime Minister is ignoring one of her basic principles—that one should not fiddle the market place to subsidise private industry. The Opposition have asked frequently for help for firms in particular constituencies, but hon. Members are told that the Government will not support lame ducks or subsidise firms that cannot stand up in the market place. Yet now it seems to be acceptable for public money to be used to support private health care.
  I want to ask a question which will be asked by many others who will be paying, even if only in a small way, extra taxes because of this concession. Why should I? What are the principles by which those people who choose not to have private insurance or who cannot afford to do so have to subsidise this tax concession? Why has this tax concession been singled out? We all know that many people pay taxes and, as their income increases, lose benefits. In effect, they are being taxed at 80 per cent. They should be a priority. One would also have thought that the priority was to strengthen the NHS, but the Government say, "No, this concession is the priority." They say that this is how they want to use our money. How can that be justified?
  Mr. Hind: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that if there is tax relief of 25 per cent., or of 40 per cent. for elderly people, for every £25 in tax relief, the pensioners themselves are paying £75? That £75 would not be put into health care. What would happen is that the state would have merely the £25. We are increasing the volume of the gross national product going into health care. That must be a good thing.
  Mr. Worthington: I am afraid that I did not hear the hon. Gentleman's entire point because a more urgent message arrived in the middle of his contribution. I hope that I can deal with his point in the remainder of my speech.
  The essential point is whether the private sector strengthens the NHS. The Government and Conservative Members say that it does. If that is so, why do they not commission research to see whether the relationship between the NHS and the private sector is complementary or parasitic? I can tell Conservative Members that the Government have commissioned such research. I asked whether they had and I received a reply that they had commissioned research from the university of Sheffield. Because of the lack of time I must go through the conclusions quickly, but the study shows that, in terms of doctors and nurses, any further expansion of the private health sector will be achieved only by arresting or reversing the development of the NHS. It states that, with the present level of private activity,
  "It is difficult to see how in the short term private sector activity could increase further without NHS consultants doing more work outside the normal working week, which may have consequences for the cost of treatment, or without many full time consultants switching to part time work, thereby reducing their NHS caseload."

  1021
  The nursing pool is finite and will be under great pressure in the future.
  I do not have time to quote the research in full, but if the Minister wants to look at it, he will see that it is clear that further expansion of the private health care sector will be damaging to the NHS. This proposal is part of that damage.
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett: One of the canons of taxation in which I believe most firmly is that the taxation system should be as simple as possible so that it can be well understood by those who pay tax. I am not normally in favour of increasing the number of tax reliefs available, but I have noted that the White Paper on public expenditure said that tax reliefs can be justified on two grounds—first, encouraging savings and home ownership and, secondly, encouraging enterprise and training to make the economy more efficient. I believe that there should be a third category for which tax relief should be available as a matter of public policy; to increase personal responsibility and encourage people to look after themselves as much as possible. It can be allied with the principle of tax relief for home ownership. It is, in itself, a good principle that people should own their homes and look after themselves as much as possible.
  That category applies also to private health insurance. It is a basic principle that it should be public policy to encourage people to help themselves as much as possible, especially when they reach an age at which they would normally find it more difficult to help themselves.
  I also believe that tax relief for those aged 60 and over is important because it extends their range of choice. That is a vital argument in its favour. I do not like the idea, regularly expressed by Opposition Members, that we must restrict choice and prevent the staff from working in the private sector and patients from having an alternative to state-provided medicine.
  Mr. Dennis Turner: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Bennett: I am sorry, but the winding-up speeches are about to start and I have only a few minutes in which to speak.
  Thirdly, I believe that those who help themselves by paying twice should enjoy some form of relief to compensate them for the fact that they are not only paying for the state-provided service but are providing for themselves in the private service. As my hon. Friend the Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) said, by encouraging people to take up this tax relief we shall increase the total amount available for Health Service spending. We can increase the total amount spent on health not only by increasing the contribution to the state sector, but by increasing the total sum available to the private sector. We must take advantage of that opportunity. Other countries in Europe do not spend much more on the state sector but they do spend much more on private sector health insurance.
  Fourthly, those who use private facilities are thus relieving the National Health Service of demand, especially in the case of operations such as hip replacements which are of special benefit to the elderly. If hip operations are performed in the private sector, the National Health Service can concentrate on the more technically difficult operations. That will remove much of the day-to-day surgery from the NHS. The proposal
  1022
  would also increase co-operation between the private and nationalised sectors of the Health Service, and that is important.
  Even with tax relief, those who pay for private insurance are still making a contribution on top of the contribution that they make as taxpayers. We should remember that. It is depressing that the Opposition should talk about handouts and giveaways and that they should fail to recognise that we are talking about relief on money that people have already earned and on which they have paid tax. The hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) could not define what he meant by super super rich, super rich, rich or even poor when I asked him to do so.
  Finally, it is rather depressing that the Liberal party, which has such a long tradition of pluralism and has long believed that people should have a choice and that there should be a private sector, have now reached the point at which they believe that people should not be able to choose the private sector and that the state must control the entire Health Service provision. No wonder that, having abandoned their philosophy, the Liberals have now abandoned their name.
  Mr. Calum Macdonald: Because of the pressure of time, I have had to throw away the speech that I intended to make. Instead, I shall rely on the words of the Financial Secretary himself, who last night advanced the most cogent argument against the tax allowance for private medical insurance. Last night, of course, the right hon. Gentleman was arguing against a tax allowance in respect of children. So persuaded was I by his argument that I refrained from voting, although I understood and sympathised with the motives of those who argued the case for new clause 23.
  The Financial Secretary's arguments on that occasion are entirely applicable to this tax relief—perhaps even more so. The Financial Secretary will correct me if I misquote him. I was so struck by what he said that I took the trouble of writing it down. In rejecting the case for the new clause, he said:
  "Governments have to choose in a world of limited resources. The Government were right to decide to deploy resources more to help families in greatest need."—[Official Report, 11 July 1989; Vol. 156.]
  If that is true, this tax allowance is certainly not an example of the Government deploying resources to the people in greatest need.
  6.45 pm
  The Financial Secretary said that he was concerned to do something for people at the bottom end of the scale. If that is the Government's objective, they will certainly not achieve it through this tax relief. Most strikingly, the Financial Secretary rejected a child tax allowance because he said that it would be of no help to the 25 per cent. of families who did not pay tax. How, then, can the right hon. Gentleman justify a tax allowance that will be of no help to the two thirds of pensioners who pay no income tax? His argument is entirely inconsistent.
  The Financial Secretary concluded his attack on new clause 23 by describing in some detail how such an allowance would be terribly regressive in its impact. He said that those paying tax at the higher rate would gain much more than those paying at the basic rate. That would also be true of the allowance that the Government are trying to push through. The Financial Secretary said that

  1023
  such a regressive allowance would be difficult to justify, and it seems to me that his words were the epitaph of this allowance.
  Mr. Norman Lamont: So far in the course of our proceedings on this year's Finance Bill we have not heard tirades about the super-rich from the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek), but tonight he has reverted to form and type, although even when pressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) he refused to say who he thought were the super-rich, except that he thought that they were a few people who had money in the bank. The hon. Gentleman thinks that the super-rich are people who have access to private medical insurance. That means that there are apparently 5½ million super-rich among the working population and 600,000 pensioners who are super-rich. I find it extraordinary that the hon. Member should maintain that this was a tax relief that would benefit only the very well-off.
  It is time that the hon. Gentleman forgot about the super-rich. In our final debate on last year's Finance Bill the hon. Gentleman paraded a book called "The Super Rich", which had an art deco cover and was published 50 years ago. The hon. Gentleman's political ideas are no more up to date than his rhetoric.
  The hon. Members for Wrexham and for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) seemed wholly unaware that the scheme to encourage elderly people to take out private medical insurance is technically available to non-taxpayers because it operates on the same basis as MIRAS. That is an important point of equity. Of course, we do not expect it to be widely used in that way, but it is an important point of principle and it was quite wrong for Opposition Members to misrepresent the tax relief, which is, indeed, available to non-taxpayers. A more important point, of course, is that we expect no less than 80 per cent. of the beneficiaries of the scheme to be basic rate taxpayers, who can hardly be classed as super-rich.
  The main argument advanced by the hon. Member for Wrexham was that the relief was not targeted, but the whole point of the proposal is to generate additional subscriptions. We want to involve more people in private health insurance so that—as my hon. Friend the Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) said—we can get more resources into health care as a whole, both public and private.
  The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) referred to what I had said about the deadweight effect of the relief that he proposed. Of course, we should not have proposed this tax relief if we thought that it would have a purely deadweight effect in the long term. Although it will have a deadweight cost for a year or two, over time the relief would act as an incentive and would generate more subscriptions and thus bring more resources into health care. That is the whole purpose of the relief—to generate more resources and therefore, as my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) said, to relieve pressure on the National Health Service.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury was asked what evidence there is that people using the private sector will relieve pressure on the National Health Service. It seemed a strange question, but my hon. Friend gave a good answer by saying that, by definition, a person who uses the private sector for a certain treatment is not using
  1024
  the National Health Service for that treatment at that moment, and is actually saving and releasing resources that can be used by other people.
  The strangest intervention in the debate came from the hon. Member for Berwick-on-Tweed. He said that one of the consequences of this relief would be to add to the pressures on the National Health Service. His reason was that, if people had acute operations or hip operations, they would be in good health—the implication seemed to be that they would live longer—and might require after-care and more attention from the National Health Service. That is a strange argument. It is totally inconsistent with what the hon. Gentleman has always said—that we should put more resources into the National Health Service. That also causes people to live longer and to add to pressure on the Health Service. Apparently, it is legitimate and permissible to live longer if we do it on the National Health Service, but not if we do so in the private sector. That seems to be the hon. Gentleman's argument.
  This is a limited and targeted relief. It is targeted to help the elderly and to help people when private health insurance premiums rise. That is the sense in which it is targeted.
  Mr. Turner: The Financial Secretary is telling us that this measure is targeted at the elderly. He said that 600,000 elderly people will benefit from it. What about the other 10 million pensioners in this country? In my constituency we are closing down 127 beds. Seriously ill people cannot get into Health Service hospitals. How can we possibly justify spending £40 million or up to £200 million when we are closing beds? Many of the seriously ill people who are not admitted to hospital will be elderly people who are not paying income tax. Again, that is the redistribution of wealth from the poor to the rich.
  Mr. Lamont: It would, of course, be possible to spend all the money in the public expenditure round each year on the National Health Service. I am quite sure that, even if we did that, hon. Members would say that the demand for medical care in their constituencies was unsatisfied. The demand for medical care is probably infinite. The £40 million represented by this tax relief is 0·2 per cent. of the increase in expenditure in the Health Service this year, and it is 0·15 per cent. of expenditure in the Health Service in total. It really is a small amount of money, and it is a modest tax relief.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Lancashire, West made a good point when he said that, after all, this is a pump-priming exercise. Every £25 that is spent by a basic ratepayer generates £75 of his own money as well. If he is a higher ratepayer, every pound that he gets in tax relief has to be matched by two and a half times that amount of money from his own pocket. As my hon. Friend the Member for Lancashire, West said, this is definitely a way of getting more resources into the Health Service.
  Dr. Moonie: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Lamont: I will not give way. I must get on.
  The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie) said that the private sector is more expensive. It is extremely difficult to compare National Health Service costs with private sector costs. I am not sure whether one is comparing like with like. It would be surprising if, to some extent, the private sector did not have higher costs. Insurance companies have administration and marketing costs. The

  1025
  real comparison is not with an insurance company, with all its overheads, but between a private sector hospital and a National Health Service hospital. If one wanted to make the sort of comparisons that Opposition Members have been making, one should add in more state administration costs such as the cost of administering the collection of taxes, administering the Inland Revenue, Customs and Excise, and so on. Perhaps even the salary of the Government broker in the Department for National Savings should also be added.
  The new clause is a wrecking clause. It is designed simply to make the scheme non-operational. We believe in a partnership between the private and public sectors. The modest tax relief in the Bill will help to generate more resources and relieve pressure on the National Health Service, and I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to reject the new clause.
  Dr. Marek: We have had a good debate. I am particularly grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington), for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie) and for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) for making all the pertinent points that the Opposition would wish to make in defending and advocating the new clause.
  To some extent, the Government have come clean. The Financial Secretary has at last admitted that private medical insurance is pump priming, that it is not a matter of the subsidy being £40 million. If, as he says, it generates new private money into the Health Service, more and more people will take out medical insurance and more and more people will thereby be given tax handouts. Therefore, the estimated £40 million loss to the Treasury will probably be wide of the mark, and the Opposition's £200 million estimate will be nearer the mark. The Financial Secretary said that it is essentially an open-ended commitment.
  The Government cannot have it both ways. They say that the measure will generate more resources for the Health Service, but the Financial Secretary says that all the money in the public expenditure round each year can be spent on the Health Service. There is an inconsistency.
  Mr. Norman Lamont indicated dissent.
  Dr. Marek: The Financial Secretary is shaking his head. In a perfect world in which there is enough money and in which the National Health Service is absolutely provided for, he would be right, but we are not in a perfect world. The National Health Service is desperately short of money.
  Conservative Members are not putting more money into the Health Service; they are buying privilege and choice at the expense of others who are not in a position to pay for privilege and choice. That is the essential difference between the Conservative and Labour parties. Of course some people are prepared to pay for that choice. The Government will give them that opportunity, and the Opposition can only table a clause to restrain some of the wilder excesses of the tax advantages that will go to people who do not need them. There is no incentive. It is right for the Financial Secretary to say that 80 per cent. of taxpayers will take advantage of it, but that is because only 2·6 per cent. of pensioners pay at the higher rates. I bet that 80 per cent. of the 2·6 per cent. of higher rate taypayers will also contribute and take advantage of these handouts.
  Dr. Moonie: Before my hon. Friend leaves the absurdity of the Financial Secretary's statements, will he comment on the one in which he tried to equate spending on health insurance with spending on health care?
  Dr. Marek: My hon. Friend makes a valid point, but I am afraid that the time forbids me to develop it.
  The issue is clear. Although Conservative Members do not say so, their arguments that are based on more money for the Health Service have an extra facet. People who can take advantage of the provisions are, in effect, saying, "Yes, but we want choice and privilege and a better service than other people who do not have even the possibility of paying for treatment." It is on that basis that we have tabled our new clause, which we commend to the House.
  Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 207, Noes 267.

  Division No. 295]

  [16.59 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

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

  Allen, Graham

  Flannery, Martin

  Alton, David

  Flynn, Paul

  Anderson, Donald

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Foster, Derek

  Ashton, Joe

  Foulkes, George

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Fraser, John

  Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

  Fyfe, Maria

  Beckett, Margaret

  Galbraith, Sam

  Beith, A. J.

  Garrett, John (Norwich South)

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

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Blair, Tony

  Gould, Bryan

  Blunkett, David

  Graham, Thomas

  Boateng, Paul

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Boyes, Roland

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Bradley, Keith

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Grocott, Bruce

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Hardy, Peter

  Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Buckley, George J.

  Haynes, Frank

  Callaghan, Jim

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Henderson, Doug

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

  Cartwright, John

  Home Robertson, John

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Hood, Jimmy

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Clay, Bob

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

  Clelland, David

  Howells, Geraint

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Hoyle, Doug

  Cohen, Harry

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Cousins, Jim

  Illsley, Eric

  Cryer, Bob

  Ingram, Adam

  Cummings, John

  Janner, Greville

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Cunningham, Dr John

  Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Darling, Alistair

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Kennedy, Charles

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

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

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Dewar, Donald

  Lambie, David

  Dixon, Don

  Lamond, James

  Dobson, Frank

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Doran, Frank

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Lewis, Terry

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

  Litherland, Robert

  Eadie, Alexander

  Livingstone, Ken

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

  Livsey, Richard

  Fearn, Ronald

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  1027

  Loyden, Eddie

  Richardson, Jo

  McAllion, John

  Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Robertson, George

  McCartney, Ian

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Macdonald, Calum A.

  Rogers, Allan

  McFall, John

  Rooker, Jeff

  McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  McKelvey, William

  Rowlands, Ted

  McLeish, Henry

  Ruddock, Joan

  Maclennan, Robert

  Sedgemore, Brian

  McNamara, Kevin

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Madden, Max

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Short, Clare

  Mallon, Seamus

  Skinner, Dennis

  Marek, Dr John

  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, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

  Martlew, Eric

  Soley, Clive

  Maxton, John

  Spearing, Nigel

  Meacher, Michael

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Meale, Alan

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Michael, Alun

  Stott, Roger

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Strang, Gavin

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

  Straw, Jack

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Morley, Elliott

  Turner, Dennis

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Vaz, Keith

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Wall, Pat

  Mullin, Chris

  Wallace, James

  Murphy, Paul

  Walley, Joan

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Wareing, Robert N.

  O'Brien, William

  Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  Parry, Robert

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Patchett, Terry

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  Pendry, Tom

  Wilson, Brian

  Pike, Peter L.

  Winnick, David

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Prescott, John

  Worthington, Tony

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Wray, Jimmy

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Radice, Giles

  Randall, Stuart

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Redmond, Martin

  Mr. Allen Adams and

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

  Mr. Ken Eastham.

  Reid, Dr John

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

  Alexander, Richard

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Bowis, John

  Allason, Rupert

  Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

  Amess, David

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Amos, Alan

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Arbuthnot, James

  Brazier, Julian

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Ashby, David

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

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Atkins, Robert

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Baldry, Tony

  Burns, Simon

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Burt, Alistair

  Batiste, Spencer

  Butcher, John

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Butler, Chris

  Bellingham, Henry

  Butterfill, John

  Bendall, Vivian

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Carrington, Matthew

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Carttiss, Michael

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Cash, William

  Body, Sir Richard

  Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Chapman, Sydney

  Boswell, Tim

  Chope, Christopher

  Bottomley, Peter

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  1028

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Irvine, Michael

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Irving, Charles

  Colvin, Michael

  Jack, Michael

  Conway, Derek

  Janman, Tim

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Jessel, Toby

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Cope, Rt Hon John

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Couchman, James

  Key, Robert

  Cran, James

  Kilfedder, James

  Critchley, Julian

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Knapman, Roger

  Curry, David

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

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

  Knowles, Michael

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Knox, David

  Day, Stephen

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Devlin, Tim

  Lang, Ian

  Dicks, Terry

  Latham, Michael

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

  Dover, Den

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Durant, Tony

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Eggar, Tim

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Lightbown, David

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Lilley, Peter

  Evennett, David

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Fallon, Michael

  Lord, Michael

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Macfarlane, Sir Neil

  Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Fookes, Dame Janet

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Forman, Nigel

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Forth, Eric

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  Malins, Humfrey

  Franks, Cecil

  Mans, Keith

  Freeman, Roger

  Maples, John

  French, Douglas

  Marland, Paul

  Gale, Roger

  Marlow, Tony

  Gardiner, George

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Gill, Christopher

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Gow, Ian

  Mellor, David

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Miller, Sir Hal

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Mills, Iain

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Gregory, Conal

  Mitchell, Sir David

  Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Moore, Rt Hon John

  Ground, Patrick

  Morris, M (N'hampton S)

  Hague, William

  Moss, Malcolm

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Mudd, David

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Neale, Gerrard

  Hannam, John

  Needham, Richard

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

  Neubert, Michael

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Harris, David

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Hayes, Jerry

  Norris, Steve

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Hayward, Robert

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Paice, James

  Heddle, John

  Patnick, Irvine

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

  Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Pawsey, James

  Hind, Kenneth

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Price, Sir David

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Raffan, Keith

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Redwood, John

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Riddick, Graham

  1029

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Stokes, Sir John

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Sumberg, David

  Rost, Peter

  Summerson, Hugo

  Rowe, Andrew

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Ryder, Richard

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Sainsbury, Hon Tim

  Thorne, Neil

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Trippier, David

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Waller, Gary

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Wells, Bowen

  Speller, Tony

  Wheeler, John

  Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Squire, Robin

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Steen, Anthony

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Stern, Michael

  Mr. Alan Howarth and

  Stevens, Lewis

  Mr. David Maclean.

  Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 14

  DISHONOURED CHEQUES
  Amendment proposed: No. 57, in page 11, line 11, leave out 'comes into effect' and insert 'is passed'.—[Mr. Lilley.]
  Dr. Marek: I simply say that the next time I shall have to be better at parliamentary draftsmanship.
  Amendment agreed to.

Clause 16

  TIME LIMITS FOR PROCEEDINGS
  Amendment made: No. 56, in page 12, line 20, at end add—
  '(2A) In section 28(5) of the Vehicles (Excise) Act 1971, for the words "section 147(1)" there shall be substituted the words "section 146A".'—[Mr. Lilley.]

Clause 21

  FUEL AND POWER
  Amendment proposed: No. 52, in page 13, line 39, leave out
  'not intended for sale by the recipient'.— [Mr. Lilley.]
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 53 to 55.
  Dr. Marek: We should perhaps say a little about this amendment, because, again, some congratulations to the Government are in order. They have looked at the problems of the distribution of liquefied petroleum gas that we discussed in Committee and they have made certain changes, which I believe will be considered correct. Unfortunately, the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) is not in the Chamber.
  Mr. Neil Hamilton: I am.
  7.15 pm
  Dr. Marek: I apologise, but I did not see the hon. Gentleman. I wonder whether he could tell us whether he feels that the changes are right. Will they mean that there will be much less administration for small holders and sellers of LPG?
  Perhaps the Minister could elaborate a little on amendment No. 55, where it talks about quantities of fewer than 2 tonnes. Is that a realistic limit—too large or too small? I presume that the Government believe that it is about right.
  Mr. Neil Hamilton: I know that Opposition Members often wish that I were not here, but I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) by being here now.
  I thank my hon. Friends on the Front Bench for going so far to meet the concern that I expressed in Committee. I heartily endorse the Government's amendments. I hope, therefore, that the spirit of comradeship which has now broken out in the Labour party will spill over on to this side of the House, and that the hon. Gentleman will find it possible within his breast to compliment the Government, as I do.
  Mr. James Wallace: The hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) has raised some of the issues that I wished to discuss. It appears that the Government have gone a considerable way to meeting a number of the points raised in Committee. However, I hope that the Minister will say a few words of explanation. Certainly he will recognise—as I have had correspondence with him on this point—that in my constituency a large number of people are dependent on cylinder gas. In particular, one of the community co-operatives on the small island of Papa Westray expressed its concern about the possible damage to business, the adverse effects on cash flow and the general administrative costs. It should be borne in mind that for the domestic consumer liquefied petrolum gas is VAT zero-rated, so there is no net gain to the Treasury when one considers input and output VAT. I would be interested to hear from the Minister whether he believes that the amendments will ease the burden that it is feared will fall on many small retailers, especially those in rural parts of the country.
  Mr. Lilley: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) for his tribute to the amendment. I pay tribute in turn to my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) for raising the issue so forcefully in Committee and causing us to look again. That has resulted in the amendments, which I believe will meet the two principal objections. The first was that in various parts of the United Kingdom—Ulster, Scotland and especially the west country—a lot of liquefied petroleum gas is distributed by very small distributors in small quantities. Therefore, they are not registered for VAT and they might give up carrying out that useful service if faced with the requirement to register for VAT, even though that would enable them to claim back any VAT on the cylinders. I believe that we have got round that to the satisfaction of the industry by zero-rating consignments of 20 cylinders or fewer. I understand from my discussions with the Liquefied Petroleum Gas Industry Technical Association and others that that meets its concerns about those small distributors, and that it settles that problem.

  1031
  Secondly, there was the question of whether the normal minimum requirement should be in terms of delivery size or tank capacity. Again, after discussions with the industry, I am persuaded that the tank capacity requirement, as a measure of what is a normal delivery to a final consumer, is appropriate. In response to the specific question from the hon. Member for Wrexham, I can tell him that the 2 tonnes mentioned in the amendment was decided after discussion with the industry and meets its requirement. I am glad that that has all-party support.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendments made: No. 53, in page 13, line 42, at end insert
  "and either the number of cylinders supplied is 20 or fewer or the gas is not intended for sale by the recipient;".
  No. 54, in page 13, line 43, leave out
  `not more than 2,500 litres of.
  No. 55, in page 13, line 44, leave out
  `where the gas is not contained in cylinders'
  and insert
  ', otherwise than in cylinders, to a person at any premises at which he is not able to store more than two tonnes of such gas;'.—[Mr. Lilley.]

Clause 37

  SCHEDULE E: ASSESSMENT ON RECEIPTS BASIS
  Amendment proposed: No. 92, in page 25, line 23, at end insert—
  `(2A) Where subsection (1) above applies in the case of emoluments received, or (as the case may be) received in the United Kingdom, after the death of the person who held the office or employment concerned, the charge shall be a charge on his executors or administrators; and accordingly income tax—

  (a) shall be assessed and charged on the executors or administrators, and

  (b) shall be a debt due from and payable out of the deceased's estate.'.—[Mr. Norman Lamont.]

  Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 93 and 94.
  Mr. Nicholas Brown: As I understand it, the purpose of Government amendment No. 92 is to clarify what I believe the Committee already thought was the position—that clause 37 is intended to refer to a personal representative's earnings after the taxpayer has died, and that Government amendments Nos. 93 and 94 merely confirm the timing of the implementation of that section. If it does anything more than that, the Financial Secretary should tell us, but that is my understanding.
  Sir William Clark: There is still some concern among employers as to the practical effects of the clause. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that consultation with employers will continue to ameliorate any difficulties caused by the new PAYE rules? If difficulties and practical problems are drawn to his attention, will he deal with them in such a way that no additional burden is placed on employers?
  Mr. Norman Lamont: I give my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Sir W. Clark) that assurance. One or two potential problems have been revealed, but on the whole we have taken the view that the problems have been a little exaggerated. Obviously we are
  1032
  open to consultation and we intend to consult. If it is necessary to make changes in the legislation next year to ameliorate matters we shall do that.
  The amendment goes further than the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) said. It ensures that a charge to tax can be made on earnings received after a taxpayer's death and provides that the tax on such earnings shall be charged on the personal representatives and be a due debt from the estate. The amendment represents an addition, which makes a provision for after death, rather than being an amendment that drafts or clarifies.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment made: No. 93, in page 27, line 19, at end insert—
  '(3) This section shall not apply in the case of emoluments of an office or employment held by a person who died before 6th April 1989.'.—[Mr. Norman Lamont.]

Clause 38

  SCHEDULE E: UNPAID EMOLUMENTS
  Amendment made: No. 94, in page 27, line 36, at end insert—
  '(3A) This section shall not apply to emoluments of an office or employment held by a person who died before 6th April 1989.'.—[Mr. Norman Lamont.]
  Mr. Norman Lamont: I beg to move amendment No. 95, in page 28, line 14, at end insert—
  '(8A) In the application of this section to emoluments of an office or employment under or with a person carrying on business as an authorised Lloyd's underwriting agent, the references in subsections (1)(d) and (5)(a) above to 6th April 1991 shall be construed as references to 6th April 1994.
  (8B) Subsection (8A) above shall not apply unless the duties of the office or employment relate wholly or mainly to the underwriting agency business.
  (8C) The reference in subsection (8A) above to an authorised Lloyd's underwriting agent is to a person permitted by the Council of Lloyd's to act as an underwriting agent at Lloyd's.'.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 96 and 97.
  Mr. Lamont: This amendment extends, in the case of employees and directors of Lloyd's underwriting agents, the time limit within which a claim for transitional relief must be made to prevent income earned before the introduction of the receipts basis being taxed twice—once when earned before 6 April 1989 and again when received after 5 April 1989. To take account of Lloyd's particular accounting arrangements, the time limit is extended by three years.
  The amendment applies the transitional relief that applies to the introduction of the receipts basis to the special accounting requirements of Lloyd's. My hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Arbuthnot), who is no longer present, asked about Lloyd's in Committee. His concern is the subject of a later amendment. This one deals purely with the transitional relief.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment made: No. 96, in page 28, line 14, at end insert—
  '(8D) If in a particular case it appears to the Board reasonable to do so they may direct that subsections (1)(d) and (5)(a) above shall have effect in relation to that case as if for the references to 6th April 1991 or (as the case may be) 6th

  1033
  April 1994 there were substituted references to such later date as they may specify in the direction.'.—[Mr. Norman Lamont.]

Clause 43

  SCHEDULE D: COMPUTATION
  Amendment made: No. 97, in page 30, line 28, at end insert—
  '(5A) In the application of this section to the calculation of a person's profits or gains as an authorised Lloyd's underwriting agent—

  (a) the references in subsections (1)(c), (3)(b), (4) and (5)(a) above to nine months shall be construed as references to three years and nine months, and

  (b) the reference in subsection (5)(c) above to two years shall be construed as a reference to five years.

  (5B) The reference in subsection (5A) above to an authorised Lloyd's underwriting agent is to a person permitted by the Council of Lloyd's to act as an underwriting agent at Lloyd's.—[Mr. Norman Lamont.]
  Mr. Norman Lamont: I beg to move amendment No. 98, in page 30, line 28, at end insert—
  '(5C) In a case where the period of account mentioned in subsection (1)(a) above begins before 6th April 1989 and ends before 6th April 1990, the references in subsections (1)(c), (3)(b), (4) and (5)(a) above to nine months shall be construed as references to eighteen months.'.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendment No. 99.
  Mr. Lamont: Clause 43 provides that in calculating an employer's profits for tax any remuneration still unpaid nine months after the end of the period of account in which it was earned and for which it was charged should be deducted not for that period but for the period in which it is eventually paid. Clause 44 applies similar provisions to investment and insurance companies. The purpose of the clauses is to ensure that there is not too long a gap between the time at which the employer gets tax relief for the payment of emoluments, and the time at which those emoluments are assessed to tax in the hands of the particular employee under the receipts basis. Without the provisions in the clauses an employer could get a deduction for remuneration which remained unpaid for a long time—perhaps indefinitely.
  The new rules apply to calculations of profits for periods ending after 5 April 1989. Since publication of the Bill, representations have suggested that some companies may not be able to adjust their accounting arrangements immediately to determine and therefore pay remuneration within nine months of the end of an accounting period. My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Sir W. Clarke) may have been hinting at that. The consequence would be, in the short term, before people could adjust to the new regime, that companies would unexpectedly have to pay more tax because they would not get a deduction for unpaid remuneration, leading to cash flow problems in some cases. Where company accounts were more than 12 months in arrears, and were then brought up to date to satisfy the new rules, there would be a "bunching effect" on the payment of remuneration. That would result from more than one year's remuneration being paid in one tax year so that the company can comply with the nine-month time limit and get its deduction for the remuneration. In that situation some employees could find themselves paying tax at the higher rate where they would not otherwise have done so. To ease any transitional difficulties of this kind and to allow companies which need
  1034
  to change their accounting arrangements a longer period to adjust to the new rules, the amendments provide that for a business's first period of account ending after 5 April 1989, the period during which remuneration must be paid if there is to be a deduction in that period of account is to be 18 months rather than nine months.
  The amendment extends the period at the introduction of the new receipts basis to enable companies to get up speed in the preparation of their accounts.
  Amendment agreed to.

Clause 44

  INVESTMENT AND INSURANCE COMPANIES: COMPUTATION
  Amendment made: No. 99, in page 31, line 38, at end insert—
  '(5A) In a case where the accounting period mentioned in subsection (1)(a) above begins before 6th April 1989 and ends before 6th April 1990, the references in subsections (1)(c), (3)(b), (4) and (5)(a) above to nine months shall be construed as references to eighteen months.'.—[Mr. Norman Lamont.]

Clause 84

  INTERPRETATION OF SECTIONS 85 TO 89 AND FURTHER PROVISIONS ABOUT INSURANCE COMPANIES
  Amendments made: No. 77, in page 64, line 7, leave out from 'as' to 'nothing' and insert
  'the provisions of that Schedule do not have effect in relation to sections 434 and 435 of the Taxes Act 1988'.
  No. 78, in page 64, line 9, leave out from second 'the' to 'subsection' in line 10 and insert
  'fraction of the profits referred to in subsection (6) of section 434 and'.—[Mr. Norman Lamont.]

Clause 86

  SPREADING OF RELIEF FOR ACQUISITION EXPENSES
  Amendment proposed: No. 100, in page 64, line 42, at end add
  'other than commissions in respect of industrial life assurance business carried on by the company'.—[Mr. Norman Lamont.]
  Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 101, 102 and 103.
  Dr. Marek: Congratulations to the Government are in order because they have taken heed of what was said in Committee and of the views expressed on both sides of the House. The Government are now willing to accept the commission expenses of certain life assurances. From reading the amendments I gather that the Government will go a little further and that existing commissions will be safeguarded. Is the insurance industry happy with that, as I suspect that it will mean some extra book-keeping? The amendments mean that people who entered into contracts before the Finance Bill will not have their contract commissions or expectations changed. I welcome that. There are several amendments in this group and I should be grateful if the Financial Secretary would say something about them.
  Mr. Norman Lamont: The amendments make two relaxations in the rules which provide for life assurance

  1035
  acquisition expenses to be spread for tax relief purposes over seven years. Both, as the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) said, relate to the treatment of commissions.
  The first picks up a point made by the hon. Gentleman in Committee, which had also been put to us by the industry. The Bill provides that all commissions should be treated as acquisition expenses. That is right as a general rule, but the hon. Gentleman had a fair point when he suggested that it might bear somewhat hard on commissions paid to life assurance agents for the regular door-to-door collection of premium, which is a feature of industrial life assurance business. For that reason, we propose that commissions on that type of business should be taken out of the normal rule and treated as acquisition expenses only where they are incurred for the purpose of acquiring business rather than the commissions that are collected each year.
  The Bill as it stands applies the spreading of relief to all commissions laid out after the end of this year, to whatever policy they relate. The industry has suggested that this would disrupt the expectations of offices and their existing policy holders because it would apply to future commissions paid in respect of policies already in force on Budget day. We see some force in this and propose that these commissions should not be subject to spreading, except when they relate to subsequent variations of pre-Budget policies.
  7.30 pm
  The hon. Member for Wrexham asked whether the insurance industry was happy with the amendments. I think that it will be content with the second purpose which I described. As to the first purpose—the treatment of the acquisition expenses of the industrial business—it is right and fair to say that it is satisfied with that. There might have been an argument about whether that treatment should have applied to other home service business, but there is a considerable problem of definition. It is my understanding—I hope that I am not misrepresenting the Association of British Insurers—that, in the end, it was content with that position.
  Dr. Marek: I am grateful to the Financial Secretary for that explanation and I am glad that my understanding of the amendments is right. I am prepared to maintain my warm welcome for them.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendments made: No. 101, in page 65, line 6, at end add—
  `(1A) The exclusion from paragraph (a) of subsection (1) above of commissions in respect of industrial life assurance busness shall not prevent such commissions constituting expenses of management for the purposes of paragraph (b) or paragraph (c) of that subsection.
  (1B) Nothing in subsections (1) and (1A) above applies to commissions (however described) in respect of insurances made before 14th March 1989, but without prejudice to the application of those subsections to any commission attributable to a variation on or after that date in a policy issued in respect of an insurance made before that date; and, for this purpose, the exercise of any rights conferred by a policy shall be regarded as a variation of it.'.
  No. 102, in line 8, after 'securing', insert
  `on or after 14th March 1989'.
  No. 103, in line 9, leave out 'already made' and insert
  'issued in respect of an insurance already made (whether before, on or after that date)'.

Clause 171

  ABATEMENT OF EXEMPTION WHERE CLAIM SETTLED OUT OF BENEFICIARY'S OWN RESOURCES
  Amendment proposed: No. 72, in page 146, line 11, leave out 'one or more'.—[Mr. Norman Lamont.]
  Dr. Marek: I do not want to delay the Report stage too much on this amendment. It appeared that it might have been a trivial amendment, but I am not sure. Will the Financial Secretary explain it?
  Mr. Norman Lamont: It is an absolutely trivial amendment. It corrects a minor drafting defect in clause 171, which defines, in subsection 6, an exempt gift. Although the gift is singular, as presently drafted it is exempt by virtue of "any one or more" of the various inheritance tax exemptions. It can be exempt only under one of the exemption provisions, and the amendment reflects this.
  Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 3

  VALUE ADDED TAX: BUILDINGS AND LAND
  Mr. Lilley: I beg to move amendment No. 5, in page 161, line 1 at end insert
  `in either or both of the following ways, namely—
  (a)'.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following: Government amendment No. 6. Amendment No. 107, in line 3, insert—
  `(4A) Zero-rating shall also apply for extensions and alterations to village halls and other facilities used similarly in providing social and recreational facilities for a local community.'.
  Government amendments Nos. 37, 38 and 42.
  Mr. Lilley: As you, Madam Deputy Speaker, will know, in implementing the European Court of Justice ruling, we have throughout sought to minimise the burden, especially on charities. Unfortunately, village halls represented a particular problem. In this context, I should declare a vested interest. I am the son of parents who throughout their lives have been concerned with the local village hall and it would be more than my life was worth if I had not sought every means to try to interpret the ruling in a way that was favourable to village halls.
  However, after a considerable scrutiny of last year's court judgment, we reluctantly concluded that it was not permissible to retain zero rating for fuel, power and new construction for village halls and similar charitable community buildings, essentially because, although charitable, they appeared to be engaged in business as they were making supplies and hiring themselves out for a consideration.
  A letter of 17 March from Madame Christiane Scrivener, the European Commissioner for tax matters, showed that the Commissioner might entertain a different interpretation of the judgment. I wrote to Madame Scrivener asking for clarification, and gave the Finance Bill Standing Committee an assurance that, if the Commission confirmed that it would not oppose the reinstatement of zero rating, the Government would bring forward any necessary amendments to the Finance Bill.
  Madame Scrivener's reply suggested that, although continued zero-rating for supplies of fuel and power to

  1037
  village halls was ruled out by the court, the Commission would not raise legal objections to retaining the zero rate for the construction of village halls. The amendment therefore seeks to reinstate for the construction of charitable community buildings the zero rate which was abolished on 1 April as a consequence of last year's court judgment.
  The amendment is confined to buildings run by charities. It covers church halls, village halls and other community buildings providing similar social and recreational facilities for a local area. It also extends to buildings such as cricket pavilions and changing rooms, constructed for charitable playing fields and recreation ground associations.
  The VAT construction clauses of the Finance Bill were brought into effect on 1 April under the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968 and because it is not possible retrospectively to amend the PCTA resolution, the date for the statutory implementation of the relief is 1 August, after Royal Assent for the Bill can be expected to have been received. However, Customs and Excise will waive, extra-statutorily, any tax incurred between 1 April and 1 August on village halls or other buildings covered by the amendment.
  I pay tribute to many Committee Members who pressed hard for us to look again and for the Commission to waive any objections which it might have to the continued zero rating of village halls. I do so not least to my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Mr. Powell), who described what a tremendous effect it would have on his constituency where there are a great many village halls in operation or in the process of being built.
  Dr. Marek: Congratulations are once again due to the Government, perhaps somewhat fortuitously. It appears that a letter from Madame Scrivener to a Member of the European Parliament was spotted, and it allowed the Economic Secretary to press home the point.
  It was not just the Opposition who pressed the amendments in Committee, but Conservative Members and Liberal Members. I do not think a single hon. Member would have wished VAT to be imposed on village halls. It is extremely pleasant to see such an amendment on Report.
  Can the Economic Secretary be more specific about the types of hall that will be exempt? He gave us some help and said that cricket pavilions would be exempt. Will sports halls be exempt? Those sports halls might be built partly by local authority funding, and the community might have a fund and ask for subscriptions to it. Some of these halls, especially if they are big enough to contain a basketball court, may be quite big and expensive. If a big hall did not fit under the heading of a village hall, I presume that it would not fall within the scope of the amendment. Where does the boundary fall? 1 have not seen the original letter from Madame Scrivener to the European Parliament Member, but I hope—providing the hall was for a community purpose, with sporting recreational or educational facilities—that we would try to make the definition of such a hall as wide as possible. However, that is perhaps a detail, and I am pleased that there was no opposition to this type of amendment. The Government have done well. I wish they could do as well in many other matters about which the Opposition seek to persuade them.
  Mr. Beith: I welcome this improvement to the Bill and the extra-statutory concession which the Minister has just announced to make it clear that a period of liability will not arise between the original and the operative date.
  As has been said, there was pressure from both sides of the Committee from the Minister to act, in particular that he should write to Madame Scrivener to explore what had been thought and said in the Commission. There is a difference between the approach of this country and most other European countries towards the provision of such facilities. In most other European countries about which I know something, it is general practice for local authorities to provide a large proportion of the community halls, village halls, sports halls and such facilities.
  We have a unique and valuable system of voluntary provision of local community halls. It is perhaps at its strongest in the countryside in the form of village halls, but it is not unique to the countryside, because many neighbourhoods in town have a similar provision. It involves voluntary effort and fund raising of the most dedicated kind. Everyone agrees that it would be unreasonable to face that sector with a high tax bill.
  That is one reason why I shall tempt the Government to go further, and why I argue that we would be well within the spirit of the concession that we have secured so far if we went further and got extensions of, and repairs to, village halls exempted from VAT and returned to zero rating. A large number of village halls were built a long time ago, so the problems they face are of renewal, repair and extension. Many were built at the end of the first world war as a local community's memorial to its war dead, and some were built at the end of the second world war. Sometimes, these buildings were put up using cheap construction methods because that was all that the community could afford. Many of them now need a great deal of improvement, and some need extension.
  The Minister could usefully keep this matter under review and continue his fruitful correspondence with Madame Scrivener. I am sure that he is becoming familiar with her through the letters that they are exchanging. There is no doubt that the correspondence has helped to make it clear that the Commission, in seeking to take legal action, was not aiming its sights at village halls and local community facilities. Perhaps the Minister could go further and suggest a dinner in Brussels between him and the good lady, where, against a background of flowers and music, the matter could be discussed. Much more useful work could be done for the benefit of village halls.
  I press on the Minister the value of amendment No. 107. I welcome the Government's inclusion of this provision and the way in which they have secured an understanding from the European Commission that, since what this country provides, through voluntary efforts, in village halls would not be subject to VAT anywhere else in the Community, because there it is mainly provided by local authorities, it is entirely reasonable that it should not be subject to VAT here.
  Mr. William Powell: As my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary said, he was pressed on this point from both sides of the Committee, so when the hon. Members for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) and for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) said that this was an all-party matter, they were correct. As the member of the Committee who initiated discussions on these matters all

  1039
  those weeks ago, I was hardly aware what I was letting myself in for, because no issue has involved me in more correspondence than this one.
  Sir William Clark: It serves you right.
  Mr. Powell: As my hon. Friend says, I should keep out of these things, because I would have far less work to do.
  What my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary announced last week in answer to a parliamentary question from me was confirmed in his remarks today, and it has been received with real enthusiasm in thousands of communities. It is no exaggeration to say that. This will undoubtedly be one of the most popular results of the Finance Bill.
  Mr. Ian Taylor: The result will be received with more than great enthusiasm—it will be received with great relief. Many projects are under way and in planning stage and the burden of VAT if the extra-statutory concession had not been introduced would have been frightening for those who have to do the fund raising. We are grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Mr. Powell).
  Mr. Powell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend.
  I never doubted the real determination of my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to ensure that VAT should be zero-rated in the way in which we shall approve tonight. His determination to achieve that was quite obvious and I congratulate him on the tenacity that he has shown in this matter and on his determination to secure a result that has been so widely applauded.
  Mr. Lilley: The hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) asked me to clarify the definition further and asked in particular whether it would include sports halls. For those sports halls that are both charities and run for the benefit of the local community, the answer is yes, they will be included, as they come under the general heading of providing recreational facilities.
  The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) inadvertently gave the impression that I wrote to Madame Scrivener only when pressed to do so in Committee. In fact, I had already written and was awaiting a reply. He suggested that I should go further in my familiarity with the lady, but although I am grateful to her for her courtesy, co-operation and pragmatism, I do not think that I should follow all the innuendos that he conveyed.
  7.45 pm
  The hon. Member is correct to say that village halls are unique to this country, and that there is nothing similar on the continent. Both he and the House may think that it is odd, therefore, that how we tax them should be anything to do with the Community. I am happy that we have managed to achieve a possibly constitutionally bizarre result, whereby we have achieved a national solution rather than a uniform solution that fitted oddly to our unique national characteristics.
  Amendment No. 107, tabled by the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, would remove the charging of VAT on extensions. I am afraid that, under EC law, that is not possible. Under the sixth directive, to which we assented in 1977, we cannot reintroduce zero rating once it has been given up. We gave up zero rating in that respect in 1984.
  1040
  I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Mr. Powell) for his kind remarks and his welcome for these measures. I again pay tribute to him and to hon. Members on both sides of the Committee for the tenacity with which they pressed the case of village halls, a case which is dear to us all.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment made, No. 6, in page 161, line 2 at end insert
  ';
  (b) as a village hall or similarly in providing social or recreational facilities for a local community.'—[Mr. Lilley.]
  Amendment proposed: No. 7, in page 161, line 39, leave out from beginning to end of line 42.—[Mr. Lilley.]
  Madame Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 8, 33, 39, 49 and 50.
  Dr. Marek: I think I understand these amendments, but it would be helpful if the Economic Secretary said something about them. I hope that he will explain the purpose of these amendments so as to confirm that our understanding of them is correct. What will be the effect of the amendments on the difference between beneficial owners and legal owners, and how will that be worked out in practice if the amendments are passed? I am not sure about that and any help would be welcome.
  Mr. Lilley: This additional provision is made necessary by an aspect of English land law which does not sit very readily with a tax on supplies such as VAT. The difficulties arise because the interests in land and property can be split into two—the legal estate or interest, and the separate beneficial interest. I am happy to say that there are no such difficulties, I understand, in Scotland, which, in legal matters, so often gets it right. This split gives rise to the possibility of there being two different suppliers for the purposes of VAT every time a property is sold or let.
  The problem is compounded by the fact that the owner of the legal estate—whose name appears on the conveyance as the vendor or lessor—is often merely a nominee while the beneficial owner is the person who really instigates the transactions and receives the payments. The practice of separation of the two interests is widespread and I am told that, even when the two interests could be merged into one so as to produce a single supplier for VAT purposes, this would be very onerous and have substantial financial implications for the companies involved.
  Therefore, for practical purposes, we have decided to disregard the person in whose name the property is conveyed and to look to the person with the economic interest in the transaction—the beneficial owner. What we have done is to make him the person responsible for the VAT transaction. At the same time, we have made sure that he will also be the person entitled to the benefit of any input tax recovery if his supply of the building is a taxable supply.
  This principle is not new to VAT. Since the introduction of the tax, there has been a special provision attached to the zero rating of sales and long lettings of buildings, so that a person constructing them could benefit from the zero rating and cover the tax on materials and services that he bought in, even though another legal person conveyed the property, provided that the benefit of the sale or long letting of the property passed to him. This

  1041
  measure extends the same principle to the exemption and the taxing of property, either mandatorily or under the option to tax. It seeks to reduce uncertainty in the business community about who is making the supply and who can recover related input tax, and it therefore simplifies the VAT consequences of commercial property transactions.
  Dr. Marek: The Economic Secretary appears to have a note in his hands. I do not know whether it is helpful. Has he received any representations from any part of the industry about the effect of the proposals? The amendments appear to be sensible, but having been tabled only two or three days before the debate, it is difficult to assess them and to ascertain whether there will be any consequences that we cannot readily foresee tonight. If the Economic Secretary says that he is not aware of any such consequences, I shall accept that. I do not intend to oppose the amendments.
  Mr. Lilley: My discussions with the industry make me pretty confident that this clarification measure will be welcomed. It will deal with a problem that was not catered for in the original drafting. I am sure that it will be well received by the various groups to whom we have spoken, including industry groups and lawyers.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment made: No. 8, in page 162, line 27, at end insert—
  `(4A) Note (5) shall be omitted:—[Mr. Lilley.]
  Amendment proposed: No. 9, in page 165, line 26, at end insert—
  `(2) The Treasury may by order amend Schedule 6A to this Act.'—[Mr. Lilley.]
  Madam Deputy Speaker: With this we shall discuss Government amendments Nos. 34, 36, 40 and 41.
  Dr. Marek: I must take the Government to task. I understand that the amendments seek to give the Government power by order—admittedly by affirmative resolution—to change aspects of tax law and VAT legislation. If the Government were confident that they had their legislation right, these amendments would not have been tabled. If they had their legislation right, yet still needed to table amendments, I should not be speaking to them because they would probably have gone through on the nod. I suspect that the Government do not have their legislation right. I wonder whether there are sufficient numbers of civil servants in the Treasury dealing with the legislation to ensure that it is right.
  The history of all the changes to VAT legislation makes a pretty story. In Committee the Government tabled a great many amendments on a Friday that we had to debate on the following Tuesday. Many hon. Members have to return to their constituencies on a Friday and so were not aware of the amendments. We therefore had to table starred amendments so that we could properly consider the Government's amendments. The Chairman, the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack), was not pleased, yet it has happened again on Report. Amendments were tabled on Thursday, appeared on the Amendment Paper on Friday, and have to be debated today.
  They are not the easiest of amendments to understand. I am prepared to bet that not many hon. Members, other than the Economic Secretary, can understand their detail. I suspect that the Government have tabled the amendments because, even now, they do not have their
  1042
  legislation right. The Economic Secretary should come clean and admit that; after all, nobody is perfect. If he did so, it would be churlish of us to oppose the amendments.
  The Government's practice on this occasion is certainly not a model for good legislation. The Opposition have learnt a lesson from this practice, and I hope that the Government also learn from it. It is an example of how not to conduct business. The Government should not table amendments at the last minute. If they intend to make complicated changes to next year's Finance Bill, they should table amendments at least a week in advance so that we have the opportunity to study them.
  Sir William Clark: Hear, hear.
  Dr. Marek: The hon. Gentleman and I do not often agree, but I am glad that we do so on this occasion. It is a sensible, non-party point. We need time to study the amendments and to consult outside bodies. If we are given only 48 hours' notice, it is impossible to do justice to the amendments—especially with a Finance Bill as long as this one. It has been impossible to do justice to all the Bill's provisions, although we did quite well in Committee in rather difficult circumstances. I hope that the Economic Secretary will tell us why he has tabled the amendments, although I suspect that I know the answer. If he confirms my suspicions, that will be the end of the matter and I will not oppose the amendments.
  Mr. Lilley: The hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members who served on the Committee will recall that the original Bill contained provisions for amendment by order, by the negative procedure, if such an amendment was consequential to amendments made to the zero-rating and exemption schedules of the Value Added Tax Act 1983.
  The new schedule 6A deals with some extremely complex and novel provisions—for example, the clawback provision contained in paragraph 1, the option for taxation in paragraphs 2 to 4, the self-supply charge on developers in paragraphs 5 to 7, and we have just dealt with a paragraph on legal and beneficial owners. The original proponents of VAT in this country extolled its virtues as a simple tax. That notion has long since been accepted as wishful thinking. Certainly VAT, as it applies to land and buildings and in the circumstances of this schedule, is extremely difficult.
  It would be unrealistic to pretend that everything in schedule 6A will turn out to be perfect and incapable of improvement. We were forced by changes imposed upon us by the Commission to introduce new proposals at short notice. I decided, and I am glad that I did, initially, to introduce them in Committee, thereby giving hon. Members an opportunity to discuss them, and then to introduce further proposals, if necessary, on Report—which we have done, and in time for them to be discussed. It is possible that, in the light of experience, there will be gaps, and ambiguities and adjustments may be necessary. It would be wrong to wait for and then clog up the next Finance Bill with technical amendments.
  I commend to the House this series of amendments, which gives the Treasury power to vary the schedule by order. That will usually be by affirmative resolution, other than where the amendment is merely consequential to an order providing relieving amendments to the zero-rating or exemption schedules, which requires only a negative resolution and was included in the original Bill. We are not

  1043
  setting an undesirable precedent because already many things can be done by order, including changes in VAT rates and liability.
  I hope that the House will accept my frank admission that we are not quite perfect, but we are getting there.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed: No. 10, in page 166, line 45, leave out 'sub-paragraph (2)' and insert
  `sub-paragraphs (2) and (2A) and paragraph 3'.[Mr. Lilley.]
  Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to debate Government amendments Nos. 11 to 15.
  Amendment No. 2, in page 168, leave out lines 4 to 7.
  Government amendment No. 16.
  Amendment No. 3, in page 168, line 8, after `irrevocable', insert
  `except where a building is totally demolished or where a major reconstruction occurs on a listed building'.
  Government amendments Nos. 17 to 20.
  8 pm
  Dr. Marek: This large group of amendments merits debate. The two Opposition amendments are not dissimilar to those debated in Committee, and attempt to cover a broad principle. I was not happy with the answers given in Committee as to why the Government inserted into the Bill the phraseology that they did.
  Amendment No. 2 concerns buildings that are separated or joined. The Bill refers to buildings joined by covered walkways, and states that buildings, precincts and parades will be regarded as one building for taxation purposes. There is no justification for that view, other than that of simplicity. I hope that the Government will allow developers some leeway in deciding which buildings in parades and shopping centres can be separate and which cannot.
  The problem can be overcome because it is not inconceivable that covered walkways could be covered one week and uncovered the next. Successful attempts could be made to present those as separate buildings for the purposes of the Bill. Also, a walkway that is currently uncovered might be covered later. It is in any event a somewhat artificial distinction, because covered walkways are needed in some parts of the country more than in others.
  Government amendment No. 16 rectifies the position to a certain extent in respect of agricultural land. It states:
  "Where such an election is made in relation to agricultural land (including a building on agricultural land), it shall have effect in relation to any other agricultural land if that other land is not separated from it by—

  (a) land which is not agricultural land; or

  (b) agricultural land in separate ownership."

  The Government presumably received representations from the farming industry and saw the sense of providing a different option for different parcels of land, but they have not gone far enough in applying the same philosophy to shopping centres and precincts.
  I do not suggest that landowners or developers should be given the right to dictate to the Treasury which property should be deemed separate, but there must be a little flexibility. I do not believe for one moment that the drafting of the Opposition amendments will be accepted, because they would probably lead to undesirable deficiencies in other parts of the Bill. I am under no illusion
  1044
  that the Economic Secretary will jump up and say, "I am persuaded by the hon. Gentleman's arguments and I accept his amendments." However, I wonder whether he agrees that there should be some flexibility in the interpretation of a single or multiple unit.
  Amendment No. 3 would provide another option where a building is totally demolished, save for one facade—[Interruption.] Obviously the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Sir W. Clark) is not interested, but that aspect is of importance to people who are concerned about historical and listed buildings.
  Value added tax leaflet 708/2/89 spells out on page 8 the position in respect of demolished buildings, albeit in a different context. It states that demolition is considered total even if there remains a single facade. It would be entirely reasonable to adopt the same definition for the purposes of the Bill. Suppose a staircase inside the building, as well as its facade, is listed. The developer could not then demolish that staircase, and the chances are that the site would not be developed. If the staircase is very fine but is not listed, the developer might say, "There is no question of my being able to exercise a new option unless I can demolish that staircase." That is the nub of the matter.
  The danger is that architecture that should be preserved will not be protected unless the Government interpret VAT rules more flexibly. Although one appreciates that demolition must be more or less total, if a building has other features of architectural merit, demolition should still be regarded as total save for those features. That argument is not one that met with much sympathy from the Government in Committee, but I hope that Ministers have considered the arguments, and the slightly different amendments now before the House, and will be able to make an encouraging response.
  Mr. Lilley: The group of seven Government amendments can all be described as drafting amendments because they do not represent any changes to our basic policy. The intention has always been that people should opt for buildings, including their sites and curtilage; for agricultural land, including agricultural buildings thereon; and for other land, including land containing civil engineering works. There is no great dissent over those categories.
  However, the Law Society in particular was unhappy that the Bill contains ambiguities as to the word "land", which under the Interpretation Act includes buildings. Parliamentary counsel agreed that there was some substance to the Law Society's observation and redrafted to use the term "land" in the Interpretation Act sense, whereby there is no need to distinguish between land and buildings, and to reserve the use of the word "buildings" for cases where it is necessary to refer to buildings as such. The draftsman has therefore defined buildings for the purpose of the option by expressly including site and curtilage. I hope that there will be no difficulty in the House agreeing to the amendments.
  As to amendment No. 2, if groups of individual units are in the same ownership and are managed as one coherent development, it seems reasonable that they should be regarded by the landlord as a whole for the purpose of the option. Where separate parts or units are in separate ownership, each legal person has his own option anyway. Similarly, if buildings are linked by a common covered walkway, it is likely to mean that there is some

  1045
  community of purpose in their use and, if they are in the same ownership, it seems reasonable that they should be subject to a single option. Buildings linked by a covered walkway in separate legal ownership would not be covered by a single option anyway.
  The hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr Marek) suggested that in some parts of the country covered walkways may not be necessary. If he will tell me what parts of the country they are, I shall spend my holidays there.
  We try to maintain unitary operation of the option where there are a number of facilities within a common development because allocation of input tax on common facilities to different shops in a shopping development is difficult.
  If all the shops are owned by a single owner who also owns the common facilities, it will be much better for him to make a single option and then to be able to reclaim the VAT on all inputs relating to common facilities as well as to the individual shops. If there is deviation from that principle, more complexity will be introduced, along with a greater opportunity for avoidance and even fraud, and I do not think that Opposition Members would wish to encourage that.
  As far as we can see, there is no real problem except in relation to exempt tenants—building societies and banks, for example. An owner might wish to make a different option in respect of premises occupied by building societies and banks from that in respect of shops. Again, I am rather surprised that the Opposition should wish to facilitate tax avoidance by means of those parts of the exempt sector, thus giving rise to the complexities that I have mentioned.
  The hon. Member for Wrexham saw a contrast with agricultural land; I find a parallel. I do not know what would happen if two separate estates were joined by covered walkways—as far as I know there is no example of that in the countryside—but where pieces of land are contiguous they are treated as a single unit. Where two estates are clearly separate, they are treated as separate units. That strikes me as similar to the principle that we are using for shopping centres.
  Dr. Marek: If a shopping precinct included a right of way—down the middle, let us say—that was dedicated to the local authority and thus not in the ownership, beneficial or otherwise, of the developer, would the precinct be treated as two precincts?
  Mr. Lilley: I fear not. As I recall, our definition of agricultural land does not define a farm divided by a road as two separate farms, and it would be equally perverse to apply such a definition to a shopping centre. Although at first sight there may appear to be a problem that the amendment would resolve, I think that on closer inspection it may prove to be a non-problem, which therefore requires no solution.
  The hon. Gentleman, along with others, raised the points contained in amendment No. 3 in Committee. Concern was expressed about the conditions of the option to tax commercial and industrial buildings: hon. Members wished to know whether it provided an incentive for total demolition, as opposed to the retention of a feature of architectural merit such as a facade.
  If a building is listed or is in a conservation area, planning constraints are likely to prevent such action. It is right that planning constraints rather than a tweaking of
  1046
  the tax laws should constitute the primary way for us to make planning decisions. Even if no such constraints existed, however, I do not believe that the incentive suggested by the hon. Gentleman and the amendment would exist. A considerable amount of tax will be at stake in a redevelopment, whether or not there is total demolition. The presumption, therefore, must be that the redeveloper will want to continue to opt tax in the majority of cases.
  In addition, the special charge on developers will, if anything, encourage the retention and refurbishment of existing buildings, because the special self-supply charge—assuming that Government amendment No. 32 is accepted—will not apply to reconstructions, enlargements or extensions of, or the addition of annexes to, existing buildings. Customs and Excise will in any case continue its current practice of regarding a building as new and thus subject to a fresh option, although part of a previous building—such as a single facade—is retained and incorporated within it. Developers, of course, may not always be eager for a building to be regarded as new if as a result the self-supply charge on developers takes effect, or the sale of the building becomes compulsorily taxable. The case for amendment is therefore not compelling.
  The hon. Gentleman asked specifically whether, if a staircase or similar internal feature were retained, it could be compatible with demolition. I am reliably informed that it would not be accepted that the building had been demolished if a staircase were retained. Obviously, the best way in which to ensure that staircases of great value are not destroyed is generally to protect them through the planning rules rather than the tax system.
  8.15 pm
  Dr. Marek: I am not sure that we have progressed any further as a result of the Economic Secretary's reply. Let me deal with his points one by one, although I do not expect him to reply again.
  It is doubtful whether Government amendment No. 16 provides a concession; exempt concerns unable to reclaim their input tax may not regard such action as tax avoidance. The amendment provides that
  "land shall be taken not to be separated from other land if it is separated from it only by a road, railway, river or something similar".
  What if a shopping centre includes a public green, perhaps with a fountain? That hardly constitutes a road, railway or river; a road is, in a sense, one-dimensional, while a green could be described as two-dimensional. The Economic Secretary mentioned farms divided by roads, which he said would be deemed as single units, but what if one part is a mile or two away from the other?
  The Minister says that there will be no problems, because land that is separated will be clearly delineated, and no arguments will arise with Customs and Excise. I accept that, although I am still a little worried about the possible problems with shopping centres and arcades. I am prepared to take the hon. Gentleman's word for it if he says that there will be no problems.
  I have mixed views on what the Minister said about facades and staircases. At one stage he said that Customs and Excise was prepared to regard a building as being demolished if a facade, for instance, was retained. That led me to believe that the same could apply to two facades, or

  1047
  to a facade and a staircase. A minute later, however, the hon. Gentleman said that staircases would not be included.
  I am apprehensive. I hope that Customs and Excise will read the report of our debate, and will treat any applications with the utmost flexibility. It is all very well to say that we should use the planning laws to safeguard staircases and facades. I should be the first to agree if the planning laws had teeth, were obeyed and were not overturned on appeal by Conservative Secretaries of State, but unfortunately that is not the case. I am not saying that the planning procedures do not work well, but they do not work well enough.
  Having said that, I hope that the Economic Secretary's reply will be read by interested parties in the United Kingdom, and that Customs and Excise, having also read it, will treat any further negotiations with some flexibility.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendments made: No. 11, in page 166, line 45, leave out
  'has been made under this paragraph in relation to any building or'
  and insert
  `under this paragraph has effect in relation to any'.
  No. 12, in page 167, line 7, at end insert—
  '(2A) Sub-paragraph (1) above shall not apply in relation to a grant if—

  (a) the grant is made to a registered housing association and the association has given to the grantor a certificate stating that the land is to be used (after any necessary demolition work) for the construction of a building or buildings intended for use as a dwelling or number of dwellings or solely for a relevant residential purpose; or

  (b) the grant is made to an individual and the land is to be used for the construction, otherwise than in the course or furtherance of a business carried on by him, of a building intended for use by him as a dwelling.'.

  No. 13, in page 167, line 16, leave out
  'or building to which the election relates'
  and insert
  'in relation to which the election has effect'.
  No 14, in page 167, line 18, leave out 'or building'.
  No. 15, in page 167, line 44, leave out from 'above' to second 'of in page 168, line 4 and insert
  'shall have effect in relation to any land specified, or of a description specified, in the election.
  (2A) Where such an election is made in relation to, or to part of, a building (or planned building), it shall have effect in relation to the whole of the building and all the land within its curtilage; and for the purposes.'.
  No. 16, in page 168, line 7, at end insert—
  '(2B) —Where such an election is made in relation to agricultural land (including a building on agricultural land), it shall have effect in relation to any other agricultural land if that other land is not separated from it by—

  (a) land which is not agricultural land; or

  (b) agricultural land in separate ownership.

  (2C) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2B) above—

  (a) land shall be taken not to be separated from other land if it is separated from it only by a road, railway, river or something similar; and

  (b) land is in separate ownership from land in relation to which an election is made if the person by whom the election is made has no interest in, right over or licence to occupy it and, where that person is a body corporate, no relevant associate has any such interest, right or licence.'.

  No. 17, in page 168, line 10, leave out
  `notification of the election shall be'
  1048
  and insert
  `shall not have effect unless written notification of it is'.
  No. 18, in page 168, line 17, after 'above', insert 'and this paragraph'.
  No. 19, in page 168, line 18, leave out 'that paragraph' and insert 'paragraph 2 above'.
  No. 20, in page 168, line 30, at end insert—
  '(6) In paragraph 2 above "registered housing association" means a registered housing association within the meaning of the Housing Association Act 1985 or Part VII of the Housing (Northern Ireland) Order 1981.'.—[Mr. Lilley.]
  Amendment proposed: No. 21, in page 169, line 33, leave out from 'period' to 'on' in line 34 and insert
  'beginning with the day when the construction of a building or work within sub-paragraph (2) below is first planned and ending ten years after the completion of the building or work'. —[Mr. Norman Lamont.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this, it will be convenient to consider amendment No. 4, in page 169, line 37, after `supply;', insert
  'except where he intends to make a taxable supply under 5(3)(b) below;'.
  Government amendments Nos. 22 to 32 and 43 to 48.
  Mr. Anthony Coombs: Having struggled with the concept of a one-dimensional river, and given the byzantine complexity of many of the clauses, it is appropiate to congratulate the Government on devising a narrow and fairly safe path for most self-developers whose sole lets are to exempt tenants. We are between the devil of the European Commission and its interpretation of article 27 of the 16th directive and the deep blue sea of the need to minimise the effects of VAT on non-domestic construction, in particular the imposition of VAT on building land associated with it.
  In retrospect, I am glad that the Commission had reservations about the first scheme that was put before the Committee. It would have required declarations from owners when they were beginning their development as to whether they intended to sell the buildings or tax rents to exempt users. It would have constrained their commercial judgment. It would have meant that they had to fund VAT on land during construction. That is not the case now.
  The second scheme, to impose VAT at valuation on land and buildings self-supplied within 10 years of construction, would have hit a number of institutions-in particular, educational institutions that are not exempt from VAT via their charitable status because they take fees. They would have been hit very hard-in particular, the universities that bought land many years ago, possibly many centuries ago, or that were given land or bought it cheaply. VAT would have been charged on the present-day valuation, which would have led to a significant increase in project costs.
  The Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals tells me that the graduate business school at Strathclyde would have faced increased costs amounting to £150,000, which would have led to it not being viable, and that costs on a sports pavilion would have increased by £105,000. The university of Cardiff was concerned that costs of existing capital programmes would increase by £660,000. What is possibly even more important, London university said that the future development on land that was released by the merger of King's college, Chelsea college and Queen Elizabeth college would have been put at risk. That would have been detrimental to the restructuring and to the

  1049
  greater efficiency and responsiveness of the university sector, which is part of the Government's higher education strategy.
  The new historic cost basis valuation will help, and ought to be warmly welcomed. Nevertheless, the new regulations are not a bed of roses, particularly in the education sector. That is why I tabled an amendment that provided for the specific zero rating of education buildings. However, I am told that, under the VAT directive, that is not possible.
  The maintained sector of education, which I believe includes city technology colleges and grant-maintained schools, will be zero-rated or will be reimbursed for the VAT that is paid on buildings under clause 20. However, when independent schools undertake projects of more than £100,000, they will pay VAT on construction for the first time. If they buy land for construction, they will pay VAT on that, too. VAT will also be payable on land that universities have recently acquired for restructuring purposes. It will be payable at market cost.
  I hope that the Universities Funding Council will distinguish between the different kinds of restructuring to which I have referred and that it will be funded appropriately by the Government. I hope that the Government will continue to press the European Commission on the question of independent schools so as to ensure that non-profit-making independent schools with charitable status are allowed VAT relief on capital building, since that relief is now available to the public sector of education.
  Mr. Curry: I congratulate the Government on having teased out a solution with the Commission on yet another issue. The European Court ruling is subject to various interpretations, so it is very difficult to obtain absolutely precise guidance on it. I am pleased that the Government were willing to enter into negotiations. The Commission's willingness to respond pragmatically has also been helpful and perhaps could be described as the acceptable face of Brussels bureaucracy.
  I am also pleased that the Government have been willing to err on the side of adventure regarding village halls and the question that is being debated now. They have decided to take a chance, knowing that they are faced with a Commissioner who is likely to adopt a sensible approach.
  I have two questions to put to the Minister on Government amendment No. 31. The first relates to a building contract that has been entered into before 21 June 1988, before the date of the court ruling and before the statement was made in the House. Secondly, if the owner of a building has paid the contractor for work, what will happen if he is paid before 1 April but the work does not start until after 1 August? I should be grateful if those two points could be clarified.
  Mr. Beith: The hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs) has obviously studied this matter carefully and knows a great deal about it, but we are still receiving representations from the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals and others expressing considerable anxiety about the matter, despite the Government's efforts to find a fresh solution. I hope that the Minister will clarify the law concerning future gifts and acquisition of land. Would it be, rather like the National Trust, that universities
  1050
  would have to ask for a dowry before they accepted land because of the valuation that would be placed on ii if they developed the land?
  The universities are being asked to engage in their own fund raising and to finance their own development as much as possible from non-Government sources. Therefore, they are understandably anxious about aspects of the tax regime which may make that more difficult, even after the changes.
  Sir William Clark: On Government amendment No. 31, will the Minister confirm that the word "value" means cost price and not market value? Furthermore, where grants are mentioned, does that mean the immediate grant by means of which an interest in the land is acquired and not any previous grants? In other words, will he confirm that the various costs of acquisition will not be added together?
  Mr. John Heddle: I have to declare an interest as the consultant partner in a firm of surveyors that may have clients, institutional or otherwise, who may be affected directly or indirectly by the amendments. I am pleased that the amendments have been tabled after the tabling of new clauses that caused some concern to the financial sector when the Bill was considered in Committee. I am also pleased that about 20 minutes or so ago we were told that further amendments may be made by means of order, in the light of experience.
  In that context, I wish to raise a technical but very important matter. I accept, as do my hon. Friends the Members for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs) and for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), that it is right and proper that VAT should be levied on the historic cost and construction cost of land rather than on the valuation—the residual value of the ultimate development. That is fine in regard to a freehold property, but the position of a leasehold interest is not at all clear. Although the grant of a lease is a supply, a further supply is treated as taking place each time rent is due or paid. As the rent is further consideration for the grant, the fiction appears to be that a grant is made with each rent payment. That appears to be the meaning behind the drafting. Otherwise, the final words referring to consideration in the form of rent would be meaningless.
  8.30 pm
  If a developer-contractor has a long leasehold interest on a site, its value would include not only the purchase price or the premium paid to acquire it, but the rent payable in the past or in future, apparently without any discount for time. If that is correct, the value of the developer-contractor's interest may equal or even exceed that of the freehold—for example, if he holds a lease at a full rent.
  I do not believe that my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary intended that when he he said that the self-supply would be based on the land cost. I ask him to consider that it is perhaps reminiscent of development land tax, where the value of a leasehold included the value of the right to receive the rent, although it was only the present-day value. Presumably, in future any developer-contractor who wishes to minimise the impact of the self-supply charge will make sure that he leases the site at a rent which is unascertainable at the time of the self-supply charge.
  In practice, the provision may catch only existing land interests and the unwary. I ask my hon. Friend to consider

  1051
  that, arguably, the provision is not in accordance with the directive, which requires supplies of building land to be taxable, but leasing and lettings to be exempt. By taxing the rents, the measure appears to go beyond the spirit and the letter of the directive. I ask my hon. Friend to consider this and to consult officials in Customs and Excise to find out whether that was the intention of the amendments; if not, perhaps he will be prepared to come back at a later stage with an amendment by order.
  Mr. Christopher Hawkins: I ask my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to clarify a couple of points, as I was not on the Committee. Am I right in thinking that the main effect of amendment No. 31 will be that land already owned by universities or other institutions will have VAT levied on the historic cost and not on the market value when it is developed? If so, the provisions will be greatly welcomed by universities.
  I add to the projects mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs) another which would have been in jeopardy as a result of the original proposals. At St. Bartholomew's hospital medical college, a new building is now at the planning stage. It will house a new institute of preventive medicine and has been funded entirely by the private sector. That project would have had to be aborted if there were to be an unanticipated VAT bill, which would have totalled £1·5 million, on the self-supply of land. These concessions are greatly welcome and are extremely important, if I have understood them correctly.
  Today I talked to the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals; it still has one concern, which I hope my hon. Friend will clarify. We understand the position of land already owned by universities, but how will gifts of land be treated for tax purposes? It would be a great shame if universities had to refuse gifts simply because they could not afford to pay tax on them.
  Dr. Marek: We now come to what could be termed the Barclays bank clauses, which will no doubt save Barclays bank about £40 million. I do not say that in any spirit of envy. If the changes were not made, there would have been a general unfairness in other matters. The Government have gone some way towards getting rid of that unfairness, not least of which involves the problem which has beset the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals, the problem referred to by the hon. Members for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs), for High Peak (Mr. Hawkins) and for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith). I too have received a sheet of paper from the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals, and I hope that the Economic Secretary will address that problem. It has been almost completely alleviated, but there are still concerns about future gifts and acquisitions. I am sure that the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals will read very carefully what the Economic Secretary says, and any reassurance that he can provide will be very welcome.
  For the record, I refer to the debate in Standing Committee, when I asked:
  "Will a developer who has developed and intends to sell within three years as a new building, but meanwhile leases, perhaps to exempt tenants, still be unable to recover his inputs, although he will be required to standard rate the building when he sells it?"—[Official Report, Standing Committee G; 18 May 1989, c. 139.]
  1052
  The Economic Secretary said that he would write to me, and he did, saying:
  "On the question of self-supplies of new commercial buildings by developers you asked about the position of input tax recovery by developers who intended to sell within three years—a standard-rated supply—but meanwhile let on an exempt rental. In the straightforward case, the letting on an exempt rental would trigger the self-supply charge. All input tax attributable to the self-supply, eg on construction costs and professional fees, would be recoverable as it was incurred during the course of the development. When the standard-rated sale of the building took place at a later stage a proportion of the tax on the self-supply itself would be recoverable—under the proposed capital goods provisions which apply to buildings costing over £250,000 and which are due to come into force from next April. For example, if the building had been let at an exempt rent for two years since it was built and then sold, in principle eight-tenths of the VAT on the self-supply would be recoverable.
  I hope that this is clear and has set your mind at rest on these two points."
  It has certainly helped a great deal, as there is nothing in the Bill about the possibility of recovering input tax.
  Amendment No. 4 was tabled to cover that point. I shall not press it, but for the purposes of the debate is it fair for a building to be let on an exempt rent for a couple of years, with only 80 per cent. of the input recoverable? If the rental was for only a short time—perhaps not two years but only six months or a year before the building was sold—should that short period be completely exempt from the provisions set out in the Economic Secretary's letter to me? I ask the Economic Secretary for a little more elucidation.
  Does the Economic Secretary accept the point we made about input supplies if a new building has to be constructed if a fire completely burns it down and a new building has to be constructed and tax would be payable on the building and the land? Although the building had burnt down, the land would still be there. We felt that it was unfair for tax to be paid on the construction and the land; perhaps it would have been fairer if tax had to be paid only on the building. Does Government amendment No. 32 do anything about that? Some helpful explanatory remarks by the Economic Secretary would be greatly appreciated.
  Are the amendments in conformity with the sixth VAT directive? Can the Economic Secretary assure the House that they will not result in further infraction proceedings in the European Court? I should have thought that some element of inflation would have to be added to the historic costs, and then the self-supply would be charged on the historic costs plus a little more. There is a danger that the Commission may say that this is not good enough, and other countries may start proceedings. I do not know—[Interruption.] I will not tempt them. Time is getting on. I should like the assurance of the Economic Secretary that my fears have no foundation. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman thinks that that is not a problem. In that case, perhaps I should not say more. If he does not spend too much time on my last point, I hope that he will give us an explanation of the others.
  Mr. Lilley: We are considering a number of amendments and perhaps it would be helpful if I dealt first with amendment No. 4, to which the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) has referred. The present scheme encourages developers building for letting to opt to tax rents from the beginning of the letting. If they do not, they must account for tax—on the value of the land and construction services—straightaway. The amendment

  1053
  would bring back the requirement for certificates of intent, which were a feature of the building land scheme originally in the Bill. Although a necessary feature of that scheme, it made for added complexity, and its absence is a welcome simplification to the Bill.
  If the developer did not carry out his declared intention of making the taxable sale, he would simply have to account for tax at the end of the three-year period, and then only on the historic value of the land and construction services. There would be no penalty for spurious declaration. Effectively, the developer could delay accounting for tax on the building even though he had no real intention of making a taxable supply of it. It cannot be right to encourage spurious declarations in that way. I hope that the Opposition, having seen that that is probably the unintended consequence of amendment No. 4, will find it unnecessary and unattractive.
  Any developer who has to pay the special self-supply charge will be able to recover his inputs on the development—the VAT that he incurs on construction services and materials and any VAT that he may have been charged, under the option, when he acquires the land. There would be complexities over input tax recovery attributable to up to three years of exempt letting before taxable sale of the building. It would be wrong to allow input tax recovery on the construction services and on the purchase of the land if that purchase were taxed under the option when there were, initially at least, to be exempt lettings of the building. As the Bill now stands, there are no such complexities.
  The proper mechanism for dealing with the change from exempt lettings to taxable sale lies in the proposed capital goods scheme, which is due to come into force from next April. Draft regulations for this have been published. This scheme will enable a developer who initially pays the special charge to recover a proportion of it if, as a fact, he makes a taxable sale of it, or opts to tax the letting of it, within 10 years.
  I must admit that Government amendment No. 23, to delete reconstructions and enlargements of existing buildings from the scope of the self-supply charge, owes more to expediency than to conviction. The Government's decision to alter the basis of the self-supply from open market value to cost, although a useful simplification for most new buildings, introduces complexities in determining the appropriate cost basis for reconstructions and enlargements in respect of the land element of the cost. There are many different circumstances in which works of this type are affected, and it is not clear what is the most appropriate and equitable cost basis.
  Certainly, a self-supply charge will be necessary to prevent easy avoidance by leaving minimal elements of an existing building and calling the subsequent development a reconstruction or by abutting a new structure on to an existing one with unnecessary internal access between them, so that it can be claimed that the new structure is an enlargement of the existing one. I have therefore authorised Customs to consult interested bodies to see whether it is possible to establish a consensus on the type of reconstructions or enlargements which should be liable to the self-supply charge and the most equitable basis for assessing the cost. We shall obviously come back to the House when those discussions are complete.
  1054
  8.45 pm
  The central amendments in the group are Government amendments 29 and 31, on which most hon. Members who have spoken have concentrated. I gave the Standing Committee a lengthy explanation of how and why the need for the self-supply charge arose, and I will not weary the House by repeating what I have said. Broadly speaking, the self-supply charge is needed because sales of finished buildings bear tax on their sale value, which obviously includes the value of the land. Building land itself is not taxed. Exempt businesses could therefore avoid VAT on land by developing untaxed land themselves rather than buying completed buildings which bear tax on the selling price, including the inherent land value. All new buildings going into consumption should be taxed; otherwise, there will be avoidance and distortion.
  The Commission refused to endorse our original solution to the problem by taxing the self-supply of building land as such. Taxing the self-supply of the finished building was, from our point of view, the second best solution, but it was the only one acceptable to the Commission. I thought it right to introduce amended proposals, compatible with the Commission's objections, as soon as possible in Committee to ensure full discussion and to leave scope for further revision on Report. I regret, as I said at the time, that that gave the Opposition a minimal chance to prepare before the debate in Committee, but I think that they recognise that it has been useful to air the subject before reaching this stage of the Bill.
  The amended provisions would have put everyone acquiring new buildings on the same footing, whether they bought the buildings, leased them or built them on their own land. However, the only way to do this was to tax the open market value of the self-supplied buildings. I have received representations that that would place an unreasonable tax burden on institutions which may have to redevelop land they have held for generations or land they may be given at some time in the future. This was not the Government's intention. In addition, the burden of taxation would inevitably depend on somewhat subjective valuations.
  We have therefore devised a solution intended to meet the concerns of the institutions affected, including universities, colleges, schools and charities as well as banks and other members of the exempt financial sector. While meeting the Commission's objections to our original proposals on building land, the buildings concerned will now be valued at the historic cost of the land involved, plus the cost of construction.
  A number of hon. Members have raised specific points, to which I shall endeavour to respond. My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Sir W. Clark) has apologised to me because he had to leave the Chamber at 8.45 pm. To respond to his point, I should say that "grant" means latest grant of freehold, not the cumulative total as he feared.
  The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) referred to future gifts. Gifts should be valued at historic cost. Therefore, there should be no need for tax arising on the full value of the land that is subsequently built upon. If someone takes the trouble to sell something to another person for a very small sum, that will be the cost basis for VAT purposes, if that person then builds something for self-supply upon it. Let us suppose that a

  1055
  generous benefactor gives a university a piece of land for £1. The university would be liable to VAT of 15p on that £1, which would not be crippling.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) asked about the wording of sub-paragraph (2)(b) in Government amendment No. 31, and in particular the reference to
  "other than any that are zero-rated".
  The objective here is to exclude from the tax base for the self-supply charge any services on which the developer has been charged no tax, either because he pre-paid his contractor before 1 April 1989 for services to be rendered after that date, or because he has been entitled to receive zero-rated services from his contractor if supplied before 21 June 1993 under relief for legally binding obligations. The developer who himself makes a zero-rated supply of his interest in the building because he is entitled to the transitional relief under paragraphs 12(1) or 12(2) of schedule 3 is not in any event caught by the self-supply charge by reason of paragraph 12(6). All supplies which are or have been properly zero-rated are excluded from the cost of construction for the purpose of the self-supply charge. My hon. Friend's concerns are fully met in that respect.
  I have already effectively dealt with the issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Mr. Hawkins). My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Heddle), who, in the course of consultations last summer and autumn, made some helpful and thoughtful contributions which were of great benefit to us in framing the legislation, also raised some other points today. We are not compulsorily taxing rent. The self-supply charge is on the finished building, but we are valuing the self supply at land cost plus construction costs. That is the basic framework and we have abandoned the proposal based on the open market value of finished buildings.
  The point about future rents payable by leasehold developers is significant. There would be a particular problem where the developer has acquired a leasehold interest in the site for his new building, but on terms that he will pay the freeholder a percentage of the rent that the developer actually receives over the period of the lease. That obligation to pay the freeholder is a cost to the developer, albeit an unquantifiable cost.
  Our amendment includes proposals to exclude from the tax value of the self-supply charge rents that cannot be ascertained at the time of the self-supply. However, to leave the tax value on that basis permanently would simply invite developers to undertake all their developments for exempt or partly exempt tenants on a leasehold basis with cost expressed largely or wholly in terms of a percentage of future rents received. I have instructed Customs and Excise, therefore, to consult interested bodies to devise an appropriate solution to this problem. Subject to that qualification, I recommend the amendment to the House.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendments made: No. 22, in page 170, line 8, leave out from beginning to end of line 11 and insert—
  `(b) the building or work is not used by him at any time during the period in, or in connection with, making any exempt supplies of goods or services.'.
  No. 23, in page 170, line 13, leave out 'paragraphs 6 and 7' and insert 'paragraph 6'.
  No. 24, in page 170, line 15, leave out 'constructed' and insert 'constructs'.
  No. 25, in page 170, line 16, leave out 'ordered' and insert 'orders'.
  No. 26, in page 170, line 17, leave out 'financed' and insert 'finances'.
  No. 27, in page 170, line 27, leave out 'paragraphs 6 and 7' and insert 'paragraph 6'.
  No. 28, in page 170, line 37, leave out 'land' and insert `work'.
  No. 29, in page 170, line 42, leave out from 'applies' to `shall' in line 43 and insert
  `the interest in, right over or licence to occupy the building or work (or any part of it) held by the developer'.
  No. 30, in page 170, line 47, at end insert
  `or, if later, of the prescribed accounting period during which the building or work becomes substantially ready for occupation or use.'
  No. 31, in page 170, line 48, leave out from beginning to end of page 171, line 5 and insert—
  '(2) The supply treated as made by sub-paragraph (1) above shall be taken to be a taxable supply and the value of the supply shall be the aggregate of—

  (a) the value of grants relating to the land on which the building or work is constructed made or to be made to the developer, other than any grants to be made for consideration in the form of rent the value of which cannot be ascertained by the developer when the supply is treated as made; and

  (b) the value of all the taxable supplies of goods and services, other than any that are zero-rated, made or to be made for or in connection with the construction of the building or work.

  (3) Where the value of a supply which, apart from this sub-paragraph, would be treated as made by sub-paragraph (1) above would be less than £100,000, no supply shall be treated as made by that sub-paragraph.'.
  No. 32, in page 171, line 6, leave out from beginning to end of line 33.
  No. 33, in page 171, line 34, at end insert—
  '7A. Where the benefit of the consideration for the grant of an interest in, right over or licence to occupy land accrues to a person but that person is not the person making the grant—

  (a) the person to whom the benefit accrues shall for the purposes of this Act be treated as the person making the grant; and

  (b) to the extent that any input tax of the person actually making the grant is attributable to the grant it shall be treated as input tax of the person to whom the benefit accrues.'.

  No. 34, in page 171, line 39, leave out from beginning to end of line 41.
  No. 35, in page 171, line 46, after 'contract', insert
  `except that a term of a tenancy or lease shall not be taken to provide that the rule contained in that subsection is not to apply in the case of the tenancy or lease if the term does not refer specifically to value added tax or this section.'.
  No. 36, in page 171, line 49, at end insert—
  '7A. In section 45(4) (orders etc.) of the Value Added Tax 1983, there shall be added after paragraph (c)—
  "(d) an order under section 35A above, except one making only such amendments as are necessary or expedient in consequence of provisions of an order under this Act which—

  (i)vary Schedule 5 or Schedule 6 to this Act; but

  (ii) are not within paragraph (c) above.".'.

  No. 37, in page 172, line 41, after 'to', insert
  `sub-paragraphs (1A) and (1B) and'.
  No. 38, in page 172, line 43, at end insert—
  '(1A) Note 4(b) to Group 8 of Schedule 5 to the Value Added Tax Act 1983 shall have effect in relation to grants, assignments and other supplies made on or after 1st August 1989.'.
  No. 39, in page 172, line 43, at end insert—

  1057
  `(1B) In relation to grants and assignments made on or after 1st April 1989 but before 1st August 1989—

  (a) that Group shall have effect as if the Notes to it included a Note in the same terms as Note (1) to that Group as it had effect before the substitution made by paragraph I above; and

  (b) Group 8A of that Schedule shall have effect as if the Notes to it included a Note in the same terms as Note (5) to that Group as it had effect before the amendments made by paragraph 2 above.'

  No. 40, in page 172, line 44, leave out 'and 10' and insert
  '7A, 10 and 12(6) and (7)'.
  No. 41, in page 172, line 45, leave out
  `paragraphs 2 to 7 and 9'
  and insert
  `section 35A(2) of, and paragraphs 2 to 7A'.
  No. 42, in page 172, line 47, leave out
  `sub-paragraphs (1) and (2) above'
  and insert
  'the preceding provisions of this paragraph'.
  No. 43, in page 174, line 1, leave out `to 7' and insert
  `and 6'.
  No. 44, in page 174, line 2, leave out
  `(or substantially reconstructed a protected building)'.
  No. 45, in page 174, line 9, leave out 'or 8A'.
  No. 46, in page 174, line 11, leave out
  '(or substantially reconstructed a protected building)'.
  No. 47, in page 174, line 14, leave out
  '(or reconstruct) the building or to construct'
  and insert 'the building or'.
  No. 48, in page 174, line 16, leave out '(or reconstruction)'—[Mr. Lilly.]
  Mr. Heddle: I beg to move amendment No. 105, in page 174, leave out lines 21 to 23 and insert—
  '(7) The supplies made pursuant to sub-paragraph (I) above shall be taken to be zero rated supplies for the purpose of sub-paragraph 2(b) above if:

  (a) the building was constructed (or reconstructed) pursuant to a legally binding obligation incurred before 21st June 1988; or

  (b) the grant referred to in paragraph 5(1)(a) of Schedule 6A is made pursuant to a legally binding obligation incurred before 21st June 1988; or

  (c) input tax thereon is attributable to zero-rated supplies.

  (8) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (7) above—

  (a) a grant shall be treated as made in pursuance of a legally binding obligation incurred before 21 June 1988 if sub-paragraph (c) below applies.

  (b) a person shall be treated as having been under a legally binding obligation incurred before 21st June 1988 to construct (or reconstruct) a building or any development of which it forms part if sub-paragraph (c) below applies.

  (c) this sub-paragraph applies if—

  (i) the person making the grant or assignment or constructing (or reconstructing) the building or any development of which it forms part had before that date arranged (without being legally bound) to make such grant or other supply or carry out such construction or reconstructions; and

  (ii) the arrangement was made in writing, or were evidenced by a note or memorandum thereof made in writing before that date; and

  (iii) a legally binding obligation to make the grant or other supply or to construct the building (or reconstruct) is on or after 21st June 1988 but before 21st December 1989 entered into by that person.

  and any such obligation shall be treated as having been made on the date when the arrangement first came into existence.
  1058
  (9) If the Commissioners so require, proof of any of the matters specified in subparagraphs (6)(a), (b), (c)(i) or 8(c)(ii) above shall be given to their satisfaction by the production of documents before 21st June 1988.'.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Mr. Powell) paid tribute to my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary for the way in which he wanted to ensure the minimum impact in practical terms at all times. I associate myself with those remarks and thank my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary for his kind remarks a moment ago. It is a pleasure to be able to endeavour to make some practical contribution to legislation before that legislation is cast into stone. In that spirit, I ask my hon. Friend to consider the amendment and to see whether he can find some way to meet the practical concerns of many contractor-developers, who will be hit by the transitional arrangement if the time limit is not extended.
  The amendment's purpose is to extend the proposed VAT transitional relief to the position where, before I April 1989, a person has constructed a building, or paid for a new building, and so VAT on the construction costs is recoverable or to the position where, before 21 June last year—the date of the judgment—a person constructing a building or granting or assigning the relevant interest in land had entered into arrangements for carrying out the construction, or for granting or assigning the interest, and where those arrangements subsequently mature into legally binding contracts before 21 December next. The amendment is designed to ensure that the benefit of zero-rating for grants or major interests in new buildings is not clawed back by the self-supply charge and to deal with circumstances that commonly arise.
  It is common practice in the development and construction industry that a development project will commence on the basis of letters of intent, heads of agreement or other similar arrangements which, while falling short of creating legally binding obligations, nevertheless form the basis of agreement between the parties which is eventually embodied into formal legal documentation. The amendment adopts a principle and a format used in previous Finance Acts to extend transitional relief on the introduction of tax changes to the situation where the parties are essentially committed to a course of action which, at a later stage, becomes legally binding and legally documented. The amendment in no way alters any previous form, but takes account of the practical effect of agreements entered into in principle which ultimately become enshrined legally, in this case before 21 December next.
  The transitional reliefs recognise that where a person had become legally committed to carrying out building work or to constructing a building before the judgment of the European Court on 21 June last, he should not be prejudiced by the changes to VAT on non-domestic construction. Many developer-contractors will rightly take advantage of the transitional reliefs. However, many projects are of such size and complexity that a developer who was, before 21 June last, committed to carrying out a project may not have the benefit of the transitional reliefs. That is because—especially in the case of large-scale developments—formal contract documents are often entered into after a considerable time. The preparation and planning stages may take months—or even years in the case of, for example, the Liverpool Street station complex. Construction frequently commences before legal documentation is finalised. The parties are prepared to

  1059
  proceed on the basis of detailed heads of agreement because of the delays caused by the complexity of the legal documentation, which deals with many matters that are not relevant to the principle—the construction of the building—such as subsequent letting and so on.
  9 pm
  As a result, a number of contractor-developers who became committed to projects before 21 June last and who have incurred substantial expenditure on the projects will not have entered into formal construction contracts by that date or into a legally binding obligation to construct the building. Much of the work will be carried out before the grant of the final detailed planning consent under which the building is constructed. Such contractor-developers will not be able to take advantage of the transitional reliefs enshrined in the Bill. They will have made an appraisal of the viability of their projects on the basis of existing VAT rules and will have entered into commitments on that basis, but will now have to bear an unforeseen additional cost if they are to complete the project. I hope that my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary will have some sympathy with my view that that unforeseen additional burden may call into question the economic viability of projects committed before the date of the judgment.
  Although the introduction of the option to tax will, in many cases, enable the developer to recover the VAT, many major inner-city regeneration schemes will be affected. That is why I feel so strongly about the matter. The Government are wholly commited to the regeneration of our inner cities and it would be a shame if they could not find a way to grant additional transitional relief to ensure that the projects can go ahead, in accordance with our manifesto commitment.
  Many of the projects depend for their viability on occupation, at least in part by tenants in the financial or insurance sectors. It is tenants in those sectors who are most likely to acquire space in the larger city developments— precisely the type of developments to which developers who are unable to take advantage of the proposed transitional relief may have become committed before 21 June last.
  I realise that, in the longer term, developers who undertake developments aimed at the financial sector will have to face this question, which arises as an inevitable consequence of the European Court's decision. But any developer-contractor who becomes committed to such a development after 21 June will do so having had the opportunity to take the new VAT regime into account. It is only developers who were already committed to a project before 21 June last who will be unfairly prejudiced and to whom I believe additional transitional relief up to 21 December next should be made available.
  I accept that the Government must comply with their obligations under Community law. The question whether fresh infraction proceedings would be brought in respect of additional transitional provision is both practical and political. However, assuming that existing transitional provisions are not unacceptable to Mrs. Scrivener and the Commission, it is unlikely that a loosening of the term "legal obligation" without substantially extending the scope of the transitional relief in time or nature would necessarily prove unacceptable.
  1060
  My hon. Friend the Economic Secretary has heard the broad thrust of my argument before. I hope that, in this context, as a contribution to inner-city regeneration and because so many schemes are entered into under heads of agreement before the confirmaton of legally binding documentation my hon. Friend will find it in his heart to extend the period of transitional relief.
  Dr. Marek: I listened with interest to the argument of the hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Heddle). There can be no doubt that there has been some rough justice for some companies which had decided on projects that were absolutely certain to go ahead, but for which contracts had not yet been signed by 21 June. The hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire said that the Economic Secretary had heard his arguments before. If the Economic Secretary had heard his arguments before and done nothing about them, they must have fallen on stony ground. In my view, it would not be in the interests of good government to listen to them at this stage and amend the Bill accordingly. I suspect that many developers have now realised that the arrangements were not perfect. But the Bill has had its Second Reading and its Committee stage and we are now on Report, quite late in the parliamentary year. I cannot recommend that the Economic Secretary accept the amendment. However, I recommend that the hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire put his name down to join the Standing Committee and consider the Finance Bill next year. We would be very pleased to see him. He could advance his arguments in Committee and we could talk about them.
  However, the Committee's wish prevailed and many hon. Members regretted that a perfect solution could not be found. The Opposition would support the Economic Secretary if he refused to listen to the arguments put forward by the hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire.
  Mr. Beith: To proffer support for the official Opposition will immediately flash a red light to the Treasury Bench, and the Government will realise that this must be an important point. I must not criticise the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek), for he did me a favour. The Minister will recall that, in Committee, I tabled an amendment on this subject, but, because of the death of a close relative that day, I was unable to be present when the Committee reached it. The hon. Member for Wrexham was kind enough to move the amendment for me. Any lack of conviction on his part was not to his discredit, because he was performing a kind service. I hoped that the act of moving the amendment might persuade him of the merits of the argument, but it obviously has not yet done that.
  One of the reasons I wanted the amendment to be accepted and not be withdrawn in Committee and moved for the first time on Report was that I wished Ministers to consider the matter in sufficient time to bring changes on Report. I am disappointed that they have not seen fit to do so. It is not a matter that we can leave aside until next year. It affects decisions that have already been taken and projects that are already in hand. It has about it a rather worrying retrospective character, not because of the Government's original intention but simply because the drafting was not sufficiently wide.
  The hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire set out some of the problems that arise. I will not go over the ground that he carefully covered, but there are other problems. A

  1061
  case in Newcastle was brought to my notice. A developer had made his original commitments with the city council, but, because of the changed policy on how things are to be handled on Tyneside, the responsible body became the development corporation. The legally binding contract was subsequently made with the development corporation, which apparently wanted an unencumbered company to make the commitment, and therefore a new company was created by the same people to carry out the same projects. The effect was that the legally binding commitment was too late to benefit from the transitional relief, even though all the other circumstances suggested that the transitional relief was intended for precisely such a case.
  The object must surely be not to impose on people tax burdens that they would not have had to accept if they had been aware of what was coming, and, in particular, not to do so in a way that might threaten the viability of a project.
  As the hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire pointed out, we are dealing with inner-city schemes on which the Government have set considerable importance in their policy for the regeneration of inner cities and, in some cases, schemes which, by their very nature, have a narrow margin of viability. Therefore, it does not make much sense for a substantial tax burden suddenly to be added when a project is well advanced. The principle is clearly recognised by the Government in the presence of transitional relief provisions, but those provisions do not extend to the reality of commitments actually made by developers to local authorities and development corporations for aspects of the work or phases of the scheme that may have already begun.
  I am disappointed that Ministers have not followed precedents in statute for commitments other than legally binding commitments. They should have done something about the weakness in provisions that are well intentioned but would have been very much better if they had been drafted to include the sort of cases that the hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire and I have tried to bring to their notice.
  Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Heddle) has moved a complex amendment. Not surprisingly, there are technical difficulties which mean that I cannot accept it. I will not pursue that point, because there are more substantial reasons why I cannot recommend that hon. Members accept amendments along those lines even if we could overcome the technical problems, and likewise the proposal by the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith).
  In providing transitional relief, our primary concern was to deal with the problem of construction companies with a legal commitment to build a building, which they had entered into before the court ruling, at a price based on the contract being zero-rated, and which would subsequently find that contract bearing 15 per cent. VAT. Such companies would be legally required to go ahead and complete the building and might be faced with potential bankruptcy. We had to bring in transitional arrangements to deal with that position.
  Partly as a result of the persuasive representations of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire, we went further and extended our provisions more widely than had been proposed originally. I hope that we thereby met most of the legal obligations that people had entered into ahead of the court judgment.
  1062
  However, we did not think it right to provide a relief where no legal obligation had been entered into, but simply an arrangement that might subsequently mature into a legal obligation. Although some such agreements may be precise, others may be vague and it would be difficult to extend the transitional relief without such arrangements becoming open-ended. Indeed, that would be all the more difficult to justify since from mid-December 1988 onwards—once the Advocate General's opinion had been published—developers who had been properly advised were pretty aware that zero-rating was likely to be declared unlawful under the sixth directive. Indeed, over the preceding three years many people had acted on the presumption that that would be the outcome of the case. Therefore, that change was not as difficult to foresee as some tax changes.
  There is no precedent in VAT provisions for the sort of proposal that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire has suggested. Although the development land tax has some similarities with the transitional relief once granted, DLT and VAT are different animals. Development land tax operated at rates of up to 80 per cent. which naturally affected the transitional relief appropriate in those circumstances.
  The main relief that we have built into the operation of this tax is the option to tax. That means that any fully taxable tenant will be able to pass on—or rather, reclaim—any VAT that is imposed on his rents, so that it will not stick on him. In turn, the landlord will be able to reclaim the VAT on construction if he opts to tax his rents. The whole thing washes out of the system. It sticks only in the case of exempt and partially exempt tenants, of which there are about 45,000 out of a total of 1·6 million firms registered for VAT. We should not exaggerate the extent to which they dominate new developments and can render them profitable or unprofitable. We have no evidence of any schemes being aborted as a result of any lack of transitional relief in this respect.
  Dr. Marek: It would be useful if the Minister could state how much money would be forgone by the Treasury if the amendment were accepted.
  Mr. Lilley: Unfortunately, the cost is unquantifiable, but substantial. Because the amount is vague, the arrangement will inevitably be open-ended. There is no evidence that any harm is being done by the absence of such relief, given the extensive reliefs that we already have.
  Therefore, although I understand the spirit in which the amendment has been moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire and supported by the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, I must recommend the House to reject the amendment.
  Mr. Heddle: It may be news to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I failed to satisfy the examiners in the general certificate of education at O-level on four successive occasions. Similarly, I have failed to satisfy the Chairman of the Committee of Selection and to be selected to serve on a Finance Bill Standing Committee on no less than nine successive occasions. Therefore, I suspect that I shall have to disappoint the lion. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) in his kind invitation to join him in smoke-filled rooms in another part of this Palace next year.
  I am well aware of the case in Newcastle to which the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) referred. He illustrated very graphically the reason why, in

  1063
  equity and in practical terms, I would have wished my hon. Friend to accept the amendment. Such is my respect for my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury and such is my respect for the fact that he has taken on board a number of proposals that I have made to him informally in the past, so that when he says at that Dispatch Box that he is unable to accept the amendment, even if it were technically correct, I know that his word is as good as his bond. Therefore, with great reluctance, I have no alternative but to beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule 6

  RETIREMENT BENEFITS SCHEMES
  Amendments made: No. 73, in page 194, line 18, leave out '(5) above' and insert '(7) below'.
  No. 74, in page 194, line 45, leave out
  'prescribed by the Treasury under section 160(5)'
  and insert
  `applicable for the purposes of section 160'.—[Mr. Norman Lamont.]

Schedule 9

  LIFE POLICIES ETC. HELD BY COMPANIES
  Amendment made: No. 51, in page 210, line 27, at end insert—
  '3A.—(1) Section 541 shall be amended as follows.
  (2) After subsection (4) there shall be inserted—
  "(4A) Where, immediately before the happening of the chargeable event, the rights conferred by a qualifying endowment policy are held as security for a debt owed by a company, then, if—

  (a) the conditions in subsection (4B) below are satisfied,

  (b) the amount of the debt exceeds the total amount previously paid under the policy by way of premiums, and

  (c) the company makes a claim for the purpose within two years after the end of the accounting period in which the chargeable event happens,

  this section shall have effect as if the references in subsection (1)(a) and (b) to that total amount were references to the amount of the debt.
  (4B) The conditions referred to in subsection (4A) above are—

  (a) that, throughout the period beginning with the making of the insurance and ending immediately before the happening of the chargeable event, the rights conferred by the policy have been held as security for a debt owed by the company;

  (b) that the capital sum payable under the policy in the event of death during the term of the policy is not less than the amount of the debt when the insurance was made;

  (c) that any sum payable under the policy by reason of the chargeable event is applied in repayment of the debt (except to the extent that its amount exceeds the amount of the debt);

  (d) that the debt was incurred to defray money applied—

  (i) in purchasing an estate or interest in land to be occupied by the company for the purposes of a trade carried on by it, or

  (ii) for the purpose of the construction, extension or improvement (but not the repair or maintenance) of buildings which are or are to be so occupied.

  (4C) If the amount of the debt is higher immediately before the happening of the chargeable event than it was at
  1064
  some earlier time during the period mentioned in subsection (4B)(a) above, the amount to be taken into account for the purposes of subsection (1) above shall be the lowest amount at which it stood during that period.
  (4D) If during the period mentioned in subsection (4B)(a) above the company incurs a debt by borrowing in order to repay another debt, subsections (4B) and (4C) above shall have effect as if, where appropriate, references to either debt included references to the other."
  (3) In subsection (5), after paragraph (b) there shall be inserted "and
  (c) "qualifying endowment policy" means a policy which is a qualifying policy by virtue of paragraph 2 of Schedule 15;".'.[Mr. Norman Lamont.]

Schedule 11

  DEEP GAIN SECURITIES
  Mr. Lilley: I beg to move amendment No. 79, in page 215, line 44, at end insert—
  '(2A) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) above "redemption" does not include any redemption which may be made before maturity only at the option of the person who issued the security (and no other person).'
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 83 and 84.
  Mr. Lilley: The amendment arises from a commitment made by the Government in Committee to ensure that a security is not treated for tax purposes as a deep gain security simply because its terms of issue give the issuer the option to redeem it before its stated maturity.
  Such options for the issuer to redeem the bond early—or call options, as they are often known—will usually involve the payment of either a fixed premium or an amount linked to the market value of some other comparable security. The idea is to compensate the lender for the dislocation of his investment and to allow him to invest in an instrument with a yield at least as attractive as the one which is being redeemed early. However, where this premium is great enough to constitute a deep gain—or is not known for certain but could be great enough—the security is classified as a deep gain security. It is then taxed according to the provisions of schedule 11, as currently drafted.
  Issuer options of this kind are features of a wide range of bonds, some of which are in other respects deep gain securities but many of which are not, including some convertibles and some straight bonds issued at par or a shallow discount. Such options are outside the control of the investor.
  Following the publication of the Finance Bill, we received a number of representations about the nature of such bonds. We came to the conclusion that in this respect the provisions of schedule 11 had been cast too wide and that it would not be right for a bond to be taxed as a deep gain security solely because of its issuer options.
  The amendment ensures that options for the issuer to redeem a bond before its stated maturity are disregarded in determining whether it is a deep gain security. This means that a bond will not be a deep gain security for tax purposes if it has no other feature which would make it one. If, on the other hand, it is a deep gain security for some reason other than its issuer options—for example, it is issued at a deep discount and has a variable coupon—it will fall squarely within schedule 11. I hope that that is clear to the House.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendments made: No. 80, in page 215, line 49, leave out 'and' and insert—
  '(cc) is not a convertible security, and'.
  No. 81, in page 216, line 37, leave out 'or'.
  No. 82, in page 216, line 42, at end insert
  'or
  (c) the security was issued before 9th June 1989 and was quoted in the official list of a recognised stock exchange on 8th June 1989, and under the terms of issue the amount payable on redemption is determined by reference to the movement of a published index of prices of shares quoted in the official list of a recognised stock exchange.'.
  No. 83, in page 217, line 12, leave out from 'applied' to 'it' in line 13 and insert
  'to determine the amount payable on redemption or to determine interest'.
  No. 84, in page 217, line 40, at end insert—
  '(8A) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (5) above "redemption" does not include any redemption which may be made before maturity only at the option of the person who issued the security (and no other person).'.
  No. 85, in page 217, line 50, at end insert—
  '(9A) In a case where the terms of issue contain provision for the amount payable on redemption to be not less than an amount stated in the terms, the provision shall not prevent the fourth condition being fulfilled if—

  (a) the security was issued before 9th June 1989, and

  (b) the amount stated does not constitute a deep gain (within the meaning given by paragraph 1(8) above).

  (9B) In a case where—

  (a) the terms of issue contain provision for the amount payable on redemption in any of the qualifying circumstances (set out in sub-paragraph (10) below) to be not less than an amount stated in the terms, and

  (b) the security was issued before 9th June 1989,

  the provision shall not prevent the fourth condition being fulfilled.'.
  No. 86, in page 218, line 1, leave out 'sub-paragraph (7)' and insert
  `sub-paragraphs (7) and (9B)'.
  No. 87, in page 218, line 9, at end insert—
  '(d) the security was issued by a company before 9th June 1989 and a person gains control of the company in pursuance of the acceptance of an offer made by that person to acquire shares in the company.'.
  No. 88, in page 218, line 15, at end insert—
  `(13) For the purposes of this paragraph "control" (in relation to a company) shall be construed in accordance with section 840 of the Taxes Act 1988.'
  No. 89, in page 218, line 15, at end insert—
  'Convertible securities
  2A.—(1) For the purposes of paragraph 1 above a security is a convertible security if—

  (a) it was issued by a company before 9th June 1989,

  (b) under the terms of issue it can be converted into or exchanged for share capital in a company (whether or not the company is the one which issued the security), and

  (c) the condition set out in sub-paragraph (2) below is fulfilled.

  (2) The condition is that—

  (a) at some time in the qualifying period the security was quoted in the official list of a recognised stock exchange,

  (b) at some time in that period relevant share capital was so quoted, or

  (c) each of paragraphs (a) and (b) above is satisfied (though not necessarily as regards the same time).

  (3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) above the qualifying period is the period of one month beginning with the day on which the security was issued;
  (4) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) above relevant share capital is share capital in the company into whose share capital the security can be converted or for whose share
  1066
  capital the security can be exchanged; and relevant share capital need not be share capital into or for which the security can be converted or exchanged.
  (5) References in this paragraph to share capital are to share capital by whatever name called.'.—[Mr. Norman Lamont.]

Schedule 14

  CAPITAL GAINS TAX: GIFTS ETC.
  9.15 pm
  Mr. Allan Stewart: I beg to move amendment No. 106, in page 237, line 5, at end insert—
  `(c) For the purposes of this section, use and occupation of any property by a Scottish partnership shall, notwithstanding section 4(2) of the Partnership Act 1890, be treated as use and occupation of it by partners'.
  The amendment has been proposed by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland to which I am an adviser. It is a technical amendment and its purpose will be fairly evident to my hon. Friends.
  In the Finance Bill as it stands the holdover relief, which is intended to be availabe to individuals and trustees on the gift of business assets, will be denied to members of Scottish partnerships. In law, under the Partnership Act 1890, the Scottish partnership, unlike an English partnership, is a separate legal person. The amendment will, therefore, ensure that members of a Scottish partnership receive identical treatment to other partners and that the transfer of business property of a partnership by way of gift can benefit from the capital gain being deferred. It does not change the purpose of schedule 14. The problem arises from the 1890 Act. I hope that my amendment will receive a sympathetic response from my right hon. Friend.
  Mr. Norman Lamont: The amendment seeks to preserve capital gains tax gifts relief for business assets used in Scottish partnerships. I am advised that I am able to reassure my hon. Friend that his amendment is unnecessary. Although in partnership law a Scottish partnership is treated as an independent entity, for capital gains tax purposes it is transparent. That follows from specific provisions in section 60 of the Capital Gains Tax Act 1979.
  Accordingly, gifts relief, like retirement relief, will be available to partners on gifts of business assets used in a Scottish partnership in exactly the same way as for partners in an English partnership.
  I shall, of course, study what my hon. Friend has said. If anything causes me to re-examine the advice given to me I shall do so. I am, however, advised as I have told my hon. Friend.
  Mr. Stewart: I am extremely grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reassurance. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. Michael Colvin: I beg to move amendment No. 104, in page 237, leave out lines 14 to 18.
  The amendment effectively removes the definition of a holding company, a trading company and a trading group. My purpose is to offer the House the opportunity to

  1067
  debate the implications of the Chancellor's proposals in the Bill on capital gains tax holdover relief. At this late hour I doubt that that invitation will receive many takers.
  Holdover relief means the postponement of capital gains tax until such time as assets are sold. It was rightly introduced by the Government to avoid double capital taxation through capital transfer tax and capital gains tax and to encourage the creation of wealth. It has worked extremely well.
  In 1986, however, the Chancellor abolished capital transfer tax on lifetime gifts and introduced inheritance tax instead to encourage lifetime giving or the passing of one's assets to the next generation. That was a welcome move.
  Now the Government seem to be reimposing a tax on lifetime giving as clause 124 repeals the general holdover relief for gifts or disposals made after 14 March 1989, although it retains it for gifts of business, farm and heritage assets; and, of course, gifts between husband and wife will continue to be exempt. The issue was given an airing in Standing Committee and is recorded in column 456 of the Official Report. The Government have now brought forward their amendment to allow capital gains tax gifts roll-over relief to be retained for agricultural landlords qualifying for agricultural property relief at 30 per cent. Therefore, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has demonstrated his willingness to consider specific categories of investor. I believe that 51 per cent. family-owned trading companies also join the list of exemptions.
  I argue that the Chancellor's list of exemptions is too narrow, but, more important, the arbitrary nature of the holdover reliefs that are left in place is contrary to the declared strategy of our party on taxation. I note that Butterworth's Handbook says:
  "The restriction of hold-over relief will have a profound effect on estate planning, for it will mean gifts of assets with substantial accrued gains are unattractive. Unless the gift is one of those limited categories where hold-over relief is still available, it will carry the risk that both CGT and IHT will he payable."
  I do not know how much revenue the Budget proposal on this issue is likely to raise. I believe that £40 million was mentioned, but perhaps my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary will enlighten us when he replies.
  With the leave of the House, it is my intention to withdraw my amendment if I can prise out of my right hon. Friend an undertaking to receive representations from individuals and companies, particularly close companies on which the proposal is harsh, and to monitor most closely the effect of his measures so that in next year's Budget the list of exemptions can be widened so as not to deter the creation and retention of wealth.
  In essence, the Finance Bill restores the position on capital taxes relief on transfers which existed in the last year of the last Labour Government. A Conservative Finance Act should move away from Socialist measures, not return to them.
  Dr. Marek: If the Act restores the position which existed in 1979, the Opposition would say that it was probably a far fairer and more sensible measure. However, we do not want to argue at this stage. Will the Financial Secretary give an estimate of the cost to the Treasury that would be incurred if the amendment was accepted?
  Mr. Norman Lamont: I cannot give an estimate of the cost because I am not precisely clear what the amendment is meant to do. It does not have the effect that my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) described.
  We have abolished holdover relief because there is no longer a danger of the double charge. As my hon. Friend said, some types of assets still receive holdover relief. I think that he was arguing that that category should be widened. I am prepared, without commitment, to listen to any representations made on that subject.
  Mr. Colvin: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendments made: No. 58, in page 239, line 31, after 'sub-paragraph (2),' insert
  `the words "at the rate of 50 per cent." shall be omitted, and'.
  No. 59, in page 240, line 24, after 'sub-paragraph (2),' insert
  `the words "at the rate of 50 per cent." shall be omitted, and'.
  No. 60, in page 241, line 2, leave out
  `at the rate of 50 per cent.'.
  No. 61, in page 241, line 13, leave out `(a)'.
  No. 62, in page 241, line 17, leave out '(b)' and insert
  `either—
  (a)'.
  No. 63, in page 241, line 18, leave out '5' and insert '25'.
  No. 64, in page 241, line 20, at end insert
  'or
  (b) the transferor is an individual and, at any time within that period, the company is his family company.'.
  No. 65, in page 241, line 36, leave out
  'a chargeable gain would accrue'
  and insert a 'gain accruing'.
  No. 66, in page 241, line 38, at end add
  `would be a chargeable gain'.
  No. 67, in page 242, line 38, at end insert—
  '(cc) by virtue of subsection (4) of section 71 of that Act (accumulation and maintenance trusts) does not constitute an occasion on which inheritance tax is chargeable under that section,'.
  No. 68, in page 245, line 15, leave out from beginning to end of line 20.—[Mr. Lilley.]

Schedule 17

  REPEALS
  Amendments made: No. 49, in page 258, line 18, column 3, at end insert
  'and, in Group 8A, Note (5)'.
  No. 50, in page 258, line 30, leave out first 'in' and insert
  'of Group 6 of Schedule 5 to'.
  No. 69, in page 263, line 38, column 3, after '4', insert
  `in paragraph 1(2) the words "at the rate of 50 per cent.,".'.
  No. 70, in page 263, line 41, column 3, after `property)'", insert
  'in paragraph 3(2) the words "at the rate of 50 per cent.,".'.
  No. 71, in page 263, line 46, column 3, at end insert
  'Section 96(3)(e) and (4)'. —[Mr. Lilley.]
  Order for Third Reading read.
  9.28 pm
  Mr. Norman Lamont: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
  There have been some notable features of this year's Finance Bill and of the debates that we have had, both upstairs and on the Floor of the House. One of these has been the extent to which the Opposition have been able to

  1069
  agree with some of the purposes of the Bill. Certain provisions, such as that relating to unleaded petrol, have received the support of the Opposition and in other sectors they have shown their broad general approval. For that, I am grateful.
  The other feature of the Bill is its length. It is the longest on record. Originally, it was 180 clauses and since then it has been lengthened. Some have criticised the length of the Bill, but I do not think that that criticism is valid. There is a good reason why it is a long Bill and that is that it contains many important and worthwhile measures. In particular, it demonstrates the Government's continuing commitment to tax reform.
  The Bill contains important measures affecting pensions, savings and life assurance and some important simplification measures. An important part of the Bill, some 10 per cent., is occupied by measures to encourage employee participation schemes and wider share ownership. I think that these have commanded wide support on both sides of the House. The measure that I would single out for special mention is the new relief for employee share ownership trusts, or ESOPS, in which my hon. Friends the Members for Esher (Mr. Taylor) and for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman) have taken a special interest. The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) expressed his support and enthusiasm for the concept. This tax relief breaks new ground and we still want to see how it works in practice before considering whether any changes or improvements are needed. Already, there are 9 million shareholders, and I believe that the measures in the Bill will add to them.
  Another major part of the Bill makes changes to pensions. A group of these changes has been designed to redress the balance between personal pensions and occupational pensions. Personal pensions are particularly suitable for younger people who are likely to move jobs, and they are the only form of pension savings available to the self-employed. For too long the tax system has put such people at a disadvantage, with the late starter not being able to make sufficient contributions to match the pension offered by final salary schemes. I am particularly pleased that we were able to accept the amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs), which raises the contribution limit for those aged over 60 to 40 per cent. This will go some way to improving the position of late entrants. Over 3¼ million personal pensions have been taken out, increasing private sector savings and putting the country's long-term finances on a firm footing. The measures in the Bill will ensure that personal pensions continue to flourish.
  The ceiling on tax relief for pension saving has been debated thoroughly both inside and outside Parliament. I received many representations about this, and the more that I received, the more convinced I became that our approach is correct. The quid pro quo for getting marginal tax rates down has always been a reduction in tax rates. Generous reliefs were necessary when marginal rates were as high as 98 per cent., but with the generous and large cuts in the top rate of tax, this justification no longer holds. Other savings reliefs are subject to monetary limits. If we are not to create an unwarranted distortion in favour of institutional savings, a similar limit must be applied to pensions.
  The cap of £60,000 was deliberately pitched at a level that would minimise disruption to pensions. As few as 50,000 employees have earnings in excess of the limit, and
  1070
  few of them will be affected immediately because of the transitional provisions. We have heard in recent weeks a number of apocalyptic visions from interest groups that should know better. I would merely point out the example of the United States, where they have an earnings cap of $98,000, slightly over £60,000. Curiously, it, too, is indexed to prices.
  I have been following with interest the extravagant claims made about the effect of the decision to adopt prices indexation. If earnings grow faster than inflation, it is true that over time the cap will gradually apply to an increasing number of people, but this needs to be kept in perspective. At present only a very few people earn more than £60,000 and, because of the very generous transitional arrangements, the initial impact of the cap will be small.
  It is worrying to see experts in the pensions industry —whom I would expect to be good at arithmetic—making the claim that the cap will be eroded in a few years' time to £25,000 or so. This really is a strange claim. The fact is that the real value of the limit will be maintained at £60,000. It will not erode. That £60,000 is a large sum, and it will always be worth £60,000, at least in today's terms. In fact, because of the rounding formula it will move slightly ahead of straight prices indexation. I can conclude only that the National Association of Pension Funds and others have confused themselves with the logic of their attempts to bolster their case which, in any event, is unsustainable.
  I find it curious that the pensions movement, which claims to represent several million scheme members, most of whom are on average earnings or below, should come out so strongly in favour of earnings indexation, bearing in mind that many of their member schemes do not even grant prices indexation to pensions, even where schemes have sizeable surpluses. I also recall the resistance of the pensions movement to improvements to such matters as early leavers' benefits, where the Government had to legislate to give ordinary scheme members a fair deal. I therefore find its criticism of the £60,000 cap very unappealing.
  The really unsatisfactory feature of pensions provision is the millions of ordinary scheme members who do not receive a pension anywhere near the maximum allowable under the tax rules and those who retire on fixed pensions with no certainty of any cost of living increases and so see their living standards eroded. Moreover, some 10 million people are not covered by occupational schemes. I am forced to conclude that the pensions industry should concentrate its attention on those matters. I remain convinced that our measures are overwhelmingly justified.
  The Bill is not just about those saving for retirement; it will also benefit those who have already retired. There are generous increases in the different age allowances and also in the rate at which the age allowance is withdrawn for those with incomes above the incomes limit.
  At the beginning of my speech I referred to significant tax reforming measures, one of which is life assurance. Although the details sound, and indeed are, complex, the general approach has been straightforward—applying a lower rate of tax to a broader base, which is the general principle that we have applied to all our tax reforms.
  A large part of the Bill—some 30 clauses—is concerned with the recommendations of the Keith report. This legislation brings us close to completing the total implementation of those recommendations. We have brought forward this measure only after the fullest

  1071
  consultation. All along we have stressed the importance of balancing the powers of the Revenue with adequate safeguards for the taxpayers. Because of the care taken to consult the representative bodies and because of the publication of clauses, I feel sure that the balance is right.
  The Bill provides relief for private medical insurance, an issue that we again debated today. At times I felt that the 180-clause Bill contained only that one measure. I do not want to overstate its importance at a cost of £40 million, compared with a planned increase of £5 billion in spending on the NHS over this year and next year. The relief will serve a useful role in meeting the higher cost faced by the elderly in paying for medical insurance at the very time when their incomes may be falling.
  I have already referred to some of the measures intended to simplify the tax system. One is the repeal of the complex apportionment rules applying to close companies. When we reduced the top rates of tax last year, I felt that it was important to look for areas where we could simplify tax registration legislation. In principle, the apportionment rules applied to several hundred thousand close companies, required 20 pages of legislation and more than 200 pages of guidance for Inland Revenue officials. They have been replaced by much shorter provisions—four pages—which basically deny the benefit of the small companies rate of corporation tax to about 25,000 close companies. It is a simpler approach than the one contained in the Bill as first published, and I feel no need to be apologetic about that. Our proposals achieve the desired objective and represent worthwhile simplification. The measures now in the Bill are better than those that it incorporated when first published.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Arbuthnot) persuaded us to drop one measure relating to instruments of variation. His persuasive campaign convinced us that our proposals could be effectively avoided by people having good access to expert advice. However, we shall look to the possibility of introducing a better targeted measure next year.
  There was cross-party agreement in Committee that the limits for exempt bingo, where duty is not payable, should be increased. We are grateful to the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) for raising that matter, and are pleased that we were able to produce measures that meet with the approval of both sides of the Committee.
  Significant changes have also been made to the VAT measures, which my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary explained today. Right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House acknowledged the significance of those steps forward.
  The Bill continues the programme of tax reform that has been very successful over the past decade—so successful that it has begun to influence even the Opposition's tax logic. However, as in so many other areas, the Opposition are proving to be somewhat slow and reluctant learners. Instead of accepting the logic of tax reform—that is, that if one rewards enterprise one gets more—they plan to stifle enterprise by restoring marginal rates of tax to levels which, if not confiscatory, would certainly be gratuitously penal.
  1072
  The Bill is part of our alternative tax strategy that will continue to be followed by this country and its economy. It is the path to increased prosperity and to continuing high living standards. I commend the Bill to the House.
  9.42 pm
  Mr. Beith: As the Financial Secretary said, features of the Bill command wide support and are welcome. They include the differential on lead-free petrol and extension of personal equity plan schemes—although we did not enjoy the support of Labour Members on that issue, it was one on which the Government and ourselves reached agreement, at least in respect of the proposed changes. The provisions for employee share ownership schemes are also welcome, and we have contributed to public discussion and argument on that subject over the years.
  The features of the Bill that we particularly deplore include tax relief for private medical insurance, to which the Finance Secretary has just referred. That represents the diversion of a substantial sum of money that the Health Service could use for direct health care largely for private insurance and to benefit people who already take out such insurance without any tax incentive. We deplore also retrospective features of detailed taxation matters, which at least excited some interest among Conservative Members. The hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) spoke eloquently on that subject, and we join forces with him in criticising the Government for their selective, retrospective legislation.
  The Bill is notable for its omissions. It embodies no logical policy on alcohol and tobacco excise duties, despite inflation. Presumably it is Government policy to reduce the price of alcohol and tobacco, and the tax take, over the years. The Bill contains no provisions to deal with the tax anomaly relating to workplace nurseries and to nursery care. Nor is there any commitment, beyond that relating to PEPs, to encourage small savers.
  Our most serious criticism is that the Bill is not really a serious piece of tax reform legislation. It does not address the fundamental problems of the relationship between income tax and national insurance. Nor does it resolve this country's capital taxation problems, whereby there is an almost voluntary inheritance tax for the well-advised. The Bill shirks, as the Government have shirked, the major issues of tax reform which, if addressed, could lead to a more just and fair society.
  The Bill has been criticised for being overlong, but that is not a reasonable criticism to make of a Bill that deals with such a wide range of matters. However, criticism can be made of the way that the Bill deals with certain technical matters. I refer to the proposals from the Keith committee, which, because they were the subject of extensive discussion, passed very smoothly through the House and did not give rise to any difficulties in Committee.
  That was a good way in which to proceed, but it became apparent during consideration of the Bill that the same care was not being taken over other parts. Amendments were tabled at a late stage; a Ways and Means resolution brought us back to the Floor of the House to deal with changes in the Bill; companies and others professionally involved in the legislation were having to make decisions related to the tax regime for the current tax year, while provisions for that regime were being amended daily.

  1073
  I do not criticise the Government for responding to representations that they received—and, in some cases, dropping clauses from the Bill: for example, they abandoned their proposals on deeds of arrangement for wills. How much better it would be, however, to make such proposals in time to allow proper consultation, and, perhaps, to publish them in a separate technical Finance Bill. I have made that suggestion before: it is one of the ways in which the Government could ensure that structural changes in the tax system—which are bound to be complicated, and some of which the Government are bound to get wrong first time—could be addressed more carefully.
  There is no sense in dealing with complex and expensive provisions involving large numbers of employees out in the real world in such a way that unsatisfactory last-minute revisions must be made. These were not proposals that had to be implemented at midnight on Budget day; they could have been brought forward long before.
  When I vote against the Government tonight I shall do so not only because I am critical of the Bill, but because the Government have presented it while its members are deeply at odds over the most fundamental issues of economic policy. The Bill is but the window dressing. The Government still do not know their attitude to the major European issues of economic policy. Let me tell them that, for most people, perfecting our relationship with the European Community and establishing our position on the exchange rate mechanism and European economic co-operation are far more important than the details of the Finance Bill. A Government who are so at sea over major economic issues are bound to get the minor details wrong as well.
  9.47 pm
  Mr. Tim Boswell: Apart from one area of significant disagreement, the Bill has been essentially one for the connoisseur, or alternatively the technician. It was a pleasure to serve on the Committee, and I am pleased to commend the Bill to the House.
  If I have any substantial criticism other than those already dealt with, it is that in Committee we heard rather too many cliches such as "level playing fields" and "ring fencing". My hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Mr. Powell) and I have suggested that they may provide a fruitful source of taxation for the Chancellor in future years if those who use them are mulcted for the pleasure of doing so.
  The Bill has been marked by the number of concessions that the Government have made, some—like those on the variation of wills—achieved through the excision of whole clauses. Several are of staggering complexity: I believe that concessions have been made to interests that I represent, but I am unable to understand exactly what they are. Nevertheless, I am grateful for them.
  I believe that the Bill has made out a case for increasingly advanced consultation, such as has been carried out on the taxation of life assurance. A case is also beginning to build up for a technical Finance Bill to be presented in the autumn, so that some of the more detailed matters can be taken out. One or two items remain for another day—such as the treatment of forestry—but I am content to rely on the right decision emerging in due
  1074
  course, rather than being rushed into. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will have noted the points that have been made during our debates.
  Essentially, the Bill has been one of detail and of fine print. It exemplifies the progress of the Treasury as a stately galleon under more or less full sail, dropping a little in one place and putting on more sail in another.
  If we are honest, those of us who participate in the annual voyage on the Standing Committee have enjoyed the process, as we always do. We look forward to further battles of this nature on a subsequent Bill. I have pleasure in commending this one to the House.
  Mr. Nicholas Brown: At the beginning of the Committee stage of the Bill I heard a Conservative Member describe something as dull but worthy. At the time I thought that that was a harmless speculation about the future of the Paymaster General. It was not. It was Back-Bench opinion of the Bill—dull but worthy. At our first sitting on 11 May we discovered that that was the Front-Bench view of the Bill, too. The Economic Secretary asked the Committee, "Have I spoken?". When hon. Members said no, he said:
  "My words are so unmemorable that I cannot remember what I said."—[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 11 May 1989; c. 19.]
  The Committee stage proceeded at roughly that pitch of excitement, taking the same number of days to complete its Committee stage as did the more controversial Bill that was before us last year.
  The Bill has not been characterised by the same high degree of controversy, but it contains a much wider range of measures of varying degrees of importance and contentiousness. From the outset the Labour party had to judge how best the issues were to be approached in Committee. We decided that the principles underlying each Government proposal should be thoroughly explored in Committee and, where necessary, opposed. However, we deliberately did not turn the Committee into the parliamentary equivalent of the battle of the Somme. We wanted to ensure that the clauses were explored in detail and that detailed issues could be considered during the discussion on subsequent clauses.
  The fact that the Government's oft-proclaimed radicalism does not leap from the pages of the Finance Bill can be explained more significantly than anywhere else if one looks at clause 28, which sets the rate of income tax. The rate remains unchanged, not because the Government do not believe that it should be reduced further—they are still ideologically committed to increasing indirect taxation and decreasing direct taxation—but because, as with so much else of their ideological Budget, it cannot practically be carried out in the face of the economic storms that currently beset the Chancellor of the Exchequer. This year's standstill is an admission of last year's mistakes. This year's standstill confirms the accuracy of the warnings that the Opposition gave last year. Top rate tax cuts, combined with the liberalisation of credit and substantial pay increases for high earners, way in excess of the national average for pay settlements, has produced a large balance of payments deficit and led to wage inflation.
  Equally important, as my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) said when we debated these matters in Committee, the Government's tax changes are socially unjust. They have widened the gap in wealth between the most affluent 10 per cent of our population and the rest. As my hon. Friend pointed out,

  1075
  it is the poorest who have been hit the hardest, despite the Government's claim that they are targeting help on those who need it most. Perhaps that is what the Government are doing, but let nobody be in any doubt that, when the Government say that they are giving money to those who need it most, their definition of those who need it most is quite different from the one that is applied by the rest of us.
  We condemn the economic policies and the social attitudes that form the background to the Bill. However, as the Financial Secretary perfectly fairly pointed out, there are aspects of the Bill that we support. The proposals relating to unleaded petrol, the concessions on the age allowance, and the change in the earnings rule for pensioners are all welcome. Nevertheless, as my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) said, the needs of our citizens of pensionable age should be addressed by the Government through mechanisms other than just the tax system. I see no sign that the Government intend to do anything of the sort.
  Similarly, the implementation of a large number of the recommendations of the Keith committee in the Finance Bill is welcome. What may become known as the Ron Plummer and Roy Tucker memorial clauses deal with the Keith committee's recommendations on tax avoidance. In Committee, there were times when I felt that the heart of the Conservative party was not wholly in the tax avoidance measures. When Conservative Members spoke of standing up for the little people, I had the impression that they were thinking more of the "diddymen" than of small business men in their constituencies. Later in the proceedings, Conservative Back-Bench Members so vigorously defended the democratic and apparently inalienable right of British citizens to have their wills rewritten for tax purposes after they had died that the clause suggesting that that should no longer be allowed was voted out of existence by the Conservative party, despite the fact that the Conservative party was committed to the clause on Second Reading.
  That brings me to a rather peculiar phenomenon. I am ashamed to tell the House that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury succeeded in defeating more clauses in the Bill than have the official parliamentary Opposition. It is not surprising that the Chancellor of the Exchequer came up to the Committee to check on the progress of the Bill. Clearly he was checking that the Chief Secretary was getting the Bill through before the Financial Secretary could get more of its contents defeated. I should not be unfair to the Financial Secretary, but I must be a little unfair to him because his craven surrender to the interests of property developers in his climbdown on the close company apportionment proposals was not one of his more heroic parliamentary performances. Nor did he win our admiration with his abject failure to protect the legitimate interests of the Inland Revenue in the argument about inheritance tax and whether dead people should be allowed to rewrite their wills.
  As with last year's Finance Bill, the greatest part of the Government's work load was carried by the Financial Secretary. As I said last year, discussing the Finance Bill without the Financial Secretary is like discussing Hamlet without the ham. This year, the Financial Secretary's robust impersonation of the late Tony Hancock
  1076
  impersonating a union leader was enjoyed by the entire Committee when we discussed employee share ownership trusts. His moving speech in favour of workers' control will be remembered by the Opposition for some time. He said:
  "If the increasing awareness of and interest in ESOPs results in more worker-owned companies, I should not regret that."—[Official Report, Standing Committee G; 6 June 1989, c. 304.]
  We all cheered him. However, later he let us down. How could the man described by Michael White in The Guardian as the perennial bridesmaid be so despondent about his chances of future preferment that yesterday he felt unable to accept our new clause about workplace nurseries?
  In legislation often the smaller issues, not the big ones, give the game away. Will the Government be able to reduce the rate of inflation? There is a clue in the Finance Bill. The Bill deletes the phrase "higher paid" from a description of employees who earn £8,500 or more. That shows the direction of the Government's thinking.
  Finally, I shall deal with what the Government claim as their stated objective in taxation policy. They say that they have two main objectives: to cut allowances and to reduce the rate of direct taxation. The Bill introduces the much-denounced provision for a new tax relief—the new allowance for private medical insurance for pensioners. The Financial Secretary said that we did not like it and that we had roundly denounced it. He was certainly right about that. He also denounced the fact that the allowance was introduced with all the paraphernalia that it is claimed surround the present MIRAS scheme. That allowance is intended to be bedded into the taxation system, and that is wrong.
  Last year the Financial Secretary said that the Finance Bill was a watershed. This year, with its unstated condemnation of last year's watershed, it is bound to be regarded as the Government's dull and worthy tombstone.
  Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 266, Noes 204.

  Division No. 296

  at 9.59 pm

  AYES

  Adley, Robert

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

  Alexander, Richard

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Bowls, John

  Allason, Rupert

  Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Amess, David

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Amos, Alan

  Brazier, Julian

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Ashby, David

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

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Atkins, Robert

  Burns, Simon

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Burt, Alistair

  Baldry, Tony

  Butcher, John

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Butler, Chris

  Batiste, Spencer

  Butterfill, John

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Bendall, Vivian

  Carrington, Matthew

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Carttiss, Michael

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Chapman, Sydney

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Chope, Christopher

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Body, Sir Richard

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Colvin, Michael

  Boswell, Tim

  Conway, Derek

  Bottomley, Peter

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  1077

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Janman, Tim

  Cope, Rt Hon John

  Jessel, Toby

  Couchman, James

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Cran, James

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Curry, David

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

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

  Key, Robert

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Day, Stephen

  Knapman, Roger

  Devlin, Tim

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Dicks, Terry

  Knowles, Michael

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Knox, David

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Dover, Den

  Latham, Michael

  Durant, Tony

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Dykes, Hugh

  Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

  Eggar, Tim

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Lightbown, David

  Evennett, David

  Lilley, Peter

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Fallon, Michael

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Favell, Tony

  Lord, Michael

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Lyell, Sir Nicholas

  Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

  Macfarlane, Sir Neil

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Fookes, Dame Janet

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Forman, Nigel

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

  Forth, Eric

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Franks, Cecil

  Malins, Humfrey

  Freeman, Roger

  Mans, Keith

  French, Douglas

  Maples, John

  Fry, Peter

  Marland, Paul

  Gale, Roger

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Gardiner, George

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Gill, Christopher

  Mates, Michael

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Gow, Ian

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Mellor, David

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Miller, Sir Hal

  Green way, John (Ryedale)

  Mills, Iain

  Gregory, Conal

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

  Mitchell, Sir David

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Ground, Patrick

  Moore, Rt Hon John

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Morris, M (N'hampton S)

  Hague, William

  Morrison, Sir Charles

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Moss, Malcolm

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Hannam, John

  Mudd, David

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

  Neale, Gerrard

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Needham, Richard

  Harris, David

  Nelson, Anthony

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Neubert, Michael

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Hayes, Jerry

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Hayward, Robert

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Norris, Steve

  Heddle, John

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

  Paice, James

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

  Hind, Kenneth

  Patnick, Irvine

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Howard, Michael

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Price, Sir David

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Raffan, Keith

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Irvine, Michael

  Redwood, John

  Irving, Charles

  Renton, Tim

  Jack, Michael

  Riddick, Graham

  1078

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Stokes, Sir John

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Sumberg, David

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Summerson, Hugo

  Rost, Peter

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Rowe, Andrew

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Ryder, Richard

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Sainsbury, Hon Tim

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Thorne, Neil

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Trippier, David

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Watts, John

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Wells, Bowen

  Speller, Tony

  Wheeler, John

  Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Wood, Timothy

  Steen, Anthony

  Stern, Michael

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Stevens, Lewis

  Mr. Alan Howarth and

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Mr. David Maclean.

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Dixon, Don

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Dobson, Frank

  Allen, Graham

  Doran, Frank

  Anderson, Donald

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Eadie, Alexander

  Ashton, Joe

  Eastham, Ken

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

  Beckett, Margaret

  Fatchett, Derek

  Beith, A. J.

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

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

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

  Fisher, Mark

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Flannery, Martin

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Flynn, Paul

  Blair, Tony

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Blunkett, David

  Foster, Derek

  Boateng, Paul

  Foulkes, George

  Boyes, Roland

  Fraser, John

  Bradley, Keith

  Fyfe, Maria

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Galbraith, Sam

  Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

  Garrett, John (Norwich South)

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Buckley, George J.

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Caborn, Richard

  Gould, Bryan

  Callaghan, Jim

  Graham, Thomas

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Canavan, Dennis

  Grocott, Bruce

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  Hardy, Peter

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Clay, Bob

  Henderson, Doug

  Clelland, David

  Hinchliffe, David

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

  Cohen, Harry

  Home Robertson, John

  Coleman, Donald

  Hood, Jimmy

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

  Cousins, Jim

  Howells, Geraint

  Cox, Tom

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Cryer, Bob

  Hoyle, Doug

  Cummings, John

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Darling, Alistair

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Illsley, Eric

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Ingram, Adam

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

  Janner, Greville

  Dewar, Donald

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  1079

  Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Martlew, Eric

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Maxton, John

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

  Meacher, Michael

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Meale, Alan

  Lambie, David

  Michael, Alun

  Lamond, James

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Lewis, Terry

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Litherland, Robert

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Livsey, Richard

  Morley, Elliott

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Loyden, Eddie

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  McAllion, John

  Mullin, Chris

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Murphy, Paul

  McCartney, Ian

  O'Brien, William

  Macdonald, Calum A.

  O'Neill, Martin

  McFall, John

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  McKelvey, William

  Parry, Robert

  McLeish, Henry

  Pendry, Tom

  McNamara, Kevin

  Pike, Peter L.

  Madden, Max

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Prescott, John

  Marek, Dr John

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Radice, Giles

  1080

  Randall, Stuart

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Redmond, Martin

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Reid, Dr John

  Turner, Dennis

  Richardson, Jo

  Vaz, Keith

  Robertson, George

  Wall, Pat

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Wallace, James

  Rogers, Allan

  Walley, Joan

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Rowlands, Ted

  Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Short, Clare

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Wilson, Brian

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Winnick, David

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

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

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

  Worthington, Tony

  Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

  Wray, Jimmy

  Soley, Clive

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Strang, Gavin

  Mr. Frank Haynes and

  Straw, Jack

  Mr. Allen McKay.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Irradiation of Food
Mr. Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.
10.15 pm
The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John MacGregor): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 10377/88, relating to irradiation of foodstuffs; and supports the Government's intention to seek to ensure that a directive is adopted that will allow the use of the process under conditions that will fully safeguard the interests of the consumer.
I announced in the House on 21 June that the Government intended to provide for the irradiation of some foods in this country. I made it clear then that we regarded this process as a useful additional weapon in our large armoury of measures and activities aimed at ensuring food safety—I stress, only one of many.
That takes me straight to the flaw in the second half of the Opposition's amendment, stating that they believe that
"improving regulations and monitoring along the food chain are the best ways of solving the current epidemic of food poisoning".
We monitor constantly. We regularly improve regulations whenever necessary. That happens anyway, but irradiation adds one further benefit—one further improvement in regulations and systems—which is why it is right that we should now make it available.
I said on 21 June that our approach was to extend consumers' freedom of choice by making available for those foods for which it is suitable this extension to the range of preservation processes that can be used to keep food safe.
I emphasised that I was well aware that it is only suitable for some foods and should he available only for them, and that no one in Government had ever claimed or would claim that it could be used across the whole range of food to deal with all forms of microbial contamination. Above all, I underlined that it will be a matter of freedom of choice for the consumer, because there will be full and clear labelling of foods that have received this treatment. No one, whether primary producer, manufacturer, retailer or consumer, will have to use irradiation or eat irradiated food if they do not wish to.
Our whole approach in making available this additional option to the consumer and to the food industry is based fundamentally on food safety and consumer grounds. Tonight we are debating the European Commission's proposals for harmonising the laws on food irradiation across the whole Community—and here again consumer considerations are well to the forefront.
Just as in the United Kingdom, we adopted a cautious attitude to food irradiation, setting up our own independent expert scientific assessment of the process, rather than simply acting on the basis of the international work carried out for the World Health Organisation and the Food and Agriculture Organisation. So too did the European Commission. The considerable data on this subject were re-evaluated by the European Community Scientific Committee for Food before this proposal was put forward.
Like the international committees and the United Kingdom's own independent committee, the European Community committee was entirely satisfied as to the safety and wholesomeness of irradiated food up to the
1082
overall average dose of 10 kilogray. The one difference of approach favoured by the European Community Committee has been that it recommended restriction to a particular list of foodstuffs for which a technological need had been demonstrated. Essentially, that meant that it recommended restrictions to those foodstuffs already accepted by one or other of the member states. Our preferred approach—like that of the World Health Organisation—has been to argue that the licence issued to a particular firm should set out the particular foodstuffs and the treatments that could be applied to them. This approach is slightly different from that recommended by the European Community Scientific Committee for Food, but essentially would involve the same degree of official control.
The heart of the directive is in four articles—5 to 8—which contain the essential control conditions. Article 5 makes labelling mandatory. This is an absolute must and we shall see to it in our discussions with our partners that clear and precise requirements are laid down.
Article 6 requires member states to provide for prior approval of applications to use the process and subsequent monitoring of compliance with the conditions by a competent authority. As the House will be aware, we are proposing to exercise this control within central Government. Article 6 also stipulates that approval shall be given only if the plant meets the requirements of the relevant Codex recommended international code of practice, which covers detailed design and operational aspects of the irradiation plant and premises. We have no difficulty with that—we would recommend the same.
Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: How will a customer in a restaurant know whether the food that is served has been irradiated?
Mr. MacGregor: As I made clear in exchanges in the House the other day, we shall have to include that point when we come to the detailed regulations to ensure that the customer does know.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. MacGregor: In view of the shortness of the debate, it would be better if I did not give way again because I know that many hon. Members wish to speak and my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Ryder) will answer their points when he replies to the debate.
Article 7 lays down detailed documentation requirements and article 8 provides for imports to be permitted only from countries that can demonstrate to the Community that they comply with equivalent conditions and achieve equal standards. The article envisages inspection of irradiation plants in third countries and the listing of officially approved establishments there.
These are the core conditions of the draft directive and, as the House will readily appreciate, they are in line with our recommendations for a control framework for this country and so they clearly form an acceptable basis for the detailed discussions that will be necessary. We shall, of course, examine closely just how the provisions should be applied in practice. I can assure the House therefore that we shall be taking a close look at the criteria to be applied by approving authorities; at the conditions that will be laid down when approvals are granted; at the matters to be examined during official inspections; and at the circumstances in which approvals will be withdrawn or

1083
modified if conditions are found on inspection not to be fully met. We shall also need to look carefully at the record-keeping requirements and at details of the labelling provisions. For imports, we shall need to scrutinise with particular care the Commission's proposals for measuring the equivalence of the controls and the standards of third countries.
In short, we are concerned to get all the arrangements right to ensure that the essential aim of consumer protection is fully met and that there is uniform application of conditions across the whole Community.
Some people no doubt will attempt to argue that consumers have said that they do not want irradiated food on the market. Such market research as has been done so far and which I have seen—it is far from complete—does, indeed, suggest that many consumers will not want to use irradiated food at least in the early stages. That is fair enough; no one has ever suggested they should have to. On the other hand, a sizeable number have also said that they would like the opportunity and wish to make use of it. This is entirely in accord with the Government's approach. Given the proper controls, we see no reason why they should now be denied that opportunity.
Moreover, it is worth remembering what consumer bodies such as the National Consumer Council are saying. The NCC has explicitly accepted the safety of food irradiation properly applied and monitored—as we shall ensure that it is. It has pointed to the need for nutritional monitoring. We have already said that we shall build this into the on-going "food-watch" that we maintain. The NCC statement stresses also that irradiation must form simply one part of a comprehensive approach to the safety of food and must never be regarded as a substitute for good manufacturing practice. My statement in the House last month has already made clear that this is also the firm position of the Government.
I turn now in what is inevitably a short debate to what I regard as the misconceptions and myths which are being raised both about the process itself and about what it can do. It appears that some people still fear that food irradiation will make food radioactive. They are, however, confusing irradiation with fall out of radioactive substances—which is entirely different. Moreover, they overlook the fact that radioactivity is actually present anyway—in the environment, in food, and, indeed, in all of us.
The most graphic rebuttal of the radioactivity argument that I have seen is in the report of the European Community's Scientific Committee for Food to which I referred earlier. The committee referred to studies carried out to show how much radioactivity could be induced by that process. Those studies, which relate to the energy and dose levels that would apply to food irradiation, showed that the amount of radioactivity produced—and I quote from the report—
"is below the detection threshold".
Indeed, that infinitesimal extra amount of radioactivity is, according to the committee, approximately 100,000-fold smaller than the level that occurs naturally in fresh foods. That puts the subject properly in its context and needs to be emphasised time and time again—it is 100,000-fold smaller.
Some comments currently being reported seem also to be based on the mistaken assumption that the process can
1084
disguise sub-standard food. Let me emphasise once again that food irradiation cannot reverse the natural ageing processes of food. If the food is sub-standard, it will remain so. Irradiation cannot disguise the natural signs that food has gone off. It will not improve appearance; it will not cover up unpleasant odours; and it cannot take away a nasty taste. The process, in other words, cannot make good food which is bad in those ways.
In any case, the Government are quite clear that food irradiation shall be applied only to food in normal, sound condition. We propose to build into our controls a requirement for checks to be made on the food before it is treated.
Some people claim that irradiation cannot make any contribution to the avoidance of botulism. I simply do not know why that point is being raised, because no one has ever claimed that it could. What we have said is that it had a useful contribution to make by killing large numbers of salmonella, campylobacter and listeria bacteria. That is where the particular effectiveness of food irradiation has been demonstrated, and that is the benefit that we want to make available to consumers. It is also, of course, one of the prime food safety concerns in certain foods. So let us concentrate on the real targets, which are very important ones, and not on false targets for which irradiation is not appropriate in the first place.
There is another aspect, too, on which I want to set the record straight. I have seen several newspaper reports which say that food irradiation will not prove effective in reducing the threat posed by salmonella and campylobacter. In some accounts, that is said to be because the bacteria will leave behind toxins and that those will do the damage. In other accounts, it is stated that those bacteria will produce spores that the process cannot touch and that further bacteria will grow from the spores. I am advised that, quite simply, that is scientific nonsense. Salmonella, campylobacter, and listeria are non-sporing bacteria and they do not excrete toxins into food. The illness that is caused results directly from consuming the bacteria themselves. If the bacteria are killed off, the threat that they pose is eliminated. Helping deal with that, which irradiation does, undoubtedly makes a very worthwhile contribution to the reduction of food-borne illness.
Another odd argument is that the process will not achieve much because it cannot be used to protect eggs. Again no one ever said that it could. But what it can do through its effectiveness in killing bacteria is to enhance safety standards in poultry meat, in some shell-fish and in herbs and spices. Of course, it cannot be used for all foods, but that is no argument for failing to take advantage of it where it can be useful.
Mr. Michael Shersby: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. MacGregor: No, I had better move on, because several hon. Members wish to speak.
On the subject of herbs and spices, there is of course a particular advantage to the public in the use of that process. At the moment the decontamination needed by those products—because of the conditions in which they have to be stored in the countries of origin—is by fumigation with ethylene oxide gas. It is essential to replace the use of that chemical because of its possible adverse effects. Its use will be banned within the European Community from the end of 1990. The only effective

1085
alternative for the treatment of herbs and spices is irradiation. Irradiation of herbs and spices thus involves the replacement of a treatment that is causing concern.
Another fallacious objection is that it is wrong to be thinking of introducing the process now, when research has so far not come up with a detection test. I have to say that the heavy weight of informed opinion takes the opposite view. The World Health Organisation, the Codex Alimentarius Commission, the United States Food and Drug Administration—indeed, the Governments of 35 different countries—have concluded, after detailed scientific consideration, that adequate control can be achieved over the use of the process through a strict system of licensing and official inspections of operations and of records. The view of our own independent scientific inquiry by the Advisory Committee on Irradiated and Novel Foods was that a detection test could provide a useful supplement to the control mechanism, but satisfactory controls could be maintained without this. The Government have accepted this conclusion—though we shall, of course, continue to pursue the research that we are funding with the aim of producing suitable tests.
Import controls are a matter of particular importance in the overall control regime for food irradiation. I can assure the House that we shall support the imposition of strict, Community-wide controls, with detailed documentation and labelling requirements, to give the necessary reassurance to the consumer on the quality of irradiated foodstuffs whether treated here or at approved, officially controlled premises overseas.
Mr. Frank Cook: That has not worked thus far.
Mr. MacGregor: I invited the hon. Gentleman to provide me with his evidence on this and I am going through it. He knows that I am doing precisely that. I do not believe that his evidence adds up to the charge that he has just made, but it is up to him to give further evidence, if he thinks that he can find it.
When we have the ban on irradiation lifted in this country, to which I hope the House will agree, and we have suitable controls for certain products and it is Community-wide, the imposition of strict Community-wide controls will be important.
I have spoken of the benefits for consumers in making available the option of food irradiation as an additional measure to protect the safety of those foods for which the process is suitable. I have drawn particular attention to the effectiveness that the process has demonstrated in relation to salmonella, campylobacter, and listeria—those bacteria cause the vast majority of food-borne illness. In the case of salmonella and campylobacter the process could have particular value in being applied to poultrymeat.
I have mentioned also the benefit that consumers would gain from the irradiation of herbs and spices, in relation to which the process would provide a much safer way of achieving insect and bacterial decontamination than the present chemical fumigation methods which will, in any case, shortly no longer be available for use.
There is, of course, further benefit in fruits whose season is longer and which will keep for longer in the home. Extension of shelf-life is usually referred to as a benefit for the retail trade. So it is, no doubt, but we must not forget that larders and kitchens have shelves also. If goods last longer, then this clearly helps the consumer as
1086
well. But that is an additional benefit. It is not among my reasons for proposing the lifting of the ban, which are based solely on food safety and consumer choice grounds.
For all those reasons, the Government welcome the Commission's initiative in proposing harmonised rules for food irradiation. As I have stated, the draft directive's proposals for a control system are very largely compatible with the proposals that we had ourselves outlined. Clearly, we shall need to examine in detail the implications and the precise application of the draft. The general framework—relying as it does on the Codex code of practice—is clearly fundamentally correct and should provide a firm basis for detailed control conditions that will fully safeguard the interests of the consumer. I assure the House that the Government will be both diligent and vigilant in ensuring that this essential requirement is met. I commend the motion to the House.
10.33 pm
Dr. David Clark: I beg to move, to leave out from "foodstuffs" to the end of the Question and add instead thereof:
`opposes the Government's intention to introduce irradiated food for import and sale in the United Kingdom; notes that irradiation exposes the consumer to chemical changes in food and that microbiologically contaminated food could be sold as clean; and believes that improving regulations and monitoring along the food chain are the best ways of solving the current epidemic of food poisoning and ensuring that the consumer has confidence in the safety of food.'.
It is sheer effrontery for the Government to bring this debate forward in such a restricted form when so many hon. Members want to participate. We know that when another Minister spoke on this subject a couple of weeks ago he assured the House that there would be ample opportunity for a good, long discussion on it. This is not the appropriate time at which to do it, but it exposes one of the Government's intentions, which is to try to minimise reporting of their proposed action.
What is the Minister proposing? Is he proposing to lift the ban regardless of what happens with the EEC? Will he lift the ban before the Community takes a decision? That part of his speech was a little confused.
The Minister started strongly, but he set up all manner of aunt Sallies that I have never heard before and then attempted to knock them down. I thought that he was disingenuous from the beginning. It has been the Government's policy not to update regulations, to reduce the number of public servants involved in monitoring food and to cut essential research into food safety. As a result, we have a food poisoning epidemic. There is no doubt about that.
The Government are contemplating cuts in the veterinary colleges when we are importing veterinary surgeons at a rate of one a day. They have reduced the number of personnel in the state veterinary service by 25 per cent. during the past 10 years. They have cut the training of environmental health officers so that we are now 400 short. They have cut vital research into salmonella and botulism. After 10 years of this Government, public health is at its worst for years.
For the Government, irradiation is a technological quick fix but, like so many other quick fixes, the long-term effect will be additional and fundamental problems. Before I pursue that, I shall take up one of the Minister's aunt Sallies. He mentioned radioactive food. He said that the

1087
Opposition always argue that the food is radioactive. I have never argued that, and I have never heard any other Labour Member argue it.
Irradiated food is not radioactive. It is irradiated by a radioactive process. We should get that clearly on the record. It is done by using gamma rays. The easiest and best comparison is to radiotherapy for cancer. We all know that the use of a radioactive process poses a potential threat. The Minister is right—radioactivity is in the environment, but we must not expose people to extra radioactivity.
I am not suggesting that the consumer is affected, but I want the Minister to consider whether we can justify exposing people who work in food processing irradiation plants to extra radiation. The Minister shakes his head. I am just asking whether he thinks that that is justified. He is aware of the point because it was in the paper that he produced for his previous speech.
The key weakness in the Minister's speech was his acknowledgement of the fact that there is no adequate testing procedure. He advanced that argument two months ago. He said that there is no simple diagnostic test. It appeared from recent press reports that such a test had been devised but, on investigation, it seems that such claims are hollow. In a submission to Sub-Committee D in the other place, the Ministry said this morning:
"There still seems little prospect that a single test will ever be applicable to all foods, and no guarantee even that tests for individual foods or food classes will be developed in the foreseeable future for every food likely to be treated by irradiation."
That is the Minister's view, and it is my view.
It is difficult to devise a proper monitoring and control system when it is not even possible to test whether food is irradiated. Even the Minister's own experts say that to guarantee public safety, irradiation levels must be below certain dosages. The Minister himself made that point tonight. The EEC document sets special dosage levels for separate products. As no diagnostic test is available, how can the Minister give an assurance about irradiation levels?
Further, how can food be tested to determine whether it has been re-irradiated? As the Minister knows, the kilogray levels are cumulative, and if food is irradiated at the maximum of 10 kilogray twice, it will have received a dosage of 20 kilogray, which exceeds the Government's safety level. In the absence of a diagnostic test, there is no way that irradiated food can be properly monitored.
The Minister and the EEC document both make the point that irradiated food must be labelled as such. It is widely predicted—the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) made this point again tonight—that most irradiated food will be used in the catering trade. I have put this question to the Minister before, and right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House await his answer: how can he ensure that the customer in a restaurant or cafe will be made aware that some of the food available there is irradiated? Will he give the House a guarantee that where irradiated food is used in a restaurant or cafe it will be identified as such on every menu? Unless the Minister gives such a guarantee, he cannot claim that the consumer will be offered a choice.
The argument extends from diagnostics and labelling to the process itself. As the Minister knows from previous
1088
debates, not all bacteria are harmful and some perform a benign function. However, when a product is irradiated, all bacteria—good and bad—are killed, so irradiated food could still be contaminated by new bacteria. Furthermore, simply because food has been irradiated, it may be handled less hygienically than otherwise would be the case.
Mr. Christopher Gill: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Dr. Clark: No, because the Minister gave way only once, and then not to an Opposition Member.
If the bacteria load is only reduced, the bacteria remaining after irradiation can, unless the food is kept under appropriate conditions, multiply. It is our belief, and that of many food scientists, that many people will regard irradiation as an alternative to proper food hygiene. The public will be lulled into a sense of false security, and therein lies the danger.
Irradiation produces chemical changes in food—[Interruption.]Conservative Members may not be aware of this point—certainly the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart) is not. Irradiation's ability to cause chemical changes is known to cause a reduction in vitamins A, B, C and E. It is also known to produce highly reactive molecules called free radicals—although they are not political agents. There is evidence to suggest that free radicals can cause cell damage, including that of chromosones, increase the aging process and reduce immunity. The Minister scoffs, but I challenge him to say that the scientists who produced the evidence that I have cited do not know what they are talking about. Some of those scientists are advisers to the Government.
I know that the Minister's advisers have told him about one aspect of the content of food treated with pesticides, which is that that process often leaves residues. The Minister's own research consultative committee residues sub-group has expressed concern about the effect of irradiation on residues. The committee's minutes stated:
"One area of concern was the irradiation of commodities which contained pesticide residues and associated inert substances and the possibility of these residues being transformed into more toxic radiolytic products."
The Minister must answer the point made by his consultative committee.
The Minister must also answer our charge—which he has denied—that irradiation could be used to make bad food appear to be good. Let us take the example of prawns, which are often imported from Asia and can be contaminated with all sorts of micro-organisms. If prawns are infected with hepatitis A, which is not uncommon in some of the waters in the far east, we do not know whether irradiation will kill the virus. All the evidence is that it will not, but we do not have sufficient information about it. That food could appear to be quite harmless and be eaten, although it might contain a high bacterial load.
I shall not discuss the case cited by the Minister and my hon Friend the Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook), but the Minister is aware of a case in 1965—
Mr. MacGregor: It was 1985.
Dr. Clark: I apologise. The Minister knows the case as well as I do.
Youngs Sea Foods—[Interruption.] It is rather worrying that, although the Minister is aware of the case, he is not prepared to face the consequences of it. In 1985 Youngs imported some Malaysian warm water prawns. A

1089
month later they were retested, when it was discovered that they did not meet the company's standards. Those prawns were sent to Holland, where the Dutch firm Gammaster irradiated them, and they were then returned to this country and sold as clean food, mainly to caterers. That is an acknowledged case. The Minister is aware of it because he has seen the files. It was proven that food was irradiated and then sold as clean food.
Our prime objection to the Government's proposal for irradiation is that they consider it to be an alternative to cleaning up the food chain. That will lull the industry into a false sense of security. To illustrate my point I shall quote the British Poultry Federation, which is relevant because the Minister cited poultry towards the end of his speech. It said:
"Following food poisoning scares, the industry was devoting considerable resources, time, skill and money to ensuring hygienic practice at every level of production and processing. BPF believed that this was right, and therefore not only did poultry not need to be irradiated, but its use might give the impression that these health measures had not been successful."
If, as the Minister told the House on 21 June, and repeated tonight, his reason for introducing irradiation is not to extend the shelf life, why do it? Far from making food safer, we believe that the Government's objective is simply to allow, on occasions, bad food to be sold as good —[Interruption.] Let me finish with this thought for the Minister. If the Government deny the charge, can they answer a simple, straightforward question? If food is in good condition in the first place, why is it necessary to irradiate it?
10.49 pm
Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: One of the first rules that Oppositions learn if they refresh their memories with the book "How to be a Minister", by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), is that they must abuse the Government's case. That is precisely what happened for the first seven minutes of the speech by the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark); the rest showed very clearly that no one had been listening to what my right hon. Friend the Minister had said.
I came here with two or three questions to ask my right hon. Friend, because I had been worried by some of the scare stories that I had heard from both the Opposition and that self-seeking publicity organisation the London Food Commission. My right hon. Friend has made a variety of things very clear, the most important being that the consumer is to know whether an item has been irradiated. I am grateful to my right hon Friend for following the line that he took with those of us who were concerned about green-top milk.
Mr. Austin Mitchell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: No; this is a short debate.
My right hon. Friend felt that if people were to have the choice whether to buy green-top milk they should at least know that there might be problems if they drank it. As long as we know, I do not believe that there is a problem.
My right hon. Friend went on to deal with another of my anxieties: if I went into the Members' Tea Room or the Harcourt Room, would I be certain of knowing whether a particular food had been irradiated? He made it clear that that would be taken care of when the details were worked
1090
out. It is perfectly simple: all that will be needed is a small asterisk against the name of an item that has been irradiated, and anyone who suggests that it is more complicated than that is looking for difficulties. My right hon. Friend also made the important point that it is impossible to say that every kind of food will be irradiated: it is horses for courses.
The hon. Member for South Shields made much of the shortage of environmental health officers. This is not the first time that we have heard about that; those of us who have served for many years in local government first knew of them as sanitary inspectors, and there was a shortage of sanitary inspectors under various Governments. It is far too simplistic to say that the blame lies with the present Government.
Ms. Joan Walley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: No. With the greatest respect, I have already said that I will not give way. If I do so, the hon. Lady will deprive some of her colleagues and mine of a chance to speak.
It is not correct to say that a shortage of environmental health officers is due to actions taken by the present Government. That shortage is due to the fact that the job may not be as popular as it used to be, or as it should be. It is not an easy job; under an inefficient council the environmental health officer may do a very good job of work and then find the council's legal department so incompetent that cases cannot even be taken. That will knock the stuffing out of a good, reliable EHO.
Having come here with two or three questions that have been worrying my constituents, I find that the Opposition have no case. My right hon. Friend has clarified the facts for the ordinary, sensible man and woman on the Clapham omnibus, and dealt with any worries that I may have had.
10.54 pm
Mr. Geraint Howells: On this occasion the Minister has failed to convince the public and hon. Members that there is a need to have irradiated foodstuffs on the shelves in our shops. It is well known to us all that the proposal is opposed by just about everyone apart from food manufacturers. That does not speak highly of the directive.
There is no detection test to establish whether foods have been irradiated. The Institution of Environmental Health Officers stated:
"Until adequate tests are available, several of the Directive's articles will be difficult if not impossible to enforce … consumer needs should be paramount and should take precedence over economic and technical needs."
It has been said that irradiation will be used to camouflage sub-standard batches of food, and it is for the Minister to clarify the issue when he replies. It is well known that the long-term effects of irradiation are unknown, as are the effects of other chemicals, such as pesticides, that may be present. I am told that tests have taken place on animals and that these may be unreliable. It is admitted in article 13 that there is a possibility that some health problems will occur in future.
The accepted dosage of 10 kilogray has been challenged by the British Medical Association's board of science. As long as the average of the batch is 10 kilogray, individual

1091
readings of up to 15 kilogray will be permitted. That is another issue that the Minister should clarify when he replies.
As there is no simple test for irradiation, the Government propose to introduce controls through the registration of premises and inspections. This will probably be done by environmental health officers, and the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg) has told us that we cannot blame the Government if there are not enough EHOs. The Government have been in office for 10 years and if the problem cannot be solved over that period, there is something radically wrong with the Government. I urge them to provide extra financial aid to ensure that we have more EHOs in the next two years. If there is a will, there is a way for the Government to do exactly that. We shall see whether we have more or fewer EHOs in 12 months time. The challenge is there for the Government to accept, and it will be interesting to see whether they do so.
We have been told that irradiated food from the Third world will be allowed into Britain. How do the Government propose to check the kilogray level or the quality of irradiated food from the Third world? Food that has been exposed to irradiation will not be labelled. It will be possible to sell such food to the public if it has been irradiated for checking purposes and the level of irradiation is under 5 kilogray. That blows a hole in the Government's case that consumers will be able to exercise their choice.
The real reason for the Government's move to accept irradiation is that some countries are irradiating food already. The Government want standardisation for 1992. The directive and the Government's move are designed to ensure that by 1992 we try to have everything in order in Britain. Perhaps the Government will regret their decision before 1992.
According to annex V of the directive, approval can be given for irradiation if
"there is a reasonable technological need".
The health of the consumer is mentioned, but at a later stage. If irradiation is allowed, we should press for a ban on fractionalised dosage, a ban on any individual item having an irradiation level of more that 10 kilogray, proper funding for EHOs to enable them regularly to inspect premises, and proper labelling of irradiated food instead of the symbol that has been proposed by the EEC. The Minister must clarify that point. When he opened the debate he said that all food would be labelled, but according to the Community directive there is to be a symbol only. There is a big difference between a symbol and a label.
Food containing raw materials that have been irradiated should be labelled. The Government will say that 20 countries use irradiation, that 30 permit it, that there are no obvious health hazards, that it reduces the danger of salmonella and listeria poisoning and that food manufacturers are anxious to take advantage of the technology. I suppose they are, but the Minister should take note of the views of the British Poultry Federation. During the last six months, that sector of agriculture has been clobbered. If any sector of the industry needs help, it does.
According to the paper published by the British Poultry Federation, it is not very happy about irradiation, with
1092
chickens being left on the shelf for long periods. The Minister should take the federation's views into account. Poultry farmers have been seriously affected by the Government's policies.
I hope that the Minister will take note of the views that have been expressed during the debate. The voice of the consumer, as well as the views of food manufacturers who are in favour of food irradiation, must be heard in this House.
11.1 pm
Mrs. Ann Winterton: The irradiation of food, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is an emotive subject. [Interruption.] I think I have been corrected, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I am a traditionalist. I hope you will not mind, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I refer to you—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Yes, I do mind.
Mrs. Winterton: You do mind.
Madam Deputy Speaker: I enjoy being a female. Vive la difference.
Mrs. Winterton: I take your point, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I had always understood that one addressed the office rather than the holder of the office, irrespective of gender. May I give another example? Many moons ago, in a previous existence, I was a master of foxhounds. Nobody called me a mistress of anything.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am very interested in the way that the hon. Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) seeks to address various people, but while I am in the Chair I am to be addressed as Madam Deputy Speaker.
Mrs. Winterton: I am delighted so to address you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I bow to your command.
To return to the subject of the debate, food irradiation is an emotive subject. It will not be easy for hon. Members or their constituents to reach a rational decision as to its possible benefits. Many of us, myself included, do not have the scientific background to enable us to sift the facts from the fiction about food irradiation. Therefore, I was pleased to read recently the very first briefing paper of the newly established Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology which seeks to inform parliamentarians on scientific and technical matters underpinning current issues. Its director, Dr. Michael Norton, has prepared a paper on irradiation that is full of easily digested information, which I heartily recommend to hon. Members.
Many studies have been carried out on the irradiation of food for both animals and humans during the last 40 years, but concern remains about its potential use, despite the views of national and international expert bodies that the process is safe. The recent much publicised increase in the number of cases of food poisoning of one kind or another provide one argument as to how irradiation can play a part—I stress the word "part"—in providing greater protection for the public.
That brings me to what I consider to be the best marketing opportunity for fresh food for some time. It will not have escaped the notice of hon. Members that one of our most successful retail outlets has built a reputation second to none in its food department for quality,

1093
freshness and good hygiene. That reputation is reflected to good effect in its sales and profits. In these more affluent days, people are prepared to pay more for fresh, good-quality products. I believe that, with correct labelling, a fresh chicken, for example, will outsell by far its irradiated counterpart. I suggest that that answers the questions raised by the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells).
The House should also note that the standards of production, processing and distribution of fresh foods in Britain are far higher than in virtually any other country, so I do not believe for a moment that irradiated food will provide any competition whatsoever, although it could prove useful in treating imported herbs and spices, for the reasons given by my right hon. Friend the Minister in his opening speech.
The high capital and running costs of irradiation equipment will be added to the price of the food and might easily outweigh any perceived benefits. However, mandatory labelling, with rigorous checks for the wholesale, retail and catering sectors, is essential to inform the consumer. More will have to be done in education in schools and elsewhere to provide people with the facts so that they can make an informed choice.
Finally, I would not hesitate to eat irradiated food, and I have probably done so abroad on many occasions without knowing it. Surely we shall have the best of both worlds in the United Kingdom as consumers will have available to them, where appropriate, irradiated and non-irradiated food. When they are fully armed with the appropriate information and when internationally recognised standards are introduced and rigorously enforced, there will be no problems whatsoever.
11.6 pm
Mr. Martyn Jones: I shall be brief as there is so little time for this important debate. Far more time should have been devoted to it.
I should like to know who wants irradiated food. The public does not seem to want it. I have seen no great demands for it. The British Medical Association does not want it and nor does the Institute of Environmental Health Officers, but the food industry does.
Mr. Ron Davies: Not all the food industry wants it. The Co-op does not want it.
Mr. Jones: As my hon. Friend said, the Co-operative Wholesale Society, which is one of the largest retailers in the country, does not want it. Why do the others want it? They want it for profit and because it will be easier for them to deal with the food at the end of its production life and because the most disreputable outlets recognise it as a way of disguising poor manufacturing techniques.
I am a microbiologist by profession. Many hon. Members, particularly Conservative Members, are being misled.
Mr. Frank Cook: By the nose.
Mr. Jones: As my hon. Friend said, they are being misled by the nose and possibly by other parts of their anatomy. They do not seem to know what they are talking about.
As a microbiologist, I believe that the only objective test for the quality of food is the detection and enumeration of its bacterial load. If the food is irradiated there is no
1094
objective test of its quality. The toxins produced by the organisms in the food will remain and will often be proportional to the original infection of the food. As the Minister said, food infections such as salmonella and listeria will be prevented, but genuine food poisoning will not. As the Minister should know, food poisonings are botulism and staphylococcal food poisoning. Staphylococcal food poisoning is one of the most common food poisonings and will not be prevented by the irradiation of food as staphylococcal food poisoning depends on the production of a toxin by the bacterium during its infective period—during the growth of the bacterium in the food.
The Minister did not say anything about the possible long-term effects. Judging by the way that we have discussed irradiation, one would think that it was extremely easy to kill bacteria by irradiating them. It is not. Bacteria are extremely resistant organisms. They are much more resistant than human beings. It takes about 4·5 kilogray to kill the average human being; it takes considerably more to kill the average bacterium and much more than that to kill the average spore. As the Minister said, we are not talking about spores being killed.
If spores survive and vegatative organisms do not, that means that the spores can germinate and grow after irradiation. Spore-bearing organisms are the most dangerous organisms in causing food poisoning. A dose that will kill a micro-organism does so in a particular way—by cell damage, due to the release of highly reactive radicals. They are basically produced by the splitting of water into its constituent parts. They last fractions of a second, but they react rapidly with other cell constituents. They create small quantities of esoteric chemicals which are not found in nature. No one knows, and none of the Minister's advisers can possibly know, about the long-term effects of exposure to those chemicals.
This does not happen just in the micro-organism. It happens in the main body of the food. Food consists of proteins, fats and carbohydrates in exactly the same way as micro-organisms do. Small amounts of exotic chemicals are being added to the food by dosing it with radiation. I could give a long list, but the ones that are easily detected are peroxidated fatty acids and hydroxlated aromatics.
Mr. Frank Cook: Do Ministers follow that?
Mr. Jones: I do not think that they do. Those components are produced in the food and sometimes affect it so much that it becomes inedible—the Minister must know about that. Those compounds are there, organoleptically, by taste, in some foods. They are also in the foods that are not affected by taste. No one knows how they will affect humans if consumed over a long period. If those chemicals were added as a preservative, they would not be allowed.
To say that labelling gives people choice is nonsense. One Conservative Member has said that that is impossible in restaurants. They will choose the cheapest prawns for their curry. They will not bother to say that the prawns have been irradiated. It would certainly put off customers if they did. Labelling is no use without a test that can prove irradiation. Such a test does not exist. If it did, it would be testing for the very chemicals that cause the problem in the long term. If we are talking about choice for consumers, we should not even consider irradiation of food.
11.13 pm
Mr. Christopher Gill: I support the Government motion and oppose the Opposition amendment. I support the Government because they are being consistent with their policy to make their decisions in the light of the best available scientific evidence. There is an overwhelming weight of scientific evidence in favour of food irradiation. The toxicological, microbiological and nutritional effects of irradiation have been studied extensively and as a result the process has been declared safe by international and United Kingdom scientific committees. It has been tried and tested for decades—for more than 45 years. American astronauts, for example, take irradiated food on missions and in 1991, the first—
Mr. Elliot Morley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Gill: No, because I am conscious of the fact that some of my hon. Friends and a few Opposition Members wish to speak.
In 1991, the first Briton in space will eat irradiated food with the cosmonauts aboard the USSR satellite MIR.
Throughout the Opposition's contributions to the debate there is an innuendo about a lack of control and labelling. One fact that they fail to mention, which has not so far been mentioned in the debate, is that the cost of an irradiation plant is between £3 million and £5 million. I venture to suggest that the Government will know exactly where the irradiation plants are. I am persuaded that that is a true statement of fact because I understand that, at present, no such plants are manufactured or available in the United Kingdom and would, therefore, have to be imported, thereby reinforcing my argument that the Government would know exactly where the plants were.
All known processes for preserving food rely on arresting or slowing the natural process of food spoilage. It is inconceivable that irradiation will make unsafe or bad food into good food.
The hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells) made a point about the poultry industry. I agreed when he said that the poultry industry was hard pressed; most hon. Members would agree with that. However, he failed to appreciate that poultry producers will be able, when the legislation is passed, to choose to irradiate their product to make it safer for the consumer. The consumer, likewise, can then exercise his or her option to buy the irradiated product, which will give greater confidence in that product. Contrary to what the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North suggested, that could be a boon to the poultry industry and to poultry consumers. Let us make it clear that the Government are not compelling producers to irradiate their products.
The Opposition amendment refers to "chemical changes in food". Irradiation does not lead to any significant loss of vitamins in food and, as my right hon. Friend the Minister said, it does not make that food radioactive. The Opposition also talk about contaminated food being sold as clean food. If food is of an unacceptable microbiological standard before the process, those same factors will give it away after the process. That is a fact. The Opposition then speak about—[Interruption.] If Opposition Members listen, they might learn something. The best—
Mr. Michael Jack: Where ignorance is bliss, 'tis
1096
folly to be wise.
Mr. Gill: I agree with my hon. Friend. The Opposition must agree with the following because they are their words. They talk of
"the best ways of solving the current epidemic of food poisoning and ensuring that the consumer has confidence in the safety of food."
What they deliberately omit to say is that 90 per cent. of food-borne illness worldwide is caused by salmonella and campylobacter, according to the World Health Organisation. Surely the Opposition know that listeria, salmonella and campylobacter can all be dealt with effectively by food irradiation.
11.19 pm
Mr. Alan W. Williams: My first point concerns dosages. In his statement in June, the Minister said that the dosages involved were very low—a maximum of 10 kilogray. I took it upon myself as a scientist to look up exactly what that meant. Suppose that, instead of food, one of us were in the conveyor belt going through the irradiating machine; the 10 kilogray dosage would be lethal. It is equivalent to the exposure that we would receive from 100 million chest X-rays. It would destroy every single cell in our body. Indeed, the purpose of food irradiation is to kill every live cell in food. When we hear talk of low doses of irradiation, we must recognise it as an absolute lie. We are talking about massive doses.
It is therefore not surprising that subjecting food to irradiation has a substantial effect on the carbohydrates, fats, proteins and every chemical component. It can also result in a cooked texture or rancid flavours of fats. When exposed, fruits and vegetables become soft because the cellulose molecules are broken down.
What particularly alarms me about the concept of irradiating food is that it produces prodigious quantities of free radicals—that is fragmented molecules—with molecules split in half, carbon-carbon bonds split in half and so on. Free radicals are very reactive and when they combine they form all sorts of mutants or deviants of their original structure. Irradiation will hydroxylate benzene rings and who knows what will be produced out of the food. As a former research chemist, my strong instinct—I have not yet gone into the subject fully—is that many of the products of irradiation will be carcinogenic.
When I examined the evidence for and against food irradiation in preparation for the debate, I found that the quality of the research into food irradiation, carried out 40 years ago and since, is very unsatisfactory. One finds a great deal of falsification of evidence and cheating, and many untrue claims have been published. There is evidence of lower birth rates, lower growth rates, kidney damage, increased incidence of tumours, chromosome defects and a lowering of resistance to disease—of the immune system —in animals fed with irradiated foods. I am most concerned, therefore, about the long-term safety implications for human health of eating large quantities of irradiated foods.
We have heard tonight of various committees making declarations about the safety or otherwise of irradiated food. For me, at any rate, the No. 1 organisation must be the British Medical Association, which has no vested

1097
interest in irradiated food. It is interested only in the health of the population. I am sure that the Minister will be well aware that the BMA said in the conclusion to its report:
"The Board believes that the current advice may not sufficiently take account of, still less exclude, possible long-term medical effects on the population."
If the BMA says that, we should listen. The non-scientists among us should bear that advice in mind.
We have heard that 35 countries allow food irradiation—125 do not. Of the 35 that do, only 21 use it, and in a trivial way, on very few foods; less than 0—1 per cent. of the food eaten in those countries is irradiated. It is no great answer to our salmonella, listeria and botulism problems. On an international scale, food irradiation is trivial.
The Government should listen to what consumers are saying loud and clear. According to every survey, they are saying that they do not believe that food irradiation is safe and that they will choose not to buy irradiated food. The Government have had some green pretensions in the past year or so but, as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said the other day, it is a case of talking green but acting dirty. That is happening with irradiated food.
11.24 pm
Mr. Richard Alexander: This year there has been an unprecedented upsurge in interest in food matters by the media and others, including the anti-egg lobby, the anti-cook-chill lobby, and the plain sensational lobby. The housewife does not know where she stands. All food is in danger of having bacteria in it. Most food has bacteria in it. All food that is not cooked properly is a danger. We must avoid poisoning from bugs in food. No one in his right mind eats raw food. The Government can exhort the housewife to cook food properly and manufacturers can tell her how best to do it, but, if she ignores those common-sense instructions, there will be food poisoning and people will harm themselves and have tummy upsets to a greater or lesser extent.
Irradiation has the power to eliminate most problems, yet, somehow, people are being made to fear irradiation, even though the Committee on Irradiated and Novel Foods has concluded that, subject to correctly applied doses, irradiation can be safe and food can remain wholesome. The House has heard from the Opposition that irradiation can make food look different.
Mr. Martyn Jones: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Alexander: I am sorry, I will not give way. I am short of time.
Irradiation cannot make any difference to the look of food; it just prolongs its useful life. Nor, as the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) claims, will it encourage sloppy standards. People will not say that, because food is irradiated, they need not bother to cook it properly. That is another bad argument against irradiation. Irradiation kills the bacteria and bugs that cause food poisoning, and it also prolongs shelf-life.
It must be stressed time and again that irradiation cannot make bad food good. In a few years, irradiation will be as acceptable as cook-chill is now. [Laughter.] Yes, cook-chill is acceptable, and so is microwave cooking. I am not suggesting that it is compulsory. My right hon. Friend has said that people will be told when food is irradiated and they will be able to make their own consumer choice.
The British Poultry Federation, whose briefing has already been mentioned this evening, has made an
1098
interesting point. It says, "OK, we have spent a lot of money on improving our produce and on reassuring the consumer that our food is first class. If we are doing all this, why should we then have irradiation on top of it?" That is a fair point, but perhaps the federation will have to live with it. We need the two standards of food production: first, at production level and, secondly, to prolong food life by irradiation, as is now proposed.
My right hon. Friend must take cognisance of hon. Members' concern about the implementation of the EEC proposals. They cannot be implemented until all the safeguards that have rightly been announced are in place.
Those safeguards will be vital in ensuring consumer confidence. Clear labelling and absolute certainty that the levels are safe and are not in any way cumulatively poisonous will be essential. It is vital that the consumer is reassured that there will be no harmful side effects. The experts have let us down so often over the years in food and other matters that the housewife is entitled to that belt and braces reassurance. We need that double assurance, but, once we have it, we would be foolish to turn our back on the technique. The Government have a public relations job to do in that area, and in carrying out that task they will certainly have my support.
11.30 pm
Mr. Austin Mitchell: Grimsby is Europe's food town with the biggest concentration of food production and expertise in Europe.
It is important that we consider the views of the consumer who is reluctant to see the irradiation process introduced. I can be brief in giving the three reasons why I do not think that we should accept the directive and why we should not lift the ban. The first and most central one is that there is no way of detecting whether food has been irradiated. There is no way of checking on the process, which means that we cannot maintain effective controls. We do not know how many times food has been processed or whether it has been processed. Labelling is no use at all for consumers in restaurants, canteens or hospitals. How is the consumer at that level to know whether food has been irradiated? How are we in the House of Commons canteen to know? How are people in the Health Service to know, bearing in mind that the Health Service has rushed into cook-chill and accepted a weakening of its standards in that respect? The fact that there is no means of detection is one of the central arguments against accepting the directive.
Mr. Keith Vaz: Does my hon. Friend agree that the public's perception of this will be that the Minister's cavalier attitude to public health and food hygiene and his slavish support for this directive amounts to the legalised contamination of our food?
Mr. Mitchell: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The public's fear of this process will not be allayed by the way in which it is being rushed through.
My second point bears on that. I am satisfied with what the Minister said about the process being policed in this country, but I am not satisfied that it will be policed as effectively in all the other EEC countries or that the Commission will maintain an effective control. How are we to know what happens in Spain, with its well-known

1099
attitude to cooking oil? How are we to know that the process will be policed effectively in Greece or other countries?
My third point—again, it is a central point—is that the process will be used to disguise failure. The way to eliminate problems and to upgrade standards is by continuous improvements in inspection, control, regulations, and in the hygiene with which food is processed and treated. Irradiation is a way of disguising failure in those directions. I have outlined the way to improve things. Irradiation is a cheap and rather nasty alternative. On those grounds, we should support the amendment.
11.32 pm
Mr. Ron Davies: I begin by raising a procedural point with you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I understand that, under Standing Order No. 14, you are empowered not to put the Question that we are debating if you consider that the matter has not been properly debated.
We are debating a matter of considerable importance. Although I make no criticism of the three Front Bench spokesmen who made their cases, they took half the time available for the debate. Many hon. Members of all parties have been trying to speak but have been unable to do so. All hon. Members who have spoken have been reasonable and have made speeches of only two or three minutes in an attempt to ensure that the debate covers all the issues. However, most importantly, we have had an admission from the Minister that, whether or not the European Commission approves the document that we are being asked to take note of tonight, the Government intend to act unilaterally by legislation and to lift the ban on food irradiation in this country.
Therefore, I submit to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that this is not an ordinary debate. It is not a take-note debate; it is a major debate on a matter of major national importance. I shall submit to you at the close of my remarks the sincere request to consider not putting the Question that we are debating.
When the Minister opened the debate, he made much of the question of consumer choice. He presented the argument for irradiation as one that would assist consumers in making a choice as to whether they would wish to purchase irradiated food or not. I put it to the Minister that, if the freedom that he wants to extend to consumers is to be meaningful, people who are purchasing food must have the means to know whether that food has been irradiated or not. The central argument concerns the diagnostic test, which the Minister in his 15-minute address did not mention once, but which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell). The Opposition would take a different view if we knew that there was a diagnostic test. If it was possible to test whether food had been irradiated or not, consumers would be given a meaningful choice.
I put it to the Government that that originally was their view. Two years ago, I asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for his view on labelling:
"Is it the Government's view that labelling will have to be introduced but that, to make such labelling effective, there will have to be a system of tests to allow for independent analysis of products which might or might not have been irradiated?"
1100
The Parliamentary Secretary replied:
"The hon. Gentleman has summed up all the difficulties that we presently have with regard to irradiation and people's fears of it. As he said, if we are to label products, there must be some way of testing whether irradiation has occurred." —[Official Report, 22 October, 1987; Vol. 120, c. 906–7.]
That was the Government's view two years ago. What has happened since to persuade them to change their mind? Could it have been salmonella, the importation of rotten meat from Ireland, listeria, or the exposure of the deficiencies in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food by the former Under-Secretary of State for Health? Something has happened to cause the Government to change their view. We have not heard one mention tonight of labelling. We will get instead a massive propaganda campaign at the public expense to try to persuade the public to accept irradiation.
The Minister and his colleagues may attempt to persuade the public. However, my hon. Friends the Members for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) and for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Jones) in their expert contributions—expert in the proper sense of the word—made it clear that the food industry is not convinced. We have heard that the British Poultry Federation, which represents all sectors of the poultry industry, is not prepared to countenance irradiation.
Nor is the shellfish industry—the one industry that we are told is particularly appropriate for the use of irradiation. The campaign against irradiation has, in fact, been led by the prime exponent of modern techniques in preserving shellfish—Mr. Ken Bell from Newcastle upon Tyne. He is the chief executive of a company of international esteem. In 1979, he received the Queen's award for export achievement. His view on irradiation is this:
"Customers in Germany have actually told me that for them our promise never to sell irradiated products is a guarantee of their quality. In countries where food irradiation is legal, buyers and the consumer are unable to be sure whether the food they buy has been irradiated, or to know how it was contaminated in order to make irradiation necessary."
That was precisely the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for South Sheilds (Dr. Clark), and precisely the point that the Minister and his colleagues failed to address in the debate.
We have heard supporting speeches from some of the Minister's friends, and we have heard the argument time and time again that "irradiation cannot make bad food good". That was the Minister's claim, and that was the parrot cry that came from Conservative Members. I have to tell those hon. Members, however, that the technology of irradiation is capable of precisely that. Conservative Members may not have the Indian Express, which is published in Bombay, on their daily list of required reading. I shall hand the Minister a copy of that paper dated 1 February 1989. If Conservative Members listen carefully they might learn something from one of its articles, which said:
"Nuclear proliferation has arrived in India: not through the fabrication of high-profile atomic warheads, but through more subtle means."
It stated that the Indian Government had approved the use of irradiation and the article continued:
"It was believed that the wastes from any town"—
human sewage—
"could meet part of its ruminant feed requirements from sewage sludge which had been 'suitably disinfected'."
The technology that the Government are prepared to legalise in this country is now being used in the Third

1101
world to disinfect human sludge to be recycled as animal feed. That is a case of technology going berserk. Tonight is also a case of the Government ignoring the dangers from BSE—bovine spongiform encephalopathy—and from the other ways in which food can be contaminated.
The case for irradiation has not been proved. I put it to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that there is an overwhelming case on which you should rule tonight for this matter to be debated further.
11.40 pm
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Richard Ryder): Bacterial contamination of food by salmonella, campylobacter and listeria is an international problem. The Labour party's insinuation that it is confined to our shores or is more prevalent in Britain defies logic and merits mockery.
No panacea, no quick fix, to use the description deployed by the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) and no magic formula can remove the problem altogether. That is why it is imperative to tackle food poisoning through a range of measures used at every stage of the chain—and irradiation must be one weapon in our large armoury.
Highly qualified scientists, men and women of great probity and distinction, drawn from the World Health Organisation, and from the Food and Agriculture Organisation firmly believe that food irradiation can help to reduce food poisoning by enhancing safety standards for poultrymeat, some shell fish and herbs and spices. Despite that, Labour Members have tried to argue that food irradiation is untested if not untried and, if not untested, is unsafe. Such claims are nonsense—minor triumphs of obliquity over reason.
There is nothing dangerously new about irradiation. Ionising radiation was first discovered in 1896 and its practical use was first pursued in 1921. Since then its value and safety have been checked and double checked by international scientists. They have confirmed the safety and wholesomeness of irradiated food and they have underlined its benefits to the consumer. The WHO, the FAO, the EC scientific committee on food and our Advisory Committee on Irradiated and Novel Foods chaired by Sir Arnold Burgen, the master of Darwin college, Cambridge, have all reached the same conclusions. Their evaluations have already led 35 other countries, including the United States, Japan, Socialist France, Socialist Spain, Socialist Norway and Socialist New Zealand.
Mr. John Home Robertson: Not Socialist enough.
Mr. Ryder: All right, perhaps Socialist Cuba will do. Despite overwhelming international approval for irradiation, the dear old Labour party casts aspersions on its safety. It shuns not only the advice of scientists, but its Socialist brethren Governments abroad.
I have a sneaking respect for the hon. Member for South Shields, but faced with the choice of accepting scientific advice on food safety from him or from the WHO, I opt for the latter. I fancy that if the Labour party was in power it would do the same.
The truth is that all the main international, reputable health agencies favour irradiation—35 countries permit it.
1102
Irradiation may already be used in Britain for hospital patients with suppressed immune systems, but I do not hear the Labour party complain about that.
The process will be strictly controlled by licences and inspections. Irradiated food will be properly labelled. Consumers will have the freedom to buy irradiated food and they will have the freedom not to buy it.
In a bid to embrace as many emotive expressions as possible, the Opposition have cobbled together an amendment which succeeds only in combining ignorance with blinding glimpses of the obvious. The amendment observes that irradiation
"exposes the consumer to chemical changes in food".
So what? Any method of processing food involves chemical changes. Simply heating food causes chemical changes. Does it expose the consumer to risks?
Contrary to what the Opposition appear to believe, chemical changes in food from irradiation are less than in other processes. I can only assume that the Labour party's ignorance on the subject is a voluntary misfortune. If it denies—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have listened very carefully to the comments of the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) as, indeed, I have listened to this entire debate. I am also aware of the powers given to the Chair under the Standing Order. I believe that there has been adequate time for this debate and I must now put the Question.
Mr. Ron Davies: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I understand your ruling, but can I ask you to reconsider? I am sure that the number of hon. Members who have been in the Chamber throughout the debate must be clear evidence that the House has not had sufficient opportunity to debate the issue. We need further debate. There are points of view that have not been expressed.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. As I have made clear, I have listened to this entire debate. I have heard every hon. Member who has spoken. I am aware of the seriousness of the matter, but I have a duty to perform, and that duty now is to put the Question.
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The House divided: Ayes 127, Noes 182.

Division No. 297]

[11.46 pm

AYES

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

Clay, Bob

Berth, A. J.

Clelland, David

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

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Bermingham, Gerald

Cohen, Harry

Blair, Tony

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Boyes, Roland

Cook, Robin (Livingston)

Bradley, Keith

Cousins, Jim

Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

Cox, Tom

Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

Cryer, Bob

Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

Cummings, John

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Buckley, George J.

Dalyell, Tam

Caborn, Richard

Darling, Alistair

Callaghan, Jim

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

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

Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

Dewar, Donald

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Doran, Frank

Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

Dunnachie, Jimmy

1103

Eadie, Alexander

Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

Eastham, Ken

Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

Fearn, Ronald

Morgan, Rhodri

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

Morley, Elliott

Fisher, Mark

Murphy, Paul

Foster, Derek

O'Brien, William

Fyfe, Maria

Parry, Robert

Galbraith, Sam

Patchett, Terry

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Pendry, Tom

Gordon, Mildred

Pike, Peter L.

Graham, Thomas

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Primarolo, Dawn

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Quin, Ms Joyce

Hardy, Peter

Redmond, Martin

Haynes, Frank

Reid, Dr John

Hinchliffe, David

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Home Robertson, John

Ruddock, Joan

Howells, Geraint

Short, Clare

Hoyle, Doug

Skinner, Dennis

Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

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

Illsley, Eric

Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

Ingram, Adam

Soley, Clive

Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

Spearing, Nigel

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

Stanbrook, Ivor

Lamond, James

Steel, Rt Hon David

Leadbitter, Ted

Steinberg, Gerry

Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

Strang, Gavin

Livsey, Richard

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Turner, Dennis

Loyden, Eddie

Vaz, Keith

McAllion, John

Wall, Pat

McAvoy, Thomas

Wallace, James

Macdonald, Calum A.

Walley, Joan

McFall, John

Wareing, Robert N.

McKelvey, William

Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

McLeish, Henry

Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

Madden, Max

Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Wilson, Brian

Marek, Or John

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Worthington, Tony

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Meale, Alan

Mrs. Llin Golding and

Michael, Alun

Mr. Allen McKay.

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley}

NOES

Alexander, Richard

Burt, Alistair

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Butcher, John

Amess, David

Butterfill, John

Amos, Alan

Carrington, Matthew

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Cash, William

Ashby, David

Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Chapman, Sydney

Baldry, Tony

Chope, Christopher

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

Batiste, Spencer

Conway, Derek

Bellingham, Henry

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Bevan, David Gilroy

Couchman, James

Blackburn, Dr John G.

Cran, James

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Currie, Mrs Edwina

Boswell, Tim

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

Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Day, Stephen

Bowis, John

Devlin, Tim

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Dorrell, Stephen

Brazier, Julian

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Durant, Tony

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

Dykes, Hugh

Buck, Sir Antony

Eggar, Tim

Burns, Simon

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

1104

Evennett, David

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Fallon, Michael

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Favell, Tony

Maude, Hon Francis

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

May hew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

Fishburn, John Dudley

Mellor, David

Forman, Nigel

Miller, Sir Hal

Forth, Eric

Mills, Iain

Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Franks, Cecil

Mitchell, Sir David

Freeman, Roger

Morris, M (N'hampton S)

French, Douglas

Morrison, Sir Charles

Gale, Roger

Moss, Malcolm

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Mudd, David

Gill, Christopher

Needham, Richard

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Nelson, Anthony

Gow, Ian

Neubert, Michael

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Nicholls, Patrick

Gregory, Conal

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

Norris, Steve

Hague, William

Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

Hampson, Dr Keith

Oppenheim, Phillip

Hannam, John

Paice, James

Harris, David

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Hawkins, Christopher

Porter, David (Waveney)

Hayes, Jerry

Powell, William (Corby)

Hayward, Robert

Raffan, Keith

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

Heddle, John

Redwood, John

Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

Riddick, Graham

Hind, Kenneth

Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

Hordern, Sir Peter

Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

Howard, Michael

Rowe, Andrew

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

Ryder, Richard

Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

Sackville, Hon Tom

Hunt, David (Wirral W)

Sayeed, Jonathan

Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

Shaw, David (Dover)

Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

Irvine, Michael

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Jack, Michael

Shersby, Michael

Janman, Tim

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Jessel, Toby

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Soames, Hon Nicholas

Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

Speller, Tony

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Knapman, Roger

Steen, Anthony

Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

Stern, Michael

Knowles, Michael

Stevens, Lewis

Knox, David

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

Lawrence, Ivan

Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Stradling Thomas, Sir John

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Summerson, Hugo

Lightbown, David

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Lilley, Peter

Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

Lord, Michael

Trippier, David

Lyell, Sir Nicholas

Waddington, Rt Hon David

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Watts, John

MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

Wheeler, John

Maclean, David

Widdecombe, Ann

McLoughlin, Patrick

Winterton, Mrs Ann

McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

Winterton, Nicholas

McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

Malins, Humfrey

Tellers for the Noes:

Mans, Keith

Mr. John M. Taylor and

Maples, John

Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.

Question accordingly negatived.
Main Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 10377/88, relating to irradiation of foodstuffs; and supports the Government's intention to seek to ensure that a directive is adopted that will allow the use of the process under conditions that will fully safeguard the interests of the consumer.

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

  SEAT BELTS
  That the draft Motor Vehicles (Wearing of Seat Belts by Children in Rear Seats) Regulations 1989, which were laid before this House on 26th June, be approved.—[Mr. Maclean.]
  Question agreed to.

PETITIONS

  NHS Reform
  11.59 pm
  Mr. John McFall: I should like to present a petition on behalf of my constituents, who have expressed deep concern about the proposals for the Health Service. Expressing a minority opinion, the Government in Scotland have set their face against consultation and listening to the Scottish people.
  I present the petition on behalf of Robert McLearie and 5,000 other constituents. It was collected over a period of 68 Saturday mornings in my constituency, and its hallmark is the fact that it was not possible for everyone who wanted to sign it to do so: people of all social and political persuasions felt that the Government should think again and retain the integrity of the National Health Service, rather than devaluing the most precious political measure introduced in this century.
  My constituents ask the House to pay heed to their sentiments,
  and your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray etc.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Prince of Wales Hospital, Rhydlafar
  12.1 am
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan: I wish to present a petition in the name of Jane Davidson and more than 22,000 residents of south Wales, who ask the House to beg the Secretary of State for Wales to reject the closure of the children's ward at the Prince of Wales orthopaedic hospital, Rhydlafar, near Cardiff.
  The 12 bedded children's ward at the hospital is the only specialist centre for the treatment of orthopaedic problems for children in all the six counties of south and mid-Wales. Although the hospital lies within the purview of south Glamorgan and is therefore under the control of south Glamorgan health authority, the ward's closure would leave the vast majority of Wales without a specialist centre for the treatment of such problems. That is why feelings are so strong that a large number of signatories have signed the petition.
  Wherefore your petitioners would pray that your honourable House will urge the Secretary of State for Health to reject any proposals for such closure brought before him by the South Glamorgan Health Authority. And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, etc.
  To lie upon the Table.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Maclean.]

  Toxic Waste Disposal (Cleveland)
  12.3 am
  Mr. Richard Holt: You, Madam Deputy Speaker, the hon. Members who have just rushed out of the Chamber and the members of the public who have left the Gallery are all responsible, in their individual ways, for producing toxic waste. That is not to suggest for a moment that they all work in a chemical factory or have their own test tubes at home. However, they wear clothes that come from a chemical base and they drive cars full of plastics and other chemically based products. We all buy well-wrapped goods, and all those wrappings are chemically based. Without the chemical industry, the country would find it difficult to maintain modern standards of life.
  Mr. Tim Devlin: Many toxic waste compounds are generated in chemical-producing areas. Has my hon. Friend noticed that although we are discussing chemical waste in Cleveland no Cleveland Members are present on the Opposition Benches?
  Mr. Holt: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. I am grateful, too, that my hon. Friends the Members for Richmona, Yorks (Mr. Hague), for Darlington (Mr. Fallon), for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) and for Fylde (Mr. Jack) are in their places. I know that they have a deep interest in this subject. I am not surprised that Labour Members are not present because I am aware that they have come to a sorry state. The Labour party locally appears to be opposed to the introduction of any further incinerators in Cleveland but Labour Members have tabled an early-day motion—it has been signed by all the Labour party's Teesside Members bar one—that states:
  "A proven, safe and effective means of disposal, of almost all such compounds already existing, is incineration at appropriate temperatures under adequate pressure in suitable plant by qualified staff using correct procedures under proper supervision applying constant monitoring in accordance with a predetermined and approved specification".
  I believe that that was extracted from one handout of one of the incinerator companies that is seeking to construct a plant in Cleveland.
  Cleveland is not familiar to many people and its history is short. We in Cleveland are gradually moving away from the allegations of child abuse, only to find that the county is gaining a new reputation as the dustbin of Britain. Is it any wonder that almost every incineration company in the country is lining up to put its incineration plant in Cleveland? Nine applications have been submitted or are about to be submitted and one has been determined by the county council. The lay people who constitute the council rejected the best advice of their officers and the issue will go before my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment for determination.
  Let us imagine my right hon. Friend taking note of all the expert advice and reading the comments of the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook), who said:
  "We must be warned against giving the impression that chemical waste incineration was in itself a bad method of disposal. That is not true. In most cases incineration, using the right procedure, is the best way of doing it."
  That is not how the people of Cleveland see it. I have received 1,200 letters from individual constituents telling me that they do not want one extra incinerator in Cleveland.
  Mr. Devlin: I have received over 1,000 letters from my constituents on this issue. I think that all those who wrote agree with the view that Cleveland should do its bit to dispose of its own toxic waste if that is necessary. It is unrealistic, however, for every incineration company to establish a site in Cleveland. My constituents think—I certainly do—that the Government should provide a national scheme to distribute incinerators evenly throughout the country so that the entire burden does not fall upon Cleveland.
  Mr. Holt: The management of toxic waste is a matter of major concern and it can no longer be left to local authorities. It is too great a responsibility to place upon them. That was clearly stated in the report of the Select Committee on the Environment, on which I have the honour to serve. In the Committee's report of February 1989 there was a clear recommendation that there should be 10 waste disposal authority areas similar to the new National Rivers Authority areas. Decisions should not be made by local councillors, who do not have the relevant expertise or knowledge. Their electors would never vote for them again if they supported having massive numbers of incinerators to dispose of toxic waste. That goes almost right across the board.
  When I was talking to a journalist in the north-east I made the off-the-cuff comment that the Select Committee had been to Sharpness and that I thought it was very much the place where one could site a toxic waste disposal plant. It has all the attributes that we have in Cleveland. They went out of their way to tell us how good their roads are. They have a dock that is not used enough, good road access, the river Severn and a chemical works nearby, yet they panicked at the thought of having a chemical waste disposal plant in that area.
  What is even more surprising is what was said in answer to the local Member of Parliament, my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman). I take my hat off to him because he did a darned good job for the people in his constituency by getting the Secretary of State for the Environment, no less, to make a statement in the House of Commons on 26 April this year in which he said:
  "I can confirm that there are no sites taking hazardous waste in the Sharpness area or indeed anywhere in my hon. Friend's constituency and that there are no plans for any such hazardous waste sites there. If any hazardous waste site were to be proposed near the Sharpness canal or any other area in the lower reaches of the Severn, there would be severe water pollution problems,"—
  I wonder whether anybody has told him about the river Tees? I wonder whether he has any idea what that river is like. My right hon. Friend continued by saying,
  "and that would be strictly against the provisions of the Control of Pollution Act 1974."
  That would give Greenpeace a laugh in the north-east. He continued:
  "In addition, the necessary consents would, of course, be required."—[Official Report, 26 April 1989; Vol. 151, c. 943.] He does not go on to say, "They would be required from me, and I am not going to give them." But the hint was there—"There ain't going to be no plants there, or in south-west Surrey, or anywhere else, apart from poor old Cleveland."
  We said in our report that the Government must have a policy and a strategy. Our report has been around for only about six months, so it is unlikely that there will be any action. To put a slight gloss on that, it seems to us that every time a particular subject is under discussion the

  1109
  Government come up with a little bit of action. The question of contaminated land has been raised. For the first time in more than 10 years this week there was a Department of the Environment press release on contaminated land. Is that not something?
  We also said in our report that there should be more of Her Majesty's inspectors of pollution. Their number is disgracefully low. What happened when we said that? There was a statement within a few weeks—we have not even debated the report yet—by Lord Caithness, who announced on 7 December that 13 additional inspectors were to be appointed, of whom nine would take over responsibility for waste. Remember that date, 7 December. They were tripping over themselves so fast that they managed to get the advertisements out by the middle of June. To date, no one has been interviewed. Because of the speed at which they work in the Department of the Environment, I doubt whether they have even opened the envelopes.
  This crucial matter, however, affects the lives of my constituents, those of my colleagues' constituents and everyone else in the north-east. We are not getting a fair deal from the Government. If we are to get a fair deal from the Government, they must introduce legislation to control toxic waste. The problem is approaching crisis proportions. Everyone is becoming much more aware of the dangers that can arise from what was historically thought to be quite a safe thing to do—to dig a hole in the ground and stick stuff in it. We used to think it could be put out to sea and that somehow the fish would get rid of it. We now know that the best and safest method of dealing with it is probably incineration, although biodegradation may prove to be the long-term answer.
  The Government must have a strategy to reduce the amount of toxic waste that is produced. In America that has been achieved with great success. Why are we waiting for a policy? We need a strategy, a policy and legislation on toxic waste disposal. It is grossly unfair that almost without exception disposal occurs in the north-east of England. There is some in the north-west and in Cheshire, but it is always where there are heavy conurbations.
  I know that my hon. Friend will try to charm me, as she is a very charming lady, but she will not get me off her back until the Government take action.
  12.15 am
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley): My hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) has rightly raised a matter of considerable concern to his constituents. He has already seen me to discuss the subject earlier in the year. Apart from my hon. Friends the Members for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) and for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), he is the only Cleveland Member of Parliament to express strong concerns on the subject.
  I appreciate the way in which my hon. Friend put the subject of toxic waste in its proper context. We have a growing chemical industry which has performed a wonderful service to mankind. Because of many of those advances, our life expectancy is now 77 years, whereas 100 years ago it was 44. My hon. Friend mentioned modern clothing and cars. The production of those assets of modern life inevitably produces dangerous and toxic substances that have to be disposed of. Toxic waste is only
  1110
  a small part of the waste stream. About 26 million tonnes of domestic waste are produced annually, but only about 1·5 million tonnes of toxic waste.
  My hon. Friend was less than generous in his comments about Government action in recent years. There has been a string of consultation papers and documents in pursuit of updating and ensuring that we have waste disposal laws that sufficiently recognise modern dangers and modern methods of dealing with toxic substances. Certainly my hon. Friend and other hon. Members have done valiant service on the Select Committee. They have earned an excellent reputation for taking up subjects of particular environmental concern. I pay a fulsome tribute to my hon. Friend and other hon. Members on that Committee.
  Hazardous waste disposal is a particularly difficult subject. Strategies have to be adopted for different parts of the country to meet needs and in the broader context. I must point out to my hon. Friend that Cleveland sends waste to Ellesmere Port, Widnes, Macclesfield, Warrington, Thurrock, Southampton, Walsall and Hucknall. Neither are all the specialists plants, which require very high standards of performance, situated in the north-east or the north-west. Recently, I visited a plant in Southampton which was involved in that particularly difficult work.
  As my hon. Friend has considerable expertise in the subject, he will know that the disposal of substances such as polychlorinated biphenyls, dioxins and other difficult chemicals requires combustion at a particular temperature for a carefully monitored period to ensure that they can be dealt with without adverse effect on the environment.
  Local confidence is important. We believe that local authorities should be responsible for dealing with waste, which is closely related to planning matters. That is where we disagreed with the Select Committee.
  Mr. Devlin: Is my hon. Friend aware that in January this year only 23 out of 79 waste disposal authorities in England had completed their waste management plans? Under great pressure, after 11 years, the figure is now, in July, only 58 out of 79. That means that 21 have still to complete their plans.
  Mrs. Bottomley: My hon. Friend is right. Waste management plans have an important part to play. We have been pressing waste disposal authorities to ensure that their plans are in place. Cleveland produced a plan some time ago which made it clear that it believed that there was scope for further provision of incinerators in that area. We believe that the local authority must take this responsibility when establishing a plant. It is a matter first for the planning authority—in this case, the waste disposal authority, or the development corporation. Before any plant can operate, a licence must be secured from the waste disposal authority. Plants of the particular sensitivity that we are discussing tonight require prior authorisation from Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh will be aware, given his experience, of the additional strength that we are giving HMIP and of our pursuit of the integrated pollution control approach whereby waste that is dealt with in water, put up chimneys or put on the land is considered across the spectrum by a team of inspectors. He

  1111
  will be aware, because of his membership of the Select Committee, that the Government have made clear their intention to legislate at the earliest opportunity.
  Mrs. Bottomley: My hon. Friend was less than generous about some of the comments that his Committee made about the Government's proposals. The proposal to introduce a duty of care on the producer of waste, the plans to establish registration for carriers and the plans to ensure that there is better licensing, better enforcement and better monitoring of waste disposal sites are matters where the Select Committee has recognised what the Government seek to do.
  Mr. Holt: We told the Government.
  Mrs. Bottomley: We appreciate the debate that is taking place. I do not want to vie with my hon. Friend about who was the initiator of such eminently sensible and good ideas. I can only ask him to look at some of the consultation documents that my Department has published over the years. It is right and proper that, as we near the end of our consultation period, we should move towards legislation that will do the job that we all wish to see done—deal safely and effectively with the waste which is an inevitable by-product of modern life, while ensuring that there is public confidence.
  The Government seek to advise and assist waste disposal authorities through the work of Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution, which has produced a series of well respected, long-standing waste management papers to provide local authorities with the latest information, technical guidance and scientific advice about the best ways of dealing with waste.
  We look to local authorities to ensure that they conduct their waste regulatory functions effectively, and I am sure that my hon. Friend agrees with me on that point. It is envisaged in the plan that much of the provision within Cleveland will be by the private sector. My hon. Friend will be aware from the debate on the Water Bill of the arguments about the importance, where possible, of separating the regulation and operation of plants. We believe that, under our proposals, those plants will be much more effectively regulated and local authorities will face up to this responsibility without fear or favour.
  We look to industry to work harder on waste minimisation. With the proposals for integrated pollution control, waste minimisation will become a material consideration for the first time. Recycling is equally important. My right hon. and hon. Friends in the Department of Trade and Industry are pressing industries to see what they can do to ensure that they do not produce waste unnecessarily.
  The Cleveland county council waste disposal plan, which was produced in February 1987, was a comprehensive document. It envisaged that there would be a need for further provision in that area. As my hon. Friend has made clear on behalf of his constituents, there has been local concern—I have been aware of it—about the number of proposals that have come forward to respond to the need in his area to meet the market for waste disposal. Clearly no one envisages that all the different proposals will result in success. Five have come to
  1112
  the notice of the regional office, but only one has been to the formal stage of a planning application. As my hon. Friend said, that was turned down by the county council. He will understand that I cannot comment specifically on that proposal, because it is likely to come to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on appeal, as he has a quasi-judicial role.
  However, I want to emphasise clearly that waste disposal proposals for incinerators of this sophisticated, extremely expensive type, which require a great deal of investment, have first to go to the planning authority. Once they have been considered and accepted by the planning authority, they have to obtain a licence from the waste disposal authority. In addition, they have to have prior authorisation from Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution. At every stage of the process, it is crucial that public safety and the protection of the environment are maintained. I hope that my hon. Friend will agree that in this country we have not brought forward our waste disposal legislation, I am pleased to say, on the basis of crises or disasters. We are almost unique in not having had any great disaster. Enforcement and regulation have taken place effectively. However, we recognise fully that in an advanced modern society we want to be absolutely confident that all the necessary steps are taken.
  We look to local authorities to ensure that their plans are frequently reviewed. I recognise my hon. Friend's concern that some local authorities have not prepared the plans we should like to see. Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution is in touch with local authorities on this matter and we look to further progress being made.
  However, in a world in which development, progress and industrial advance add to our quality of life, we must recognise also that the by-products of modern life will be waste, and some of it is difficult and dangerous. We cannot wish such waste away. We cannot say that such waste should be elsewhere and turn our back on the problem. We must face up to those responsibilities. We are clear that, on the basis of a great deal of preparatory work, consultation and discussion, together with the consideration given to the problem by my hon. Friend and the Select Committee on the Environment, we are bringing forward proposals that will ensure that our waste is dealt with in a way that befits this nation as we move towards the turn of the century.
  I want to thank my hon. Friend for his work in respresenting his constituents. He is a vigilant and valiant champion of his constituents. The number of times he keeps Ministers up late at night or early in the morning and the number of times that he brings delegations or makes contact with my right hon. and hon. Friends is legion. His constituents are truly fortunate to have a Member of Parliament who works so hard on their behalf. As my hon. Friend said, he plans to see my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government in the morning. That does not surprise me. He is a Member of Parliament who is a credit to his constituents and a credit to the House. I hope, as I have said, that as we move towards legislation on this important subject, we shall continue to have the benefit of his advice and experience.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Twelve o'clock.

DEFENCE

  Battle Tanks
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his policy towards dismantling and storing battle tanks as part of conventional force reductions; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  As regards dismantling, I refer the hon. Member to paragraph 17 of the declaration of the heads of state and Government participating in the meeting of the North Atlantic Council in Brussels, 29 to 30 May 1989, a copy of which is in the Library of the House. This proposes that all equipment withdrawn under a CFE agreement should be destroyed. In addition, the Alliance proposals make provision for certain assets to be held in store. Detailed provisions on how both these aspects should be carried out have yet to be tabled.

  Independent European Programme Group
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his policy towards the Independent European Programme Group: and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor) on 11 July.

  Fighting Ships
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what studies his Department has carried out into the use of front wheel drive propulsion for fighting ships; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The Department keeps under review a variety of warship propulsion techniques, including forward facing propulsors and bow mounted propellers; the latter, however, appear to have a number of disadvantages over conventional arrangements.

  HMS Southampton
  Mr. Trotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to announce the award of a contract for the repair and refit of HMS Southampton.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  A firm price contract has been placed today with Swan Hunter Shipbuilders. I would wish to pay tribute to the quality of the tenders we have received, which fully justifies our decision to seek competition. Together with parallel contracts for replacement equipment, and other costs, the full cost of the repair and refit will be some £45 million.

  Mr. David Martin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to reach a decision on the 506
  allocation of work to the FMRO Portsmouth following the removal of HMS Southampton from the FMRO programme.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I have agreed a package of additional work to cover the remainder of this financial year. Details are being made known locally. Any further changes will depend on the outcome of the longer term studies into the future of the FMRO which I hope to announce shortly.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  National Insurance Contributions
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what would be the effect on the contribution income of the national insurance fund for 1989–90 if average earnings rose between 1988–89 and 1989–90 by 10 per cent. instead of the 71/4 per cent. in the Government Actuary's report on the 1988 Uprating Order (Cm. 537).

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The Government Actuary's report on the 1988 Uprating Order estimated that contribution income to the National Insurance Fund in 1989–90 would be £28·1 billion. If it had then been assumed that earnings would increase in 1989–90 by 10 per cent. then the national insurance fund's estimated income from contributions would have been £28·7 billion.

  This report was prepared before the changes to national insurance contributions announced in the Budget. Taking these changes into account the national insurance fund's estimated income would have been £28·5 billion in 1989–90 assuming a 10 per cent. increase in earnings. The increased take-up of personal pensions will reduce this estimated income by about £2 billion.

  Pensioners
  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when income support applicable amounts are increased in October 1989 how many(a) single pensioners and (b) pensioner couples on income support will receive an increase in weekly benefit of the same or less than the transitional addition awarded to them in April 1988.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The estimates are:

  (a) 100,000

  (b) 20,000

  The increases for income support recipients in October will be paid on top of any transitional additions.

  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many(a) single pensioners and (b) pensioner couples will become newly entitled to income support when the applicable amounts are raised in October.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  We estimate that 40,000 single pensioners and 20,000 pensioner couples will become new recipients of income support in October.

  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many pensioner couples in receipt of income support will receive an increase in benefit of £3.50 a week when the applicable amount is increased in October.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  An estimated 140,000.
  507
  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many single pensioners in receipt of income support will receive an increase in benefit of £2.50 a week when the applicable amount is increased in October.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  An estimated 730,000.

  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security on what basis the applicable amounts for single pensioners and pensioner couples were uprated to £2·50 and £3·50, respectively, with effect from October; and what factors were taken into consideration in making this uprating.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I refer my hon. Friend to the announcement made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 24 November at columns 241–51.

  Income Support
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security in how many cases income support or housing benefit was reduced in the year April 1988 to April 1989 on the grounds that the claimant had spent more than six weeks in hospital.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I regret that this information is not available.

  Nursing Homes
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he has any plans to change the basis on which social security benefits are paid to residents of residential care and nursing homes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moore
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health has today announced that the Government are to make local authorities responsible for meeting the costs of care for residents in residential care and nursing homes who are unable to finance it from their own resources. This is to be implemented in April 1991. From that date I will therefore be making changes to the way the benefit system provides support.

  At present income support can be available to help with the fees charged by residential care and nursing homes, subject to specified limits which I review annually. I propose that from April 1991 residents of homes will be given access to help from the normal income support system and from housing benefit on a similar basis to the help they would receive in their own home. The special income support system for those in homes will be ended and local authorities will be responsible for providing any further help required towards the cost of residential care in the cases where they decide that that form of care would be best.

  The present system will remain in place until April 1991 for all those who need it. Claimants who are receiving income support in a home at the date of change will continue to receive the full level of help available via income support under current rules for as long as they need it and the system will continue after April 1991 for these cases. The limits will continue to be subject to annual review. The Government have also decided that other residents of registered residential care and nursing homes in April 1991 will also be eligible for help through the continuation of the existing income support system, should they need to turn to the state for support.
  508
  The Government have decided that community care grants should continue to be available from the social fund after April 1991, broadly as they are now. We will keep this under review.

  We are not proposing to make any changes to the benefit rules for residents of local authority homes.

  Full details of the new system will be published in the White Paper later this year, which will also include the Government's proposals for the calculation of housing benefit in residential care and nursing homes.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Horticultural Research Stations
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the progress of his plans to close horticultural research stations.

  Mr. Ryder
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given on 10 July to my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) at columns 350–51.

  Farming (Employment)
  Mr. Bright
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his estimate of how many people now employed in farming may move out of the agricultural industry in the next 10 years; and if he will make a statement on the National Economic Development Office's report "Work in the Countryside", a copy of which has been sent to him.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  In view of the crucial assumptions that have to be made in estimating the number of people currently employed in agriculture who are likely to leave the industry in the next 10 years, I have not considered it appropriate to make my own forecast. However, the report of the National Economic Development Council, "Work in the Countryside", provides an interesting insight into the corporate view of a group made up of a wide range of different interests. I am not in a position to judge whether what they term their least and most optimistic assumptions will prove accurate but, in broad terms, their forecast represents a continuation of past trends.

  It is an interesting report which, among other things, highlights some of the alternative business opportunities for farmers. I welcome the contribution that the report makes in stimulating debate on the development of new job opportunities in the land base sector. My Department is already pursuing some of the action points mentioned in the report.

  Chimpanzees
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what evidence he has of the infectivity of BSE to chimpanzees.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  No research has been carried out or is planned on the transmission of BSE to chimpanzees.

  Baby Food
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many brands of baby milk and weaning food contain concentrates of aluminium above 200 microgrammes per litre.

  Mr. Ryder
  All the brands tested in the recent Ministry programme had levels of aluminium well below the intake maximum recommended by the World Health Organisation. The figure of 200 microgrammes per litre quoted has no significance from the point of view of health.

  Food Irradiation
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information he has on the development of a diagnostic test to determine whether food has been irradiated; and what are the implications of such a test for his proposals to permit the irradiation of food.

  Mr. Ryder
  I have nothing to add to my replies of 25 May to the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) at column 1109.

  Intervention Board for Agriculture
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many employees of the Intervention Board for Agriculture were employed at Kenton Bar, Newcastle at the end of each of the last 12 months up to 30 June; and, in each case, how many of these were temporary staff.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The board employed the following permanent and temporary staff at Kenton Bar, Newcastle during the last 12 months up to 30 June 1989.

  Permanent

  Temporary

  Total

  1988

  31 July

  0

  0

  0

  31 August

  0

  0

  0

  30 September

  0

  0

  0

  31 October

  0

  0

  0

  30 November

  7

  45

  52

  31 December

  7

  45

  52

  1989

  31 January

  8

  55

  63

  28 February

  8

  59

  67

  31 March

  9

  60

  69

  30 April

  11

  64

  75

  31 May

  16

  116

  132

  30 June

  15

  111

  126

ENVIRONMENT

  Beaches
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has made to(a) Wessex Water or (b) South West Water over sewage contamination of beaches; and what steps he is taking to monitor the work of these authorities.

  Mr. Howard
  My right hon. Friend is currently discussing with the water authorities an accelerated capital programme for identified bathing waters with the aim of bringing them up to the standards of the EC bathing water directive by the mid-1990s.
  510
  The National Rivers Authority will be responsible for monitoring and enforcing bathing water quality standards in accordance with the requirements of the directive.

  Housing (Durham)
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give the numbers of local authority housing stock in the area of Durham district council as at April 1979 and at the latest date.

  Mr. Trippier
  The information for April 1979 and April 1988 was reported by local authorities in their annual housing investment programme returns (HIP 1 ) and appears in columns B11 and All of "HIP1 All Items Print" for 1979 and 1988 respectively.

  Copies of both documents are in the Library.

  Married Couples
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the latest figure he has for the number of married couples who are living in a household headed by another person nationally and in Durham City constituency.

  Mr. Trippier
  The most reliable estimates of the number of married couples living in a household headed by another person in local areas are provided by the census of population. The 1981 census identified 140 such families in Durham City. The corresponding figure for England in 1981 is 145,000.

  Ivory
  Mr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what official announcement was made, and when, regarding the United Kingdom's unilateral ban on ivory imports into the United Kingdom; and what notice was given to the United Kingdom ivory trade.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  My noble Friend the Minister for Environment, Housing and Countryside announced on 23 May our intention to call for a complete ban on trade in new ivory at the Environment Council meeting on 8–9 June, and our decision to impose a unilateral ban on ivory imports was announced by my noble Friend at that meeting. A written statement giving further details was issued on 9 June.

  Cemeteries
  Mr. Ken Hargreaves
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to amend the Local Authorities Cemeteries Order 1977 (S.1., 1977, No. 204), as amended, to require local authorities to give details of the number of burial places available in each grave sold by the authority.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  None. There is no evidence of a widespread need for such a requirement.

  Water Privatisation
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) how much has been set aside by his Department for the water flotation marketing campaign; how much has been allocated for the institutional lunches and dinners; and how much has been allocated for the national and regional roadshows;
  511
  (2) what was the cost to his Department of the paper of 9 May on the offer structure for the sale of the water industry, prepared by J. Henry Schroder Wagg & Co. Limited.

  Mr. Ridley
  It is not our practice to publish details of individual contracts. The cost of the water flotation will be reported to Parliament in due course in the usual way.

  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the specific prospectuses being prepared for potential foreign investors in the water industry.

  Mr. Ridley
  As announced in November 1988, the Government and the Water Authorities Association have appointed banking advisers to consider the feasibility and desirability of offering shares in the forthcoming privatisation in Japan, the United States of America, Canada and continental Europe. Firm decisions will not be made until later in the year on whether shares will be offered in any or all of the markets but preparations for such offers are being undertaken on a contingent basis.

  Sites of Special Scientific Interest
  Mr. John Garrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to reply to the written question by the hon. Member for Norwich, South of 3 February,Official Report, column 431, concerning the sites of special scientific interest in the ownership of the Anglian water authority.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [holding answer, 12 April 1989]: I wrote to the hon. Member for Norwich, South on 28 June 1989 about this matter.

  Quangos
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list all the appointments he has made since June 1987 to quasi-autonomous non-governmental organisations together with the salary payable in each case.

  Mr. Ridley
  [holding answer 10 July 1989]: The appointments to public bodies for which I am responsible are shown in the annual HMSO publication "Public Bodies" which gives informaton on the number of these posts and the levels of remuneration. The appointments are made under a variety of arrangements, and my involvement varies.

  In addition, I make appointments to the following other bodies:

  Architectural Heritage Fund:
  Five members—unpaid

  National House Building Council:
  Chairman unpaid

  National Park Planning Board and Committees:
  One third of the members—unpaid

  Sutton Housing Trust:
  Four Trustees—Honorarium

  Dartmoor Steering Group:
  Chairman (appointed jointly with Secretary of State for Defence)—unpaid

  Parliamentary Boundary Commission
  One member—unpaid

  The Chequers Trust
  One Trustee—unpaid

  A full list of the particular appointments made since June 1987 could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Sea Pollution
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether the temporary licences in place earlier in the current year relating to waste discharge, including glycol and anti-corrosion substances from the North sea gas terminal at Bacton in north Norfolk, have been extended; what reassurances have been received from the operators, Shell, Amoco and Phillips, that the discharges constitute no hazard to the environment in general, and sea birds in particular; what action he has taken to test these reassurances; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Howard
  [holding answer 10 July 1989]: My right hon. Friend is currently considering requests received under section 36(6)(b) of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 to direct the Anglian water authority to transmit to him for his own determination applications for discharge consent made by Amoco (UK) Exploration Co. Ltd. and Phillips Petroleum Co. UK Ltd. These involve discharges of surface water and glycol regenerator condensate to the sea from the gas terminal at Bacton. No temporary consents have been granted to either company; nor have they applied for consent to discharge anti-corrosion substances.

  A consent to discharge these substances was issued to Shell UK by the Anglian water authority earlier this year. Regular monitoring by the authority indicates that there is no evidence to suggest that the discharge has had an effect on either the water environment or sea birds.

  Community Charge
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what advice has been sought by, or given to, Solihull district council's community charge registration officer as to the range and scope of the questions on his registration form; what additional funds could be made available for a re-issue of the form following complaints about the questions; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  [holding answer 10 July 1989]: All registration officers in England were given the same advice on registration together with a model form. I have no plans to allocate additional funds to any authority that chose not to comply and which may be required to amend its procedures.

  Landfills
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish in the Official Report a list of those local authorities in England and Wales that did not respond to the 18 December 1987 letter from Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution on the licensing and control of landfills evolving gas.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [holding answer 11 July 1989]: All waste disposal authorities in England and Wales have responded to the letter sent to them on 18 December 1987 by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution.

  Environmental Protection
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals on environmental protection have been made by the United Kingdom ambassador to the United Nations during its 43rd session.
  513
  Mr. Eggar
  I have been asked to reply.

  I refer the hon. Member to the replies I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack), and the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Dr. Thomas) on 6 June, volume 154, column 33.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Single European Market
  Mr. Gregory
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what progress was made during the Spanish presidency of the Community towards completion of the single European market.

  Mr. Maude
  Very considerable progress was made under the Spanish presidency. Over 60 individual single market agreements were reached, which is a record for any one presidency. These included common positions in the Council of Ministers on very important directives to liberalise banking services in the EC and to ensure more effective compliance with EC rules on procedures for the award of public contracts. The presidency also saw the final adoption of several key measures to break down technical barriers to trade, for example in the areas of food law and machine safety.

  Debt
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will take steps to alert people in Scotland to unscrupulous practices used by some finance companies whereby they entrap people into debt and sell the debt off to debt-collecting agencies.

  Mr. Maude
  I have been asked to reply.

  This is a matter for the Director General of Fair Trading. If the hon. Gentleman has any evidence of unfair business practices in the marketing of consumer credit, I hope that he will make it available to the director general.

  Finance Companies (Interest Rates)
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what information he has on the range of interest rates set by licensed finance companies in Scotland.

  Mr. Maude
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Government do not keep information on the ranges of interest rates available from licensed finance companies. Regulations ensure that a prospective borrower under a consumer credit agreement receives clear information on the interest rate being offered and that the information is on a basis which facilitates comparison with other sources of consumer credit.

  Student Loans
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if a company established to administer the Government's student top-up loan scheme has been registered at Companies house.

  Mr. Maude
  The Registrar of Companies is not aware that any company has been incorporated for the purposes of administering the proposed scheme.

  Balance of Trade
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is the latest balance of trade in manufactured goods; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  In the three months to May 1989, trade in manufactures, on a seasonally adjusted balance of payments basis, was in deficit by £3·8 billion compared with a deficit of £4·3 billion in the previous three months.

  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is the total deficit in all trade with the rest of the European Economic Community over the past 12 months; and what was the comparable deficit five arid 10 years previously.

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

  United Kingdom visible trade balance1 with EC2

  12 months ending

  £ billion

  May 1989

  -16·1

  May 1984

  -4·3

  May 1979

  -3·1

  1 Imports cif (ie including insurance and freight costs). Exports fob (ie excluding insurance and freight costs).

  2 Present membership throughout.

  Source: United Kingdom Overseas Trade Statistics.

  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on the changes in recent months in United Kingdom statistics of overall trade with other European Community member states; and when he next expects to discuss such matters with the Council of Trade Ministers.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  In the six months to May, compared with the same period last year, United Kingdom exports to the other EC countries increased by 12 per cent. while those to the rest of the world rose by 9 per cent. Imports from the EC countries increased by about the same amount as those from the rest of the world, 15 per cent.

  I have no plans to discuss these figures in the Council of Ministers.

  Petrol (Monopolies and Mergers Commission Report)
  Mr. Andrew McKay
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he expects to receive the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report on petrol retailing; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  The commission is due to submit its report on the wholesale supply of petrol to my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State by 8 November.

  Export Credits Guarantee Department
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on the Kemp report on the Export Credits Guarantee Department.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The report on the future status of ECGD was submitted to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in May 1989. Ministers asked that the report should be published immediately to facilitate consultation with interested parties. This has been done. An inter-departmental working party of officials has been
  515
  convened under the chairmanship of the ECGD's chief executive to examine the recommendations in the report and to give advice to Ministers. No decisions have yet been taken on any of the options identified in the report.

  Hotol Project
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what initiatives his Department has taken in the last 12 months to promote international participation in the Hotol project.

  Mr. Atkins
  We have been able to facilitate contacts with the relevant United States authorities. Contacts have also taken place with European industry. This is an industry-led project and it will be for the companies themselves to provide any further information.

  Post Office Services
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, in view of the deterioration in the quality of postal services recently documented by the Post Office Users National Council, if the Government will introduce more competition into the postal services.

  Mr. Forth
  Postal service quality is a matter for the Post Office board. However, I understand that, disregarding last September and Christmas, there has been no significant change in performance over the last year.

  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what studies have been made of the benefits of disposing of the Post Office Counters to the private sector.

  Mr. Forth
  I am not aware of any detailed studies on this subject.

  Estate Agents
  Mr. French
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he intends that the code of practice for estate agents should cover commercial as well as residential estate agents.

  Mr. Forth
  As I announced on 21 June, the code is to be drawn up by the Director General of Fair Trading and discussed with the industry. It will be for the director general in drawing up a draft code for discussion with the industry to decide whether it should cover commercial as well as residential estate agents. I will ask the director general to write to my hon. Friend on this matter.

  Milford Haven Dock Company
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if, in the light of the appointment of inspectors to investigate and report on the affairs of the Milford Haven Dock Company under section 432 of the Companies Act 1985, he will make a statement on the proposed acquisition of the company by the Milford Haven port authority.

  Mr. Maude
  [holding answer 10 July 1989]: No. Any such proposed acquisition is a matter for the parties concerned.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Family Courts
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Attorney-General, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Stockton, South of 3 July, whether he will give the total number of representations on the subject of family courts received in the last six months, what was the number in favour of the idea, and the number against; and if he will summarise the arguments presented in representations against.

  The Attorney-General
  As I indicated in my answer to the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) of 3 July, precise information about representations to my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor is not readily available as much of the correspondence refers to family courts as one of a number of issues or as an ancillary matter to the main focus of the correspondence. While it is true to say that correspondents generally favour a family court, there are none the less divergences of opinion on the many specific issues comprehended by the concept. Moreover, correspondents often fail to explain what they mean by the phrase in any meaningful detail so that it is not possible to identify what it is that they are in favour of and why.

  Conciliation Service
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Attorney-General, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Stockton, South on 3 July,Official Report, column 1, whether the Lord Chancellor's Department has accepted the costings and staffing levels proposed by the conciliation project unit based at the university of Newcastle upon Tyne; what further consideration is being given to these matters and by whom; to whom copies of the report had been passed for comment; and what response has been made.

  The Attorney-General
  The Lord Chancellor has said that proposals relating to conciliation, including the report of the conciliation project unit at the university of Newcastle, will be considered as part of a rolling programme to review family law and procedures. That review will consider any costing and staffing levels estimated or proposed by the project unit. The Government are considering how that programme should be carried forward and hope to be in a position to make a statement later this year. Although formal comments on the report have not been sought ahead of the review the Lord Chancellor's Department has received comments from Relate, the Inner London probation service, the National Family Conciliation Council and from two individuals engaged in running conciliation schemes.

TRANSPORT

  Fast London River Crossing
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he proposes to reopen the public inquiry into the east London river crossing to enable it to consider the revised design of the bridge over the Thames.

  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to announce a decision about the re-design of the new bridge for the east London river crossing; and why the review which he announced on 28 July 1988 has taken longer than the expected six months.
  517
  Mr. Channon
  I expect to make an announcement very shortly about the design of the bridge and the next steps. Consultation with the relevant authorities indicated further possibilities which the consultants have been exploring. Their report has therefore taken longer than expected to complete.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Prisoners
  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the total number of people in prison at the latest available date; and what it was 12 months ago.

  Mr. Hurd
  On Friday 30 June, 48,638 prisoners were held in prison service establishments in England and Wales. A further 230 prisoners were held in police cells. The total of 48,868 is 1,434 less than the total of 50,302 12 months ago. This is welcome news.

  Prevention of Terrorism Act
  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the number of people detained under the Prevention of Terrorism Act in Liverpool for each year from 1975 to 1989.

  Mr. Hurd
  The available information relates to detentions by Merseyside police and is published quarterly in Home Office statistical bulletins which are placed in the Library. The latest, issue 17/89, gives in table 3 information from 1979 up to the first quarter of 1989; it is planned to publish the bulletin for the second quarter at the end of this month. Corresponding information for individual years before 1979 is not available but the total detained between 1974 and 1978 is published in issue 11/87.

  Disturbances, Bradford and Dewsbury
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the chief constable of West Yorkshire as to the estimated costs of the police operations during the recent disturbances in Bradford and Dewsbury; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hogg
  I understand from the chief constable of West Yorkshire that the estimated additional costs of policing the disturbances are £194,250. This covers police officer and civilian overtime, subsistence for police officers, transport and aid from other forces provided under section 14 of the Police Act 1964.

  Custody (Compensation)
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will state for each of the last five years(a) the number of people awarded ex gratia compensation for periods in custody and (b) the total amount paid in ex gratia compensation.

  Mr. John Patten
  The information requested, based on the date upon which the final payment of compensation was made, is as follows:
  518

  Year

  Number awarded compensation

  Total amount paid £

  1984

  12

  14,450

  1985

  17

  216,163

  1986

  13

  154,890

  1987

  14

  153,806

  1988

  8

  56,925

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Chlorofluorocarbons
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is Her Majesty's Government's policy towards the proposal to establish an international fund to compensate developing countries for the cost of phasing out production of chlorofluorocarbons.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  We have already made it clear that we are willing to help developing countries to find ways of avoiding the use of CFCs. An international fund has been suggested as one means by which such help could be given. The various possible means are to be considered by a working group, established by the parties to the Montreal protocol at their meeting in May, which is to start work next month.

  Nicaragua
  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will state the grounds for rejection of Oxfam's application under the Overseas Development Administration joint funding scheme for aid with the following Nicaraguan projects:(a) the Atlantic coast livestock loan scheme, (b) the Fanor Urroz co-operative farm and (c) CISAS; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  All three project applications were rejected after the usual consultations. Oxfam has asked us to reconsider projects(a) and (b) and we have agreed to do so.

  EC Budget
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list for each of the years 1979 to 1987(a) the total amount of expenditure under line 941 of the Community budget, (b) the amount granted to United Kingdom non-governmental organisations under line 941 of the Community budget, and (c) the percentage that (b) represents of (a).

  Mr. Chris Patten
  Figures in the precise form requested are not readily available. Figures for 1986, 1987 and for the period 1976 to 1987 are as follows:

  Total commitments

  To United Kingdom NGOs

  Percentage share United Kingdom NGOs

  £ million

  £ million

  Per cent

  1986

  31·418

  6·120

  19·5

  1987

  43·906

  8·086

  18·4

  1976–87

  205·805

  38·9

  18·9

  Note: All calculations assume a rate of £1 = 1·42 ecu.

ENERGY

  South Africa (Oil Embargo)
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is Her Majesty's Government's policy towards the international oil embargo of South Africa; and if he proposes measures to improve its effectiveness.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer of 19 October 1988, at columns 859–60. The Government's export guidelines rule out the sales of crude oil from the United Kingdom continental shelf to South Africa; I have no plans to make any changes to that policy.

  Off-shore Work Permits
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether he intends to revise work permit procedures for off-shore installations.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  My Department has today made available for comment a paper setting out proposals for strengthening the statutory requirements for permit procedures on off-shore installations. Copies of the document have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  European Council
  Mr. Bell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what alternative proposals to the Delors report Her Majesty's Government will submit in time for the next meeting of the European Council.

  Mr. Lilley
  I refer the hon. Member to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's statement to the House on 29 June on the outcome of the European Council in Madrid on 26 and 27 June.

  Directors' Pay
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Beverley (Mr. Cran) of 4 May,Official Report, column 352, what further advice he has given or intends to give on the effects on industrial competitiveness of excessive pay rises for directors of large companies; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Major
  Pay is for the parties involved to agree and not for the Government to intervene. But clearly pay rises for directors, workers or anyone else must not be above what can be afforded.

  Warstock
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he plans to announce when the Government will redeem the 31/2 If per cent. war stock issued in the 1939–45 war.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 6 July 1989]: There are no plans to redeem 31/2 per cent. war stock.

  Retail Prices Index
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the effect of a 1 per cent. change in United Kingdom interest rates and a 1 per cent. change in import prices, respectively, on the retail prices index.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 6 July 1989]: The effect of an increase in interest rates is to encourage saving, reduce spending and thus, over time, to bear down on inflation. However, because of the inclusion of mortgage interest payments in the RPI, a one percentage point increase in all United Kingdom interest rates would initially increase the retail prices index by about 0·4 per cent. No disaggregation is available for the imported component of the goods and services in the retail prices index. Whether, and to what extent, an increase in import prices will affect the RPI depends on the stance of monetary policy. The present Government is not prepared to accommodate inflation.

  VAT
  Sir Anthony Meyer
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West may expect a reply to the letter which he sent to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 3 April about the imposition of value added tax on caravan pitch rentals and services.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 10 July 1989]: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply sent on 5 July.

  Premium Bonds
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many purchases of premium bonds in each of the last three years for which figures are available were made in(a) amounts of over £100 and (b) amounts of £100 or less.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 10 July 1989]: The number of premium bonds sold in each of the last three years in amounts of over £100 and amounts of £100 or less are as follows:

  Financial year

  Number

  £100 or more Value £

  Number

  Under £100 Value £

  1986–87

  380,000

  182,621,000

  1,718,000

  331,821,000

  1987–88

  443,000

  260,601,000

  1,730,000

  34,533,000

  1988–89

  457,000

  273,171,000

  1,742,000

  36,122,000

PRIME MINISTER

  European Monetary System
  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will give the list of conditions she has established for United Kingdom adherence to the European monetary system exchange rate mechanism of the European Community, in accordance with her reference to such conditions in the Official Report, 29 June, column 1109.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding reply 11 July 1989]: The decision when to join the exchange rate mechanism will have to be judged against progress in a number of areas. In particular, when the level of United Kingdom inflation is significantly lower, there is capital liberalisation in the

  521
  Community and real progress has been made towards the completion of the single market, freedom of financial services and strengthened competition policy.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Bristol Research Centre
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science why the Bristol research centre dealing with food safety will he closed; and whether the Agriculture and Food Research Council took account of representations from the retail food trade in making its decision.

  Mr. Jackson
  The AFRC has decided to consolidate the work of the Institute of Food Research (1FR) on its two sites at Norwich and Reading to further enhance its science base. A consequence of this restructuring is that the laboratory at Langford, Bristol, will cease to be part of the IFR by the end of 1990 when AFRC institute funding will have been withdrawn. In planning the future scientific strategy of the Institute, advice was sought from a wide range of opinion including representatives from the food manufacturing industry, the retail food trade, academia and the Consumers Association.

  Communication Handicaps
  Mr. Alfred Moris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if, in the light of the High Court ruling against Lancashire county council on 16 March, he has any plans to assist local education authorities in their duty to provide speech therapy for children with speech and language impairments.

  Mr. Butcher
  Responsibility for the provision of speech therapy services has rested with health authorities since the reorganisation of the National Health Service in 1974. The recent High Court case involving Lancashire county council, which ruled that speech therapy could be considered as either educational or non-educational provision, does not affect health authorities general responsibilities in this area.

  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science in the light of the implementation of the Education Act 1988, what plans he has to ensure that the a million children suffering from specific communication impairments have access to that curriculum by increasing the numbers of(a) trained teachers and (b) speech therapists.

  Mr. Butcher
  Children with special educational needs, including those with specific communication impairments, should benefit from the substantial resources that the Government are making available generally to local education authorities to support the introduction of the national curriculum. Within the 100 million available this year to LEAs through specific grants, it will be for authorities to decide how much to spend within this total to ensure maximum access to the national curriculum for children with special educational needs, where appropriate, including those with specific communication impairments.

  The training and supply of speech therapists is the responsibility of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health.
  522
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when the findings of the working party examining the funding of communication aids for those with communication handicaps will be available.

  Mr. Butcher
  I understand that the working party on the assessment of children with communication handicap will report to my right hon. Friend and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health within the next few months.

  University Libraries
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he expects to have the results of the special monitoring exercise on universities' library spending for 1987–88, and 1988–89; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) on 3 July at column 9.

  Education Reform Act
  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) what is the position of four-year high schools with a transfer age of 10 years in relation to the certain categories of schools qualifying for particular weightings under section 107 of DES circular 7/88 published on 6 September 1988 under section 34(2) of the Education Reform Act;

  (2) if he will define the phrase "certain categories of schools" in relation to section 107 DES circular 7/88 published on 6 September 1988 under section 34(2) of the Education Reform Act;

  (3) in what circumstances local education authorities have discretion over allocation of the aggregated school budget, with reference to section 107 of DES circular 7/88 published on 6 September 1988 under section 34(2) of the Education Reform Act.

  Mr. Butcher
  Under schemes of local management, at least 75 per cent. of the aggregated schools budget must be allocated with reference to the numbers and ages of pupils in schools. All pupils of the same age will carry with them the same resources, irrespective of which type of school they attend. However, LEAs will have the discretion to allocate up to 25 per cent. of the aggregated schools budget by means of others factors which take account of objective need and are applied by means of a consistent set of rules.

  Paragraphs 107 to 128 of DES circular 7/88 give some examples of such additional factors, such as a small school curriculum protection factor. Where such factors are used it may be appropriate within them to use different weightings for categories of schools serving different age ranges. For example, a lump sum in a small school curriculum protection factor might take a different value for primary schools than for secondary schools, and different value for primary schools than for secondary schools, and different again in middle schools. Four-year high schools with a transfer age of 10 could form such a category.

  Student Numbers
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what has been the actual, and percentage increase in(a) university first degree full-time students,

  523
  (b) polytechnic and other higher education first degree full-time students, (c) part-time university students, (d) part-time polytechnic and other higher education students, and (e) full-time post graduate students since May 1986, with (c) and (d) expressed in actual numbers and full-time equivalents.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  The information requested is shown in the following table.

  Students in higher education in Great Britain

  Academic year beginning in

  1985 to 1987

  1985

  1987

  Actual increase

  Per cent, increase

  Full-time

  Postgraduate

  65,859

  69,869

  4,010

  6

  University First Degree

  238,329

  245,577

  7,248

  3

  Polys and Colleges First Degree

  181,026

  195,348

  14,322

  8

  Part-time

  Open University

  78,723

  85,828

  7,105

  9

  Other Universities

  37,097

  40,706

  3,609

  10

  Polys and Colleges

  209,956

  232,744

  22,788

  11

  Full-time Equivalent of Part-time (FTE)

  Open University

  27,553

  30,040

  2,487

  9

  Other Universities

  12,984

  14,247

  1,263

  10

  Polys and Colleges

  73,485

  81,460

  7,976

  11

  Note: Part-time students have been counted as 0·35 FIE.

  Assisted Places Scheme
  Mr. Gerald Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what plans he has to secure a wider distribution of assisted places throughout England.

  Mr. Butcher
  This Department is contacting certain independent schools in four regions of the country with a view to widening the geographical availability of assisted places. The regions concerned are the North-East, the east midlands, South Yorkshire and the black country. We are approaching certain existing APS member schools in these regions to ascertain whether they would like more assisted places. We are also inviting certain schools which are not at present in the scheme, to apply to join. The target of 35,000 assisted places by the mid-1990s remains.

  Headteachers (Resignations)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what was the number of headteachers in primary schools who resigned in each of the last five years; and what information he has on the reasons for resignation.

  Mr. Butcher
  [holding answer 6 July 1989]: The numbers of headteachers leaving full-time service in maintained nursery and primary schools in England in the last five years for which figures are available were as follows:

  Year ending March

  Number

  1983

  1,550

  1984

  1,670

  1985

  1,520

  1986

  1,460

  1987

  1,320

  524
  Information on the nature of these departures (available only for the last two years) is as follows:

  Year ending March

  1986

  1987

  Transfers to full-time service elsewhere in the maintained sector in England and Wales

  80

  80

  Transfers to part-time service in the maintained sector

  10

  10

  Teaching employment outside the maintained sector

  10

  20

  Retirements

  at age 60 or over

  520

  430

  at ages under 60

  630

  550

  Deaths

  50

  40

  Others

  160

  190

  Total

  1,460

  1,320

EMPLOYMENT

  Additional Child Care Allowance
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he intends to introduce a £50 a week additional child care allowance for young mothers on YTS, equivalent to that which is paid under employment training.

  Mr. Cope
  No. My right hon. Friend does not consider such a provision to be in the best interests of the client group served by YTS.

  Industrial Relations
  Mr. Mans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what assessment he has made of public opinion regarding the Goverment's step-by-step reform of industrial relations legislation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  At each stage of the step-by-step reform of industrial relations and trade union legislation which the Government has pursued since 1979 we have submited our proposals for public consultation, and we have been able to frame legislation in the knowledge that the measures will be welcomed by employers, employees and the public generally. Our election manifestos, which contained many of our proposals in this area, have also clearly gained widespread public support.

  Statutory Minimum Wage
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what information he has as to how many countries in the EEC have a statutory minimum wage.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Five countries—France, Netherlands, Spain, Portugal and Luxembourg—have a statutory national minimum wage. In Ireland, as in the United Kingdom, a statutory minimum wage applies only in certain industries. Two countries—Belgium and Greece —have a general minimum wage laid down in national level collective agreements which are binding in law. Three countries—West Germany, Italy and Denmark—set minimum rates of pay by industry level, collective agreements applying in all sectors and binding in law.

  Remploy Factory, Rutherglen (Closure)
  Mr. McAvoy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will ask the Remploy board to withdraw its proposal to close the Rutherglen factory.

  Mr. Lee
  No. I understand that discusions about the implications of the decision to close the Rutherglen factory are continuing between the company and the employees concerned.

  Disabled Workers
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what guidelines are issued to Department of Employment staff regarding the distribution of quota exemption permits to employers failing to ensure that 3 per cent. of their work force are registered as disabled.

  Mr. Lee
  Instructions to disablement resettlement officers require them to consider the availability of suitable registered disabled people, and the degree of commitment shown by employers towards meeting their obligations under the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. Bright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how much his Department will be contributing to the Economic and Social Research Council's programme of research into small businesses, announced on 30 June, over the next four years.

  Mr. Cope
  My Department has agreed to pay ESRC a maximum of £120,000 towards the total cost of the programme. Payment will be made over a period of four years, at £30,000 per year, beginning in 1989–90.

  Industrial Accidents
  Mr. John P. Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what steps he intends taking to reduce occupational accident rates to the 1981 levels.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Against a background of a substantial decline in fatal injury rates since 1981 and a more recent reversal in the rising trend of reported major injuries, the Government have reaffirmed their commitment to better health and safety at work by making financial provision allowing for real growth in HSE's activities over the next three years.

  Tourism
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he has had any representations about possible distortions to the United Kingdom's local economies resulting from the abolition of section 4 grants for tourist investment in England and their retention in Scotland and Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lee
  I have received a number of representations about the future of the section 4 scheme, some of which refer to the possible effects of retaining the scheme in Scotland and Wales. However, after considering the wide variety of views expressed, I am convinced that the continued prosperity and growth of tourism in England is no longer dependent on this form of support.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the latest figure available for the number of people who have found jobs through using the service of job clubs in Durham City jobcentre.

  Mr. Lee
  The job club based in Durham jobcentre was the first job club to open in Britain, in November 1984. Since that time, 579 people have attended the job club. Of these 395 (68 per cent.) actually left for jobs with an employer. This result represents a considerable achievement in helping long-term unemployed people.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people in the last 12 months for which figures are available have been through(a) job clubs and (b) Restart; and how many have (i) secured full-time employment or (ii) further retraining or educational opportunities.

  Mr. Lee
  During the period 30 May 1988 to 26 May 1989, 2,220,611 Restart interviews were carried out. Of these, 1,949,570 resulted in an offer of positive help being made and 1,611,606 resulted in such an offer being accepted.

  We do not know how many people ultimately end up in a job or other opportunity as a result of their Restart interview. However, many will be referred to job clubs.

  During the 12 months from 1 June 1988 to 31 May 1989, 131,249 people went through the job club programme; 91,665 (or 70 per cent.) left for a positive outcome; 71,016 went into jobs and a further 20,649 went into training, education or a place on the enterprise allowance scheme.

  Taken together, these two programmes represent a considerable achievement in helping long-term unemployed people.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the level of unemployment in the parliamentary constituency of Greenock and Port Glasgow.

  Mr. Lee
  In May 1989 the number of unemployed claimants in Greenock and Port Glasgow parliamentary constituency was 5,798 compared with 7,581 in May 1988, a fall of 1,783 or 23·5 per cent.

  Dock Workers (Pensions)
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will arrange for a survey of the pensions advice available to former registered dock workers.

  Mr. Nicholls
  My right hon. Friend has no plans to survey the pensions advice available to former registered dock workers.

  Employers are required to inform employees of main terms and conditions of employment, including the terms of any occupational pensions scheme which they offer. Employees may decide to make their own arrangements. Registered dock workers had their own occupational pensions scheme and this remains in existence following the abolition of the dock labour scheme.

SCOTLAND

  Rent Arrears
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he intends to introduce into Scotland arrangements similar to those announced recently for England and Wales whereby local authorities will be obliged to charge accumulated arrears of rent to other rent payers, through increasing their rents to cover the deficit in housing revenue accounts.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Local authorities in Scotland are required by paragraph 3(e) of schedule 15 to the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987 to debit to their housing revenue accounts for each year the arrears of rent which have been written off in that year as irrecoverable. My right hon. and learned Friend has no plans to change this or other aspects of the financial management of local authority rent arrears.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the accumulated rent arrears owed to Scottish public housing authorities in March; and what was the figure in March of each of the five previous years.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Information on the accumulated rent arrears owed to Scottish public housing authorities is collected annually on the basis of arrears outstanding at 30 September. The amounts of arrears outstanding for each year from 1983 to 1988 are shown below:

  £million

  1983

  118·0

  1984

  118·9

  1985

  119·9

  1986

  1 224·3

  1987

  126·7

  1988

  1 332·9

  1 Includes rates arrears of two local authorities.

  2 Includes unprocessed housing benefit awards for one authority.

  3 Excludes arrears of two local authorities.

  Prisoners (Vocational Training)
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what percentage of(a) adult and (b) young offender women prisoners received accredited vocational training during 1987 and 1988.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The question cannot be answered in precisely the terms stated. The position in relation to individuals receiving accredited vocational training during the past two years was:

  1987

  Nil

  1988

  Adults—Seven

  Young offender women prisoners—Nil

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland which of the vocational courses of the industrial training boards, currently available to(a) adult and (b) young offender male prisoners, are also available to the same categories of women prisoners.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  At present there is a catering accredited vocational training course available for women prisoners. Skill training is also provided in sewing,528
  garment making, cookery and horticulture. A properly accredited course in hairdressing will be introduced later this year.

  Remand Times
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many(a) women and (b) men were put in prison while waiting for trial and subsequently freed during 1987 and 1988.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I regret that the information is not available.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the latest figure for the average time spent on remand for(a) men and (b) women.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The estimated average periods spent in custody on remand in 1988 were as follows:

  Days

  Men

  20·7

  Women

  17·7

  Hostels
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many places for(a) men and (b) women are offered by hostels grant-aided under section 9 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980.

  Mr. Lang
  Hostels grant-aided by my right hon. and learned Friend under section 79 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980 presently offer a total of 95 places. Seventeen of these were specifically designated for women originally but the accommodation is now being allocated more flexibly in the light of demand.

  Cornton Vale
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many body and strip searches in Cornton Vale in 1988 where carried out on prisoners who were pregnant.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested is not available, since no distinction is made in the records between inmates who are not pregnant and those who are.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many women prisoners who gave birth while imprisoned in Cornton Vale in 1988(a) kept their babies with them following the births and (b) did not keep their babies following birth; and what was the length of service served by each such mother following the birth.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  One inmate, serving a three-month sentence, gave birth in Cornton Vale and kept her baby with her.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if any baby has remained with his or her mother in Cornton Vale prison beyond the age of 12 months during 1988.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  No.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the average number of days of in-service training provided to staff at Cornton Vale prison in 1987 and 1988.
  529
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information is not immediately available but I shall write to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland on how many occasions the electronics link between the central office and each room in Cornton Vale women's prison malfunctioned in 1988; and what was the average time taken for repairs to be carried out.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The system malfunctioned on 22 occasions in 1988. Each fault is recorded and rectified the same day or the next working day. When the period of malfunction was prolonged the inmate was moved temporarily to another cell. The average time required to complete repair work was one and a half hours.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what percentage of(a) female and (b) male staff at Cornton Vale prison in 1987 were on sick leave for (i) less than one week, (ii) between one week and up to one month, (iii) between one month and up to six months, and (iv) for six months or more.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information sought by the hon. Member is as follows:

  1987

  Female staff Per cent.

  Male Staff Per cent.

  Nil absence

  19

  32

  Less than one week

  30·5

  23

  Between one week and up to one month

  32

  27

  Between one month and up to six months

  18

  18

  For six months or more

  0·5

  0

  Total staff involved

  157

  22

  Prisons (Physical Training and Recreation)
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the types of physical training and recreation activities available to(a) male and (b) female prisoners.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The types of physical training and recreation activities available to(a) male and (b) female prisoners are listed below. Not all are available in every prison. Usage by individual inmates is influenced by considerations of security and control as well as the needs of prisoners.

  Male prisoners

  1. Aerobic Fitness

  2. Badminton

  3. Basketball

  4. Board Games

  5. Craft Hobbies

  6. Darts

  7. Hillwalking

  8. Pool

  9. Running

  10. Snooker

  11. Soccer

  12. Swimming

  13. Table Tennis

  14. Volleyball

  15. Weight Training

  Female prisoners

  1. Badminton

  2. Board Games

  530

  3. Craft Hobbies

  4. Exercise to Music

  5. Modified Keep Fit

  6. Netball

  7. Relaxation Classes

  8. Running

  9. Swimming

  10. Volleyball

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the vocational courses of the industrial training boards presently available to(a) adult and (b) young offender male prisoners.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The vocational courses of the industrial training boards presently available to(a) adult and (b) young offender male prisoners are listed. The full range of courses listed is not available at every establishment.

  Vocational courses available to adult male prisoners

  1. Bricklaying

  2. Carpentry and Joinery

  3. Catering

  4. Domestic Appliance Repairs and Servicing

  5. Electronic Wiring and Computer Appreciation

  6. Hairdressing

  7. Horticulture

  8. Motor Vehicle Mechanics

  9. Painting and Decorating

  10. Upholstery

  11. Welding/Fabrication

  Vocational courses available to young offender male prisoners

  1. Bricklaying

  2. Carpentry and Joinery

  3. Catering

  4. Computer Appreciation

  5. Domestic Appliance Repairs and Servicing

  6. Horticulture

  7. Mechanical/Electrical Engineering

  8. Motor Vehicle Mechanics

  9. Painting and Decorating

  10. Vehicle Body Repair/Paint Spraying

  11. Welding/Fabrication

  Prisoners (Meat Allowance)
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the current meat allowance for prisoners.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The current allowance of meat for prisoners, based on properly balanced dietary scales, averages 94p per inmate per week.

  Women Prisoners (Qualifications)
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what percentage of(a) adult and (b) young offender women prisoners have acquired qualifications during 1987 and 1988; and if he will list those qualifications.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The question cannot be answered in precisely the terms stated. The position in relation to individual educational qualifications gained during the past two years was:

  Grades

  Number

  (a) Adults:

  1987

  O grades

  13

  gained by seven candidates

  Highers

  1

  1988

  O grades

  8

  gained by seven candidates

  Highers

  2

  531

  Grades

  Number

  (b) Young Offenders:

  1987

  O grades

  4

  gained by two candidates

  Highers

  Nil

  1988

  O grades

  1

  gained by one candidate

  Highers

  Nil

  Local Authority Care
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what percentage of(a) girls and (b) boys between the ages of 10 and 16 years, held in care at 31 March 1988, had committed no crimes.

  Mr. Lang
  It is estimated that at 31 March 1988, 86.9 per cent. of girls and 50.6 per cent. of boys in local authority care between the ages of 10 and 16 years were there for reasons not related to the commission of crimes or offences.

  Prisoners (Outside Employment)
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what percentage of(a) male and (b) female prisoners were employed outside their prisons in 1987 and 1988.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Information is not available in the form requested. Approximately 57 inmates in 1987 and 64 in 1988 went to outside employment (including community placements) from a prison training for freedom hostel as part of their formal pre-release programme. Some establishments made similar arrangements for other inmates selected as suitable. But the number of inmates allowed outwith prison unescorted for whatever reason remains small.

  Prison Statistics
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what percentage of(a) men and (b) women convicted of crimes of violence were sent to prison in 1988;

  (2) what percentage of convicted (a) men and (b) women were sent to prison in 1988;

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested is not yet available. Figures for 1987 are given in the table:

  Percentage of men and women aged over 21 with a charge proved against them who were given a sentence of imprisonment

  Men

  Women

  All crimes and offences

  8·0

  3·5

  Crimes of violence1

  40·0

  9·6

  1 Includes homicide, serious assault, carrying offensive weapons, robbery, cruelty to children etc.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what percentage of(a) men and (b) women with no previous convictions were sent to prison in 1988.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Information on men or women first offenders who received a prison sentence as a percentage of those convicted of a first offence is not collected.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what percentage of women prisoners in 1987 and 1988(a) had previously been in prison and (b) had previous convictions and non-custodial sentences.
  532
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The only statistical information held centrally on the previous sentences and convictions of inmates is obtained from the inmates on reception into the penal establishment and may not be completely reliable. The figures from this source are as follows:

  Women received under sentence into prisons in Scotland

  Percentage admitting:

  1987

  1988

  Previous direct prison sentence

  69·0

  69·5

  Other direct custodial sentence (but not direct prison sentence)

  4·7

  4·2

  Other previous sentence only (non-custodial or custodial sentence in default of fine/compensation order)

  7·6

  11·7

  No previous sentence

  18·7

  14·6

  Women Prisoners (Psychiatric Treatment)
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what percentage of women prisoners in 1986, 1987 and 1988 have received psychiatric treatment while in custody; and what percentage of these women were mothers.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  This information is not held in the form requested, and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Prisoners (Child Care)
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will conduct an inquiry into child care arrangements, particularly concerning the numbers of children taken into care, whose parents are currently inmates of Scottish prisons.

  Mr. Lang
  No.

  AIDS
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many positive HIV antibody test results there were until(a) 31 March 1988 and (b) 31 March 1989 in each health board area in Scotland.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  By 31 March 1989 1,621 HIV antibody test results had been reported to the Communicable Diseases (Scotland) Unit. A breakdown of this total by health board area is given as follows:

  Health Board

  Number of positive results

  Argyll and Clyde

  13

  Ayrshire and Arran

  1—

  Borders

  1—

  Dumfries and Galloway

  13

  Fife

  24

  Forth Valley

  59

  Grampian

  37

  Greater Glasgow

  253

  Highland

  11

  Lanarkshire

  22

  Lothian

  962

  Orkney

  Nil

  Shetland

  1—

  Tayside

  218

  Western Isles

  Nil

  1 Under 10 results: in accordance with established practice, exact numbers not given as publication may jeopardise medical confidentiality.

  533
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the latest number of positive HIV antibody test results, and the cumulative total of people diagnosed with AIDS in each health board area.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The number of positive HIV antibody test results in Scotland which were reported to the Communicable Diseases (Scotland) Unit until 30 June 1989 is 1,668. A breakdown of this total by health board area is given in the following table. The cumulative total of people diagnosed with AIDS who were reported to the unit area until that date is 102. Of that number, Greater Glasgow and Lothian health boards accounted for 33 and 48 cases, respectively. Argyll and Clyde, Ayrshire and Arran, Fife, Forth Valley, Grampian, Highland, Lanarkshire and Tayside health boards accounted for the remainder. Where the number of cases in each board area for each category was under 10, the total in accordance with established practice is not published so as not to jeopardise medical confidentiality.

  Health Board

  Number of positive results

  Argyll and Clyde

  13

  Ayrshire and Arran

  1—

  Borders

  1—

  Dumfries and Galloway

  13

  Fife

  25

  Forth Valley

  59

  Grampian

  37

  Greater Glasgow

  259

  Highland

  11

  Lanarkshire

  23

  Lothian

  993

  Orkney

  Nil

  Shetland

  1—

  Tayside

  224

  Western Isles

  Nil

  1 Under 10.

  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the cumulative total of people diagnosed with AIDS until 31 March; and how many of these had been diagnosed within the previous 12 months in each health board area in Scotland.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The cumulative total of people diagnosed with AIDS who were reported to the Communicable Diseases (Scotland) Unit until 31 March 1989 is 85. The number of these who were reported to the unit within the previous 12 months is 33. Of that number, Greater Glasgow and Lothian health boards accounted for 10 and 15 cases, respectively. Argyll and Clyde, Grampian and Tayside health boards accounted for the remainder. The number of cases in each board area was under 10, but in accordance with established practice the totals are not published so as not to jeopardise medical confidentiality. Figures relating to the previous 12 months may require to be adjusted when all relevant information is available to take account of cases reported within, but diagnosed before, the 12-month period in question.

  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the cumulative total of people diagnosed with AIDS until 31 March 1988; and how many of these had been diagnosed in the 12 months prior to that date, in each health board area.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The cumulative total of people diagnosed with AIDS who were reported to the 534
  Communicable Diseases (Scotland) Unit until 31 March 1988 is 52. The number of these who had been diagnosed within the previous 12 months is 34. Of that number, Greater Glasgow and Lothian health boards accounted for 15 and 14 cases, respectively. Fife, Grampian, Lanarkshire and Tayside health boards accounted for the remainder. The number of cases in each board area was under 10, but in accordance with established practice the total are not published so as not to jeopardise medical confidentiality.

  Waterways (Discharges)
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many applications for consent to discharge unsatisfactory effluent into rivers have been granted by river purification boards so far in the present year.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I am aware of none. River purification boards, in granting consent to discharge sewage and trade effluents, attach conditions which ensure that, in the circumstances appropriate to each case, the quality of the receiving waters is not adversely affected.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many sites in Scotland are authorised to discharge radioactive liquid waste to waterways.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  There are 112 sites in Scotland authorised to dispose of liquid radioactive waste, either to coastal waters or, in the majority of cases, to the sewerage system.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the estimated tonnage of sewage disposed of on an annual basis into the rivers(a) in Strathclyde and (b) in Scotland as a whole.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested is not available in the form sought. Treated effluent from around 1 million people is discharged to non-tidal rivers in Strathclyde from the council's sewage treatment works; in Scotland as a whole the corresponding figure is some 1,600,000.

  Labour Statistics
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many and what percentage of claimants in(a) Greenock and Port Glasgow and (b) Strathclyde were classified as long-term unemployed in April; and what plans he has to reduce that number.

  Mr. Ian Lang
  The number of claimants unemployed for over one year in the Greenock and Port Glasgow parliamentary constituency and Strathclyde region in April 1989, and the percentage of total claimants that represented, is shown in the table below.

  April 1989

  Claimants unemployed for over one year

  As a percentage of total claimants

  Greenock and Port Glasgow parliamentary constituency

  2,865

  47·1

  Strathclyde region

  59,239

  43·5

  The number of claimants unemployed for over a year has fallen by around 30 per cent. in both the constituency

  535
  and the region over-the past two years. We aim to reduce unemployment even further by continuing with our successful economic policies.

  "Care in the Community"
  Mr. Allan Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what conclusions he has reached about the recommendations in the Griffiths report on "Care in the Community"; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Rifkind
  The report by Sir Roy Griffiths on "Care in the Community" made far-reaching recommendations about the funding and delivery of community care services for the elderly, people with mental and physical disabilities and people with mental health problems. The report did not formally apply to Scotland, but I have been fully involved in the Government's detailed consideration of the report.

  Our objectives for the development of community care in Scotland are the same as those set out in the statement made today by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health. We wish to enable people to live as full and independent a life as is possible for them in the community for as long as they wish to do so.

  I have given detailed consideration to the policy implications for Scotland and have had regard to the many comments and representations that I received about Sir Roy Griffith's report. My proposals are as follows.

  I have decided that local authorities in Scotland should be responsible for meeting the contribution from public funds towards the cost of the care of people in private and voluntary residential care and in nursing homes. They will, in collaboration with health boards, assess the care needs of individuals applying for such support and will reach a view on whether residential care is required or whether, in view of the primary objective of sustaining people in their own homes, a better outcome is possible by devising suitable individual packages of care. In future, therefore, the special income support system for those in homes will be ended, and local authorities will be responsible for providing any help required towards the costs of residential care in the cases where they decide that a residential home would be appropriate.

  Local authorities will continue to meet the full cost of accommodating people in local authorities' own homes subject to their existing powers to make charges according to residents' ability to pay. These new arrangements will apply from April 1991 to all new claimants for income support. Existing residents of registered residential care or nursing homes at this date will remain eligible for income support under the present rules.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security is today announcing further details of these new arrangements.

  Local authorities must have adequate resources for their new responsibilities. This will mean transferring to them an appropriate share of what the Government would otherwise have provided to support social security payments to people in residential and nursing home care. I shall be discussing the detailed financial implications with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the necessary decisions will be taken in the public expenditure survey next year.

  The new role of local authorities cannot be fully discharged without renewed emphasis on the importance of joint planning between local authorities and health
  536
  boards, with the full involvement of the private and voluntary sectors. The health and social needs of individuals with mental and physical disabilities are inseparable and the assessment procedures which local authorities will establish must reflect this fact. Joint planning is already an established feature of health and social work policy in Scotland and we look to local authorities, working with health boards and other agencies, to ensure that it is effective. The community health services will continue to play an essential part in meeting the medical and nursing needs of people outside hospital.

  Local authorities have traditionally been the biggest single provider of residential and community services in Scotland. More recently there has been growth in both the private and voluntary sectors and local authorities will want to make full use of these facilities in the interests of widening consumer choice. Local authorities should increasingly see themselves not just as providers but as enablers making full use of the range of provision available in the private and voluntary sector.

  Because of the importance of the new responsibility placed on local authorities I will be giving careful consideration to suitable planning and monitoring arrangements to allow the implementation of the new policy in Scotland to be evaluated. It will be important that local authorities should have clear plans for the development of community care services, worked out in collaboration with health boards and the independent sector. I will expect authorities to have such plans and propose to take powers to call for reports on community care services. The arrangements already in operation through the joint consultative group comprising representatives of the social work services group and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities will continue to have an important part to play.

  I have decided to make no change to the existing statutory functions of local authority and health boards for the registration and inspection of residential care and nursing homes.

  I am considering carefully the question of improving liaison between general practitioners and social work departments to ensure that the latter are aware of patients' needs for social care. This could be achieved by informal day-to-day contact as well as more formal procedures. I will be discussing with local authorities, the representative medical bodies and health boards how this could be best achieved.

  Finally, I propose to maintain the current arrangements which have generally worked well for sharing responsibility for services to the mentally ill between health and social work authorities, while improving further the arrangements for co-operation and co-ordination.

  A White Paper will be published in the near future about the Government's overall proposals in response to the Griffiths report, including implications for community care in Scotland. It will contain more detail about legislative requirements, planning and monitoring systems and the basis of the new funding arrangements.

  Warrant Sales
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will take steps to ensure that warrant sales will not be initiated against persons who have been duped by unscrupulous finance companies in Scotland.
  537
  Mr. Maude
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Government have no plans to restrict the use of warrant sales to enforce court orders in respect of consumer credit. The existing law, in particular the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and regulations under it, provides appropriate protection for the consumer. The Act lays down requirements for the proper execution of regulated consumer credit agreements. Improperly executed agreements are enforceable only at the discretion of the court.

  Dolphin Bathrooms (Finance Agreements)
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received concerning the company, Dolphin Bathrooms, Drumage road, Worcester, England, and the signing of uncompleted finance agreement by pensioners in Clydesdale; and what action he proposes to take.

  Mr. Maude
  I have been asked to reply.

  Neither my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry not my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has received such representations.

  Under the Consumer Credit Act a regulated agreement is not properly executed unless the document presented for signature embodies all the terms of the agreement, other than the implied terms. Improperly executed agreements are enforceable only at the discretion of the court.

  Action on individual cases of alleged abuse in relation to consumer credit is a matter for the Director General of Fair Trading and for the local authorities who both have relevant functions under the Consumer Credit Act 1974. If the hon. Gentleman has evidence of such abuse, I hope that he will give it to the Director General or to the trading standards department of the local authority concerned.

  Cairngorm Ski-Lift Company
  Dr. Moonie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what regular monitoring is carried out on the environmental management of the ski area managed by the Cairngorm Ski-Lift Company.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 12 June 1989]: Regular environmental monitoring of the area is carried out by the Highlands and Islands Development Board in line with the Cairngorm Estate management plan, a copy of which is lodged in the House of Commons Library.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Colonies (Pensions)
  Mr. Michael Stern
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how may ex-colonies now block the payment of pensions to United Kingdom citizens who worked in those colonies prior to independence; and if he will place in the Library a list of the countries concerned and the estimated pension arrears in each case.

  Mrs. Chalker
  There are no centralised comprehensive records of all those British nationals who are facing difficulty in obtaining their pensions from former colonies, or of the total sums involved. But we are aware of difficulties, of various sorts, in 10 former colonies. I shall place a list in the Library of the House.

  Cambodia
  Sir Russell Johnston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met a representative of the Cambodian Government based in Phnom Penh.

  Mr. Eggar
  We have no dealings with the so-called People's Republic of Kampuchea.

  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the extent to which the influence of Pol Pot and his associates can be eradicated from the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia.

  Mr. Eggar
  It is generally accepted that Pol Pot and his associates are totally unacceptable to the international community. Whether there are responsible Khmer Rouge elements who could be included in a quadripartite interim administration in Cambodia is primarily a matter for the Cambodian factions to decide.

  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what changes he proposes in the United Kingdom's policy on the representation of Cambodia at the United Nations in the light of the anticipated Vietnamese withdrawal.

  Mr. Eggar
  Cambodia's representation at the United Nations is one of many issues to be reviewed in the context of a comprehensive political settlement. At this stage, we see no reason to change our present policy.

  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's involvement in peace talks in Cambodia.

  Mr. Eggar
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) on 27 June.

  Mr. Andrew MacKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statement on relations with Cambodia.

  Mr. Eggar
  We have relations neither with the current regime in Phnom Penh nor with the coalition Government of Democratic Kampuchea. We look forward to an early comprehensive settlement leading to a representative Government in Cambodia and will continue to work actively to this end.

  Madrid Summit
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his best estimate of the time within which each of the conclusions reached at the Madrid summit will be implemented.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The conclusions of the Madrid European Council were placed in the Library of the House on 29 June. I have arranged for a list of those items where a timetable is indicated to be published in the Official Report.

  Following is the information:
  European Council, Madrid-26–27 June 1989 Conclusions: list of items where timetable indicated

  Internal market
  Commission invited to submit remaining proposals for completion of the market at the earliest opportunity
  539
  Fraud
  Council of Ministers invited to decide as soon as possible on Commission proposals for regulations.

  Taxation
  Council of Ministers asked to agree the broad lines of a solution on indirect tax by the end of 1989 and to reach agreement on taxation of savings before 1 July 1990.

  Audio-visual (Broadcasting)
  Council of Ministers invited to continue work on transfrontier broadcasting directive with a view to adopting it within cooperation procedure time limit (ie August-September).

  Social dimension
  Social Affairs Council to state position on work necessary to achieve social dimension of single market before Strasbourg European Council on 8–9 December.

  Environment
  Environment Council called on to examine proposal for a European Government Agency at the earliest opportunity.
  Commission asked to submit programme to protect environment in regions of Community affected by desertification, erosion and deforestation.

  Research and development
  Commission to submit new framework programme for 1990–94.

  Economic and monetary co-operation
  ECOFIN and General Affairs Councils, Commission, Central Bank Governors and Monetary Committee to adopt provisions necessary to begin stage 1 on 1 July 1990 and to prepare inter-governmental conference on subsequent stages, to be held after stage 1 begun.

  External
  Report on progress on EC-EFTA relations at December European Council; call for EC-ACP negotiations to be concluded by the end of the year.

  Mr. Favell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received on the outcome of the Madrid summit.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The Prime Minister's statement on 29 June was widely welcomed, in the House and in the country.

  West Africa
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what he will do to assist in the economic development of Nigeria, Ghana, The Gambia and Sierra Leone in the next three years.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We expect to maintain substantial programmes of technical co-operation for Nigeria, Ghana, The Gambia and Sierra Leone in the next three years. We also aim to continue with project aid in Ghana and The Gambia. In addition, we expect to provide balance of payments support for all four countries, on condition that economic adjustment programmes, supported by the IMF and IBRD are in place.

  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the present status of relations with Ghana.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Our relations with Ghana are close and friendly. The British Government play a significant role in support of Ghana's programme of economic re-structuring through our bilateral aid programme and the multilateral institutions. I visited Ghana from 28 to 30 June, accompanied by a group of British business men. During my visit I had discussions on a wide range of bilateral and multilateral issues with the Head of State, Flt. Lt. J. J. Rawlings, and other members of the Ghanaian Government.
  540
  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on current British-Nigerian relations.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We enjoy close and warm relations with Nigeria. Following the state visit to the United Kingdom by President Babangida in May, I led a large party of United Kingdom business men to Nigeria on 25 and 26 June. I held talks with President Babangida and other members of the Nigerian Government, and opened a hydrocarbons seminar sponsored jointly by the DTI and the Energy Industries Council. Both my visit and the seminar seem to have been highly successful.

  Semtex
  Mr. Holt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what statements have been issued by the Czechoslovakian Government regarding Semtex and the addition of a smelling agent.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The most recent public statement by the Czechoslovak Government on this subject was the joint United Kingdom-Czech letter addressed to the United Nations Secretary-General on 15 June which urged support for work on a Convention to mark all plastic and sheet explosives for detection. This followed our successful sponsorship of a Security Council resolution (No. 635) on 14 June. I am arranging for a copy of this letter and of SCR 635 to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what international negotiations he has had about the marking of Semtex and other high explosives; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mates
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what international negotiations he has had in respect of the marking of Semtex and other high explosives; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what international discussions he has had about the marking of Semtex and other high explosives; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We held preliminary talks with Czechoslovakia earlier this year on the marking of plastic explosives for the purposes of detection. Further negotiations in the United Nations Security Council in New York (initiated during the British presidency of the council in May) led to the unanimous adoption on 14 June of Security Council resolution No. 635, calling for the drafting of an international convention on the marking of plastic and sheet explosives. Work on this is already under way in the International Civil Aviation Organisation.

  Australia
  Mr. Franks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will report on the outcome of the visit of the Australian Prime Minister to Britain in June.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  Mr Hawke's visit last month was a great success. It was an indication of the desire of both Governments to give a new impetus to our bilateral
  541
  relations. The visit set the seal on the dynamic relationship with Australia which has developed in the past year or two.

  Mr. Day
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what measures are being undertaken to strengthen United Kingdom-Australian relations.

  Mr. Eggar
  Following the recent successful visit to Britain by the Prime Minister of Australia, we will be seeking to ensure that a regular momentum of ministerial and official exchanges is maintained. Visits to Australia in the past twelve months by my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Defence, for Trade and Industry, and for Education and Science have meant a thorough review of our relationship with Australia in these and other fields. We want to see the already strong co-operation in these areas maintained and, wherever possible, expanded.

  Lebanon
  Mr. Archer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has had discussions with his European Economic Community counterparts or members of the United Nations Security Council on seeking the early withdrawal of Syria from Lebanon.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Yes. We and our European partners have consistently sought the withdrawal from Lebanon of all non-Lebanese troops other than UNIFIL. We fully support the efforts of the Arab League to bring this about.

  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's policy towards the Arab League's initiative towards the Lebanon.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We and our European partners fully support the Arab League's efforts to find a solution to the crisis in Lebanon.

  Single Market
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had on the removal of barriers by 1992 with other European Economic Community Foreign Ministers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Chalker
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has reported to the House on the European Council at Madrid on 26–27 June, which reviewed progress on reducing technical and physical barriers within the Community.

  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps Her Majesty's Government are taking to ensure that the 1992 programme does not soak up staff resources in the European Commission in areas of shortage of expertise, including the development directorate.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We shall continue to press for the most effective and efficient use of Commission staff, including flexible deployment and improved career planning, to ensure that staffing levels correspond to the needs arising from the Commission's tasks.
  542
  Mr. Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the impact of the increase in the number of Green party representatives in the European Parliament on progress towards completion of the internal market.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The Green party is opposed to the single market programme. Its policies, if adopted, would sabotage the increasing prosperity which the single market will bring.

  Hong Kong
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received about the resettlement of the citizens of Hong Kong.

  Mr. Eggar
  We have received many representations on this subject. During his visit to Hong Kong from 2 to 4 July my right hon. and learned Friend was able to discuss this with the Governor and his advisers, with members of the Executive and Legislative Councils, and with representatives of a wide range of opinion within the Hong Kong community.

  Mr. Sumberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions have taken place with other Commonwealth countries concerning the future of Hong Kong.

  Mr. Eggar
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs discussed the future of Hong Kong with the Australian Prime Minister during his recent visit. We have also been in touch with our Australian and Canadian counterparts who will attend this week's economic summit in Paris. We shall raise the matter there and at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in the autumn.

  Mr. Haynes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further action the Government intend to take to solve the problem of Vietnamese refugees in Hong Kong.

  Mr. Eggar
  We are playing an active role in meetings of the Steering Committee set up by the international conference on Indo-Chinese refugees in Geneva on 13–14 June to maintain progress on the comprehensive plan of action adopted by the conference. We will seek to ensure, through bilateral and multilateral diplomacy, that agreements reached at the Conference are implemented as swiftly as possible and in a balanced way. As part of our contribution, we have agreed to resettle 2,000 Vietnamese refugees from Hong Kong over the next three years.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next intends to visit Hong Kong.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met the Governor of Hong Kong; and what subjects were discussed.

  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last visited Hong Kong; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs visited Hong Kong from 2 to 4 July and made a statement to the House on 5 July.

  International Debt
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects to meet other Foreign Ministers to discuss the problems of international debt; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Chalker
  My right hon. and learned Friend has met Foreign Ministers of other countries recently at the OECD Ministerial meeting in June, at a meeting between representatives of EC and eight Latin American countries on 15 April in Grenada, at the European Council meetings in Madrid on 26–27 June and at a number of bilateral meetings. Debt was just one important issue discussed at these meetings. The next occasion may be at the economic summit in Paris on 14 to 16 July.

  Human Rights
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the conference on security and co-operation in European human rights conference in Paris.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The Paris meeting of the CSCE conference on the human dimension saw the thorough examination of implementation by CSCE participating states of their human rights commitments and the tabling of some 36 new proposals. These will be considered at the next meeting of the conference on the human dimension in Copenhagen in June 1990.

  El Salvador
  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he supports the United States Congress proposal to link aid to El Salvador to respect for human rights.

  Mr. Eggar
  Respect for human rights is one of several factors we take into account when determining the level and nature of our own bilateral aid to individual countries.

  Poland
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will meet the Polish Foreign Minister to discuss Anglo-Polish relations.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs certainly hopes to meet the Polish Foreign Minister again, and expects to do so in the margins of the United Nations General Assembly meeting in September.

  Sir Bernard Braine
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Anglo-Polish relations.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  I refer my right hon. Friend to the replies that I gave on 6 April and 14 June.

  Middle East
  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on recent developments in the middle east peace process.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  In a major statement in Madrid last month the European Council appealed to the parties to 544
  seize the present opportunity to achieve peace. The Twelve made it clear that the election proposals put forward by Mr. Shamir could contribute to the peace process but that the PLO must participate in negotiations. We fear that the Likud decisions last week, if translated into Israeli Government policy, will make progress much more difficult.

  Mr. David Martin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the middle east peace process.

  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further action will be taken within the foreseeable future either by the United Kingdom or the Community in pursuance of a settlement of the Palestinian question.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The European Council last month appealed to the parties to seize the present opportunity to make progress towards peace and set out the views of the Twelve on how this might be achieved.

  Argentina
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress he has made towards restoring diplomatic relations with Argentina.

  Mr. Eggar
  It is premature to think of restoring diplomatic relations with Argentina; progress must first be made on removing practical barriers and increasing confidence.

  But we have noted remarks made by President Menem and Foreign Minister Cavallo during and after the inauguration. We have consistently stressed our readiness to work for more normal relations with Argentina by making progress on practical matters while excluding sovereignty. If the Argentines are now moving towards that position, then a prospect for progress may be opening up.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what response Her Majesty's Government have made to the offer of President Carlos Menem of Argentina in relation to talks on the resumption of bilateral relations.

  Mr. Eggar
  We have as yet received no formal proposal from President Menem but we have noted reports that he would be willing to move towards a resumption of diplomatic relations.

  We have consistently expressed our readiness to work for more normal relations with Argentina by making progress on practical issues, while excluding sovereignty. If the Argentines are now moving towards that position, then a prospect for progress may be opening up.

  It is premature to be talking of a resumption of diplomatic relations; progress must first be made on removing practical barriers to trade and communications and on rebuilding confidence.

  China
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he is considering trade sanctions against the Government of China.
  545
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he is considering trade sanctions against the Government of China.

  Mr. Eggar
  No, for the reasons given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 22 June.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with EEC ministers on events now taking place in China; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  The events in China were discussed by Foreign Ministers of the Twelve on 12 June, when it was agreed that the Presidency should carry out a demarche stressing the Twelve's grave concern at the continuing repression in China. The subject was discussed again at the European Council in Madrid, resulting in the declaration on China of 27 June.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met the ambassador of the People's Republic of China; and what subjects were discussed.

  Mr. Eggar
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley) on 16 June.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further representations he has made to the Chinese authorities appealing for commutation of recent death sentences on humanitarian grounds.

  Mr. Eggar
  On 17 June the EC Twelve made a demarche to the Chinese authorities appealing for clemency for the first persons sentenced to death in connection with the demonstrations. On 21 June the Foreign and Commonwealth Office issued a statement deeply deploring the first executions and renewing our appeal to the Chinese authorities not to persecute those who had campaigned for their democratic rights. On 27 June the European Council also expressed its dismay and urged that the executions be stopped.

  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions are currently taking place aimed at achieving a united international stance towards recent developments in the People's Republic of China.

  Mr. Eggar
  We have kept in close contact with our friends and partners over reactions to events in China. The European Council issued a declaration on China on 27 June. China will also be discussed at the forthcoming economic summit in Paris.

  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has been making to the Government of China on the subject of human rights.

  Mr. Eggar
  We and our EC partners have firmly condemned the brutal actions of the Chinese Government. I made this plain to the Chinese charge d'affaires on 5 June. On 27 June the European Council adopted a declaration on China which reiterated our condemnation and called on the Chinese authorities to respect human 546
  rights. In accordance with this declaration, ambassadors representing the Twelve have been instructed to seek the admission of independent observers to attend trials and visit prisons.

  South Africa
  Mr. Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the current policy of Her Majesty's Government on meeting the African National Congress, the United Democratic Front and the South African Government.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Our policy is to maintain contact with all shades of opinion in South Africa.

  Mr. Andy Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what continued pressure the Government is exercising to secure the release of Mr. Nelson Mandela and the lifting of restrictions on the African National Congress.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We continue to urge the South African Government to release, immediately and unconditionally, Mr. Nelson Mandela and other political prisoners and to unban the African National Congress and other political parties.

  Mr. Robert Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his meeting with F. W. de Klerk of South Africa.

  Mrs. Chalker
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and I held talks with Mr. F. W. de Klerk which were friendly and businesslike. They covered a range of issues, notably progress towards Namibian independence and the process of constitutional reform in South Africa. We naturally took the opportunity to express concern for the unconditional release of Mr. Nelson Mandela and other political prisoners, the lifting of the state of emergency and many other issues.

  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have recently been made to the South African Government with a view to ending apartheid in that country.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We take every opportunity to encourage change in South Africa leading to the peaceful replacement of apartheid by a non-racial, representative system of government acceptable to all South Africans.

  Israel
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on the United Kingdom's relations with Israel.

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Anglo-Israeli relations.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Relations with Israel are good and we are in close touch with the Israeli Government on Arab-Israel and other issues.

  Mr. Richard Page
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to visit the Israeli occupied territories and the Gaza Strip.
  547
  Mr. Waldegrave
  None at present.

  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will seek an undertaking from the Israeli Government to renounce unlawful violence against the population of areas under Israeli military occupation.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The Israeli authorities are well aware of our concern at their use of excessive force in the occupied territories.

  Eastern Europe
  Sir George Young
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on British relations with eastern Europe.

  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on British relations with the countries of eastern Europe.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  British relations with eastern Europe vary from country to country. We have closest relations with countries such as Hungary and Poland which are making substantial steps forward towards freedom and democracy.

  Pakistan
  Mr. Galloway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with the Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs had talks with Prime Minister Bhutto on 6 July in London and with the Pakistan Foreign Minister on 7 July. They discussed a wide range of issues including United Kingdom-Pakistan relations, Afghanistan and other regional developments. My right hon. and learned Friend also made it clear we are looking forward to seeing Pakistan rejoin the Commonwealth.

  Angola
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to assist in the peace process in Angola; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We warmly welcome the progress made towards internal reconciliation in Angola, notably the meeting between President dos Santos and Dr. Savimbi on 22 June and the agreement to implement a ceasefire from 24 June. We are urging both sides to respect the ceasefire and to continue to show flexibility in the difficult negotiations that lie ahead.

  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his latest assessment of the prospects for internal reconciliation in Angola.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We warmly welcome the progress made towards internal reconciliation in Angola, notably the meeting between President dos Santos and Dr. Savimbi on 548
  22 June and the agreement to implement a ceasefire from 24 June. We are urging both sides to respect the ceasefire and to continue to show flexibility in the difficult negotiations that lie ahead.

  Hungary
  Mr. Brandon-Bravo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met representatives of the Hungarian Government; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. Mans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Anglo-Hungarian relations.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  My right hon. and learned Friend met Hungarian State Minister, Imre Pozsgay, on 25 April. I have just returned from a three-day visit to Hungary where I met Prime Minister Nemeth, Mr. Pozsgay and a wide range of Government party and Opposition leaders. I also laid a wreath at the grave of Imre Nagy and placed flowers at the memorial to Raoul Wallenberg. I expressed the strong support of the Government—and, I believe, of the House—for the process of reform taking place in Hungary.

  Drugs
  Mr. Summerson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what measures are being taken to assist the governments of drug producing countries in the destruction of drugs.

  Mr. Eggar
  The United Kingdom has contributed some £10·7 million since 1982 to the United Nations fund for drug abuse control, which is the main multilateral channel for providing assistance to developing countries in combating drug production. The United Kingdom also spent around £3 million in 1988–89 on bilateral projects. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary recently announced a series of further measures to combat drug production, trafficking and consumption, including an international conference to be held in the United Kingdom in 1990.

  Central America
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has on progress towards the establishment of the central American Parliament.

  Mr. Eggar
  There has been no progress since my reply to the hon. Member's question of 27 October 1988. The Costa Rican Parliament has yet to ratify the treaty establishing the central American Parliament.

  Nicaragua
  Mr. McKelvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the Government have any plans to send an official group of observers to the Nicaraguan elections.

  Mr. Eggar
  We have told the Nicaraguan Government that we would be ready to appoint an official observer if an invitation is received. We await their response.
  549
  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he is satisfied with the progress towards democracy being made by Nicaragua.

  Mr. Eggar
  No. When my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister saw President Ortega on 8 May, she made clear her concern that recent legislative reforms fall far short of the democratisation promised and were potentially restrictive. Recent events have tended to confirm our fears. We are also concerned at Nicaraguan attempts to impose unacceptable restrictions on diplomats' ability to report on the election campaign. We hope that steps will be taken by the Nicaraguan Government to rectify this situation.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will visit Nicaragua in the near future to discuss democracy in that country.

  Mr. Eggar
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has no plans at present to visit Nicaragua.

  Refuseniks
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made to the USSR about the difficulties of refuseniks.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We press the Soviet authorities regularly on individual refusenik cases and of the wider need for institutionalised reform. Over the last year at least 68 long-term refuseniks about whom we have made representations have been allowed to leave the Soviet Union.

  Lebanon
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many representations he has received since 1 January on the plight of British hostages believed to he held in the Lebanon.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We have received a number of representations from hon. Members, members of the public and interested organisations on the plight of the British hostages detained in Lebanon.

  Terrorism
  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy to stress the importance of closer co-operation in the defeat of international terrorism at the next appropriate international gathering.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  It is a central strand of our policy to promote international co-operation to combat terrorism. We have taken, and will continue to take, a leading role to this effect in international organisations. The economic summit Seven group, which meets this weekend, will provide another opportunity to press for closer co-operation.

  Antarctica
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress was made in discussions with the Prime Minister of Australia concerning the convention on Antarctica.
  550
  Mr. Eggar
  In discussion with the Australian Prime Minister and his colleagues, we said that we still believed the convention offered the best means of protecting the Antarctic environment. We made it clear that we intended to ratify the convention and that we were prepared to consider further measures for the protection of the Antarctic environment, but not at the expense of the convention. For their part, the Australian Ministers explained their view of the Antarctic minerals convention and their decision not to sign it.

  Slavery
  Mr. Patnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress is being made in achieving international co-ordination to tackle the problem of child slavery.

  Mr. Eggar
  Over 85 countries are parties to the Slavery Convention of 1926 (as amended by the Protocol of 1953), and 102 countries to the supplementary convention on the abolition of slavery, the slave trade and institutions and practices similar to slavery.

  Since 1974, a United Nations working group on slavery has met annually to review the problems of slavery, including child slavery, and has recommended remedial action.

  We hope that the draft United Nations convention on the rights of the child will shortly be adopted and will further strengthen international efforts to combat child slavery in all its forms.

  Soviet Union (Train Disaster)
  Mr. Heddle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what medical assistance was made available by Her Majesty's Government to the Soviet Union after the recent train disaster there.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We supplied air beds, artificial ventilators and other urgently needed equipment and pharmaceuticals to a value of £68,000. We also helped with arrangements for two teams of specialists from Bristol, Leeds, London, Manchester and South Grampian to travel to Chelyabinsk to help treat the victims. (One of the teams was organised by the World Association for Emergency and Disaster Medicine). We also offered to arrange treatment in the United Kingdom.

  Brazil
  Sir Anthony Meyer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Brazilian Government on environmental matters.

  Mr. Eggar
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Lord President to the hon. Member for Barnsley West and Penistone (Mr. McKay) on 27 June. During his visit my right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development signed a memorandum of understanding on environmental co-operation with the Brazilian Government. In addition, we have had a number of detailed discussions at ministerial and official level with the Brazilian authorities on these matters in recent months.

  European Parliament
  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the consequences for European Community policies of the new political composition of the European Parliament.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We hope that the European Parliament will continue to make its full contribution to the Community legislative process and to effective interinstitutional co-operation in the Community.

  Iraq (Kurdish Minority)
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what effect the Iraqi treatment of its Kurdish minority has had on British relations with Iraq; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  We have repeatedly expressed to the Iraqi Government our concern for the treatment of the Kurdish community in Iraq and the need to respect their human rights. We firmly believe that the only way of infiuenceing Iraq's attitude to these problems is by maintaining an effective working relationship.

  World Economic Summit
  Mr. Stevens
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will raise the issue of international debt at the world economic summit.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We expect international debt to be one of the important subjects covered at the economic summit.

  Guatemala
  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent information he has about disappearances of political activists in Guatemala.

  Mr. Eggar
  Our information is that disappearances in Guatemala are occurring at a rate of about 25 a month. A number of these are attributable to criminal activity but there is little doubt that many are politically motivated. Although the numbers are greatly reduced compared with the early 80s, the situation is a cause of continuing concern. Like the UN special adviser on human rights in Guatemala, we do not, however, believe that the present civilian Government either condone or carry out abductions.

  Namibia
  Mr. Kirkhope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on the current state of implementation of the Namibian peace accords.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We welcome recent progress on the implementation of the UN plan for Namibian independence.

  Immigration
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the current delays in preparing explanatory statements for refusal of entry clearance in(a) Bombay and (b) Islamabad.
  552
  Mr. Eggar
  On average, explanatory statements are prepared and forwarded to the appellate authorities within three months of receipt of an appeal in Bombay and within four to six weeks in Islamabad.

  Individual cases may take longer, depending on what further inquiries the entry clearance officer needs to make in the light of the grounds for appeal.

  Vietnam
  Mr. Maxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what subjects were discussed when he last met the Foreign Minister of Vietnam.

  Mr. Eggar
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs last met the Foreign Minister of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam on 28 June. They discussed how to follow up the agreements reached in Geneva for resolving the problem of Vietnamese boat people and the prospects for a comprehensive political settlement in Cambodia.

  Cuba
  Mr. Batiste
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the current state of United Kingdom-Cuban relations.

  Mr. Eggar
  We maintain normal diplomatic relations with Cuba. The Cuban First Vice Foreign Minister, Dr. Jose Viera Linarea, is visiting the United Kingdom from 9 to 15 July.

  EC Social Charter
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if, when he next meets West German Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher, the European Community social charter will be discussed.

  Mrs. Chalker
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs will next see Herr Genscher and other EC colleagues at the economic summit in Paris on 14 to 16 July. The social charter will not be on the agenda.

  Rain Forests
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what advice Her Majesty's embassy and consulates in Brazil have given United Kingdom companies seeking to carry on economic enterprises within areas of rain forest.

  Mr. Eggar
  Our officials are in regular contact with companies involved in the rain forest. As my right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development pointed out during his recent visit to Brazil, it is for the Brazilian authorities to decide what action they should take to enforce their laws. However, all companies should be concerned not only to comply with the laws of the country in which they operate but also to ensure that their operations are environmentally friendly.

  Bulgaria
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Government of Bulgaria about its
  553
  expulsion of large numbers of the Turkish ethnic minority in that country; and what consultations he has had with other European Economic Community Governments regarding assistance to Turkey to meet the costs of resettlement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame Jill Knight) on 10 July.

  We have discussed the political aspects of this issue with our EC partners, who, like us, are particularly concerned about developments in the region. As yet, no decision has been taken about EC aid for the resettlement of refugees from Bulgaria.

  UNESCO
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has any plans for renewing the United Kingdom's membership of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  We are following developments at UNESCO closely and hope that the director general and member states will be able to bring about the changes that are needed. Before we can consider reviewing our position on membership, we will need to be convinced that fundamental reforms are being implemented both in UNESCO's administration and in its programmes. This will certainly not be possible until after UNESCO's general conference in November, which will adopt, and approve funding for, the organisation's new medium-term plan for 1990–95 and its programme and budget for 1990–91.

  Second World War (Records)
  Mr. Churchill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will now authorise the release through the Public Records Office of the special operations executive records from the second world war; and why none of these records has been made public to date.

  Mr. Eggar
  No. Established criteria provide for certain records to be retained or closed for periods longer than 30 years under appropriate sections of the Public Records Act 1958 as amended.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Large Loaves
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will investigate the effects of the linkage between Stewarts and Crazy Prices in Northern Ireland and Associated British Foods-Allied Bakeries on the price of large loaves in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Maude
  I have been asked to reply.

  Under United Kingdom competition legislation, it falls to the Director-General of Fair Trading to keep commercial activities in the United Kingdom under review. The director general's office has considered the competitive situation in the retail sale of bread in Northern Ireland including the operating relationship between Associated British Foods-Allied Bakers and Stewarts and
  554
  Crazy Prices, and has taken into account the report of the General Consumer Council for Northern Ireland, published on 29 June, on the price of a large loaf in Northern Ireland. The director general does not consider that formal action under the competition legislation is warranted. If the hon. Member has any evidence of monopoly abuse, anti-competitive or restrictive trade practices he should draw it to the attention of the Director General of Fair Trading.

  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will take steps to ensure genuine competition in the retail sale of large loaves in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Maude
  I have been asked to reply.

  Under United Kingdom competition legislation it falls to the Director General of Fair Trading to keep commercial activities in the United Kingdom under review. The director general's office has considered the competitive situation in the retail sale of bread in Northern Ireland, and has taken into account the report of the General Consumer Council for Northern Ireland, published on 29 June, on the price of a large loaf in Northern Ireland but does not consider that formal action under the competition legislation is warranted. If the hon. Member has any evidence of monopoly abuse, anticompetitive or restrictive trade practices he should draw it to the attention of the Director General of Fair Trading.

WALES

  Housing
  Mr. Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (I) what was the area of other land (hectares) disposed of to private developers, including housing associations, for housing purposes by each local authority in Wales and for Wales as a whole during (i) 1980–81, (ii) 1981–82, I hi) 1982–83, (iv) 1983–84, (v) 1984–85, (vi) 1985–86, (vii) 1986–87, (viii) 1987–88 and (ix) 1988–89;

  (2) what was the number of (a) denial and (b) admission response notices issued for shared ownership by each local authority in Wales and for Wales as a whole during (i) 1980–81, (ii) 1981–82, (iii) 1982–83, (iv) 1983–84, (v) 1984–85, (vi) 1985–86, (vii) 1986–87. (viii) 1987–88 and (ix) 1988–89;

  (3) what was the number of completed (a) right-t o-buy full ownership sales and (b) other sales of (1) houses and (2) flats by each local authority in Wales and for Wales as a whole during (i) 1980–81, (ii) 1981–82, (iii) 1982–83, (iv) 1983–84, (v) 1984–85, (vi) 1985–86, (vii) 1986–87, (viii) 1987–88 and (ix) 1988–89;

  (4) what was the number of completed disposals of council dwellings (a) built for sale, (b) improved for sale, (c) sold unimproved for improvement by purchaser, (d) sold to sitting tenants and (e) other sales for (i) full ownership and (ii) shared ownership by each local authority in Wales and for Wales as a whole during (1) 1980–81, (2) 1981–82, (3) 1982–83, (4) 1983–84, (5) 1984–85, (6) 1985–86, (7) 1986–87, (8) 1987–88 and (9) 1988–89;

  (5) what was the number of completed right-to-buy sales where the authority does not own the freehold for (a) houses and (b) flats by each local authority in Wales and for Wales as a whole during (i) 1980–81, (ii) 1981–82, (iii) 1982–83, (iv) 1983–84, (v) 1984–85, (vi) 1985–86, (vii) 1986–87, (viii) 1987–88 and (ix) 1988–89;
  555
  (6) what was the number of completed right-to-buy sales with part 5 or section 32 mortgages for (a) flats and (b) houses by each local authority in Wales and for Wales as a whole during (i) 1980–81, (ii) 1981–82, (iii) 1982–83, (iv) 1983–84, (v) 1984–85, (vi) 1985–86, (vii) 1986–87, (viii) 1987–88 and (ix) 1988–89 for (1) right-to-buy sales and (2) other sales;

  (7) what was the number of denial response notices issued on the right to full ownership by each local authority in Wales and for Wales as a whole during (a) 1980–81, (b) 1981–82, (c) 1982–83, (d) 1983–84, (e) 1984–85, (f) 1985–86, (g) 1986–87, (h) 1987–88 and (i) 1988–89;

  (8) what was the number of dwellings where right-to-buy claims were denied under paragraph 11 of schedule 5 to the Housing Act 1985, as amended, included at section Al by each local authority in Wales and for Wales as a whole during (a) 1980–81, (b) 1981–82, (c) 1982–83, (d) 1983–84, (e) 1984–85, (f) 1985–86, (g) 1986–87, (h) 1987–88 and (i) 1988–89;

  (9) what was the number of right-to-buy full ownership claims for (a) houses and (b) flats received by each local authority in Wales and for Wales as a whole during (i) 1980–81, (ii) 1981–82, (iii) 1982–83, (iv) 1983–84, (v) 1984–85, (vi) 1985–86, (vii) 1986–87, (viii) 1987–88 and (ix) 1988–89;

  (10) what was the number of right-to-buy shared ownership leases granted for (a) houses and (b) flats by each local authority in Wales arid for Wales as a whole during (i) 1980–81, (ii) 1981–82, (iii) 1982–83, (iv) 1983–84, (v) 1984–85, (vi) 1985–86, (vii) 1986–87, (viii) 1987–88 and (ix) 1988–89;

  (11) what was the number of right to shared ownership leases granted for (a) houses and (b) flats with a part V or section 32 mortgage in each local authority in Wales and for Wales as a whole during (i) 1980–81, (ii) 1981–82, (iii) 1982–83, (iv) 1983–84, (v) 1984–85, (vi) 1985–86, (vii) 1986–87, (viii) 1987–88 and (ix) 1988–89;

  (12) what was the selling price, net of discount, of completed disposals of council dwellings (a) built for sale, (b) improved for sale, (c) sold unimproved for improvement by purchaser, (d) sold to sitting tenants, (e) other sales and (f) the total for (1) full ownership and (2) shared ownership by each local authority in Wales and for Wales as a whole during (i) 1980–81, (ii) 1981–82, (iii) 1982–83, (iv) 1983–84, (v) 1984–85, (vi) 1985–86, (vii) 1986–87, (viii) 1987–88 and (ix) 1988–89;

  (13) what was the total value of right-to-buy discount for each local authority in Wales and for Wales as a whole during (i) 1980–81, (ii) 1981–82, (iii) 1982–83, (iv) 1983–84, (v) 1984–85, (vi) 1985–86, (vii) 1986–87, (viii) 1987–88 and (ix) 1988–89;

  Mr. Peter Walker
  A limited amount of the information is already published in "Local Housing Statistics". The rest can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Council House Sales
  Mr. Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the number of accepted right-to-buy applications being dealt with but not yet completed at end of quarter for each local authority in Wales and for Wales as a whole.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The information requested is given in the following table.
  556

  Accepted right to buy applications being dealt with but not yet completed at end of March 1989.

  Welsh District

  Number

  Aberconwy

  219

  Alyn and Deeside

  516

  Arfon

  343

  Blaenau Gwent

  544

  Brecknock

  219

  Cardiff

  2,466

  Carmarthen

  27

  Ceredigion

  344

  Colwyn

  —

  Cynon Valley

  407

  Delyn

  188

  Dinefwr

  32

  Dwyfor

  44

  Glyndwr

  186

  Islwyn

  412

  Llanelli

  683

  Lliw Valley

  347

  Meirionnydd

  120

  Merthyr Tydfil

  384

  Monmouth

  572

  Montgomeryshire

  262

  Neath

  414

  Newport

  1,206

  Ogwr

  808

  Port Talbot

  397

  Preseli

  107

  Radnorshire

  39

  Rhondda

  136

  Rhuddlan

  224

  Rhymney Valley

  499

  South Pembrokeshire

  177

  Swansea

  1,265

  Taff-Ely

  1,021

  Torfaen

  1,515

  Vale of Glamorgan

  844

  Wrexham Maelor

  1,393

  Ynys Mon

  616

  WALES

  18,976

  Planning Inquiries
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the number of planning inquiries held by his Department in the last year, the average for each of the past five years, the numbers of those appeals that were allowed and the numbers of those allowed appeals when the relevant local council's planning officer had recommended that the application be allowed.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  In 1988, 178 planning inquiries were heard and 67 appeals were allowed following inquiries. Over the years 1983–87 inclusive an annual average of 179 inquiries was heard, and an average of 78 appeals was allowed following inquiries. Information about the numbers of appeals allowed when the relevant local council's planning officer had recommended that the application be allowed is not recorded centrally.

  Housing Land
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if his Department uses the same method of calculating the adequacy of housing land at planning inquiries as the methodology specified for local councils to use by Welsh Office circular 47/84, "Land for Housing in Wales."

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The methodology suggested for calculating the adequacy of housing land supply in Wales
  557
  remains as set down in Welsh Office circular 47/84. The advice on methodology in circular 47/84 applies equally to decisions made by myself and my inspectors.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the adequacy of housing land in(a) Cardiff and (b) Wales under the latest calculations using the methodology laid down in Welsh Office circular 47/84, "Land for Housing in Wales."

  Mr. Peter Walker
  Up-to-date figures on housing land supply in Cardiff are not available centrally but a joint land availability study for the county of South Glamorgan is expected to be published soon.

  Studies for most other counties have been published in recent years but it is not possible to calculate a single figure for Wales as a whole.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales why the Land Authority for Wales uses a method of calculating the adequacy of housing land different from that laid down in Welsh Office circular 47/84, "Land for Housing in Wales"; and how he ensures that no confusion or distortion is achieved by the use of the different methods of calculation.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  Joint land availability studies published by the Land Authority for Wales in co-operation with house builders' representatives and local authorities normally use the method suggested in Welsh Office circular 47/84. However, in certain circumstances, especially where the structure plan is out of date, the group may agree to present an alternative methodology if they believe this is appropriate. The reasoning is fully explained in the published report and any differences of view among group members recorded.

  Water Undertakings
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his policy on the disclosure of information by(a) Welsh Water and (b) other water public limited companies operating wholly or partly in Wales in the event of the privatisation of the existing water authorities; and what changes are proposed to the information water authorities currently have to make available to the public.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The underlying policy on the disclosure of information by privatised water and sewerage undertakers will be that applicable to registered limited companies rather than that appropriate to public corporations. In addition the Water Act 1989, earlier water legislation, and the conditions of appointment of water and sewerage undertakers under the 1989 Act, contain a wide range of requirements for making information available to the public, either direct or through myself, the National Rivers Authority, or the director general. For example, water undertakers will be required for the first time to publish information about the quality of water supplied for domestic purposes, both regularly and in response to individual requests for information. The National Rivers Authority will be required to maintain a public register including matters such as details of analyses of samples of effluent discharged by sewerage undertakers into controlled waters. The director general's register, which will also be a public document, will contain all key matters concerning appointments, and including information such as 558
  undertakings given under section 20(5)(b) relating to compliance programmes. Under section 34, I may arrange for the publication of information connected with the carrying out of water and sewerage functions as may appear to be in the public interest. And the director general's annual report, which must be laid before Parliament, will contain a general survey of developments within the scope of his functions.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what obligations he imposes on statutory water companies operating partly or wholly in Wales to disclose information about their structure, finances and activities; and what are the comparable obligations of private limited companies.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The requirements for disclosure of information about the structure, finances and activities of the statutory water companies and private limited companies are set out in company legislation.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he will make it his policy that full information should be accessible to the public in respect of statutory water companies operating partly or wholly in Wales to at least the same extent as any ordinary public limited company.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The Government regard the statutory water company model as an outdated method of running a business. I hope that statutory water companies will take early advantage of the opportunity offered by the Water Act 1989 to become registered companies under a simplified conversion procedure, which will bring them within the scope of the full range of modern company legislation.

  NHS Beds
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many National Health Service beds(a) in Wales and (b) by health authority are provided in accommodation built (i) before 1914, (ii) before 1939, (iii) between 1939 and 1979 and (iv) since 1979.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  This information is not available centrally.

  Schools
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many schools currently in use in Wales, and by local education authority, were built(a) before 1914, (b) before 1939, (c) between 1939 and 1979, and (d) since 1979 showing for each category the numbers of primary, secondary or special schools, and the total number of pupils.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  Details of the ages of school buildings are not held centrally.

  Sewage Treatment Works (Rhymney Valley)
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list in the Official Report the applications he has received for the lowering of discharge consents of sewage works in the Rhymney valley.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  I have received two applications for time-limited variations of consent conditions as follows:
  559

  Draethen STW

  Rudry STW

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list those sewage treatment works in the Rhymney valley which have failed to meet their discharge consents during the last 12-month period for which figures are available.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  All sewage treatment works in the Rhymney valley met their consent conditions during 1988 (the latest period for which figures are available).

  Community Care
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement about future arrangements for promoting effective community care.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The Government have laid the foundations in Wales over recent years for the effective development of community care for those who are not cared for appropriately in hospitals or residential care.

  In the past, services for people with mental illness and mental handicaps have been imbalanced and poorly distributed across Wales. People have had to travel too far to receive care and the choice has too often been between care in isolated institutions, or of little or no support in people's own homes and communities.

  The all-Wales mental handicap strategy has, over the past six years, made possible an unprecedented expansion of community services. For example, the number of people receiving support in their own homes has risen from just 41 in 1982–83 to 1,898 in 1987–88; the number of places in ordinary housing for adults from 66 to 614; the number of places in short-term care in domestic settings from 34 to 404; and the number of people receiving new community-based day-care services from 37 to 809. This has made possible a substantial reduction in the number inappropriately cared for in institutions, with a drop between 1983 and 1987 of almost 20 per cent. in the number of mental handicap hospital in-patients, and a fall of nearly 60 per cent. in the number of children in such hospitals. To build on this success, I have allocated £18,658 million towards the development of the new pattern of services in 1989–90, an increase of nearly £5 million over expenditure in 1988–89.

  In June this year I published, following a highly successful public consultation, the all-Wales strategy for the development of mental illness services. This builds on the significant expansion of new patterns of services which has come about in recent years and which has been assisted by the recurrent additional investment of £13 million which the Welsh Office has made available. The strategy lays special emphasis on fully effective care and support for the most vulnerable, including those who require support in their own homes and communities after periods of care as hospital in-patients. I look forward to the joint plans from health and social services authorities and other agencies which the strategy calls for, and which will be the basis for development and investment by all concerned, including additional support from the Welsh Office, to secure the development throughout Wales of quality local services.

  The greatest challenge in health and social care facing us in Wales, as elsewhere in the western world, is providing adequately for increasing numbers of very elderly people. Our massive investment in health care, including
  560
  community health services, with an increase in expenditure in real terms of almost 45 per cent. since 1978–79, has led to record levels of patient care from which the elderly in particular have benefited. There have also been significant developments in personal social services based on an increase in net expenditure in real terms since 1978–79 of 40 per cent. This has made possible, for example, a 65 per cent. increase in the provision of aids to people of 65 and over, and a 40 per cent. increase in the number of home helps. In addition, there has been an unprecedented expansion of sheltered housing; since 1984–85 more than 4,000 additional units have been provided by housing associations and local authorities.

  To help health and social service authorities and other agencies to develop services further, in 1987 my Department launched an initiative on the care of the elderly. This aims to stimulate new developments by grant-aiding demonstration and innovative projects delivering services in a more flexible, co-ordinated and cost-effective way. Some 30 projects are now being funded for up to five years at a total cost of £6,261,000. We are appraising continuously the progress of the initiative and, in considering projects submitted next year, we will be placing more emphasis on encouraging the development of domiciliary care. My Department is undertaking surveys of services for disabled people provided by district health authorities, local authorities and voluntary organisations in Wales. Their needs will also be examined in the next round of health authorities' strategic planning. The results of those exercises will be available next year, but preliminary guidance for planning purposes will be issued shortly.

  Last year I introduced a new grant scheme to support training for local authority staff and others who deal with child abuse. I have expanded the programme this year to provide grants totalling £483,000. I have also approved a new initiative to improve services to families with children under five. Under this, grant totalling up to £400,000 will be available to the voluntary sector over three years. I am considering carefully what might be done more generally to promote better child care and support for families.

  These distinctive strategies and initiatives for Wales have been developed by taking advantage of my responsibility for a wide range of health and social services, housing and related programmes and the direct relationship between my Department and the key agencies. Nonetheless, those who need help with social care, over and above that which their families and friends provide, have had to look primarily to two separate sources: to the social services authorities for home care, day care and some residential care services, but to social security offices for payments towards the cost of places in private and voluntary residential care and nursing homes. In Wales, as elsewhere in the United Kingdom, this has led to a significant and unplanned expansion of residential and nursing home care which has not been subject to any assessment of individuals' need for such provision. This has not enabled the public agencies to secure the best packages of care for all individuals, although many have undoubtedly benefited from residential and nursing home care, and has worked against the generally accepted objective of securing, wherever appropriate, that people are supported in their own homes and communities.

  The Government have been reviewing these arrangements following Sir Roy Griffiths's report "Community Care: Agenda for Action" which was published in March

  561
  1988. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security have today announced the Government's conclusions. The main conclusions apply equally to Wales. In particular, I propose that in future there shall be a single budget for those seeking help from public funds for the cost of social care, whether in their own homes or in a residential or nursing home, which will enable decisions to be taken about the right package of care to meet an individual's particular needs at any point in time. The proposals will remove any perverse incentive for people to go into residential or nursing home care regardless of their needs.

  The delivery of effective community care depends on close co-operation at all levels between personal social services and health authorities, family practitioner services, housing authorities and associations, and the voluntary and private sectors, and on all concerned having close regard to the views of those who benefit from services, including any informal carers. The experience of the existing strategies and initiatives in Wales shows that the right place for leadership in respect of the public funding of social care rests with the social services authorities. I propose, therefore, that they should have the responsibility and the budget for such care and other costs not met by the social security system. Community health and family practitioner services will continue to have responsibility and the budgets to ensure the provision of essential health care for those who need it.

  In addition to the joint plans already required under the all-Wales mental illness and mental handicap strategies, I propose that social care plans for all groups should be produced by the social services authorities, in collaboration with other relevant agencies and interests. Detailed guidance on the arrangements for these plans will be issued in due course.

  Local authorities are increasingly seeing the value of securing effective social care from whatever source can best provide it, rather than automatically providing it
  562
  directly themselves. There are good examples in Wales of the use of voluntary and private sector providers in this way. I shall expect local authorities to build on this experience. In this spirit, it is proposed that the local authorities should continue to meet the costs of people in their own residential homes, subject to their existing power to make charges according to residents' ability to pay. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security is not proposing any change to the benefit rules for the residents of such homes.

  As in the rest of Great Britain, those already in registered residential and nursing home care before the new arrangements come into effect will remain eligible for financial help under the existing benefit arrangements.

  With resources transferred from the social security programme, I shall make available additional resources to the local authorities commensurate with their new responsibilities. There will be detailed discussions with representatives of the local authorities and other key interests about the financial and wider implications of these proposals to ensure the successful introduction of the new arrangements, which I propose should take effect from April 1991.

  The action which has already been taken in Wales to promote more effective community care has been widely commended. It has shown that it is possible for the Welsh Office, working in close co-operation with health and social services authorities and other agencies, to provide a favourable context for the provision of quality services which meet individual's needs in a sensitive way and which help and support, rather than undermine, informal networks of care provided by families and friends, which for most people will always constitute by far the greater part of the social care. The arrangements I have described in this statement will build on these achievements and enable all concerned to ensure that the people of Wales have every opportunity to preserve their independence for as long as possible as valued members of their communities.

HEALTH

  Immunisation
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish in the Official Report the uptake figures for measles, mumps and rubella immunisation in each health authority in England for each of the last 10 years and at the latest available date.

  Mr. Freeman
  The available information is not precisely in the form requested. Information on mumps has been collected only from 1 October 1988 with the introduction of the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine. This data will be available later in the year. Two-year uptake rates for measles are available only from 1984, by district health authority, as these authorities were formed only in 1982 as a result of the NHS restructuring. Rubella uptake rates are available only nationally. The available information is given in the table.

  1978 to 1987–88

  Rubella, uptake rate—schoolgirls aged 14 years Percentage of population immunised in England

  Per cent.

  1978

  74

  1979

  78

  1980

  84

  1981

  84

  1982

  83

  1983

  84

  1984

  86

  1985

  86

  1986

  87

  1987–88

  86

  Vaccination and immunization—measles

  Completed primary courses—two year uptake rate by DHA

  11984

  1985

  1986

  1987–88

  Northern RHA

  268

  272

  275

  277

  Hartlepool

  253

  253

  258

  260

  North Tees

  61

  65

  71

  76

  South Tees

  254

  255

  65

  68

  East Cumbria

  75

  77

  78

  82

  South Cumbria

  77

  81

  82

  73

  West Cumbria

  35

  89

  89

  92

  Darlington

  75

  74

  78

  83

  Durham

  273

  78

  83

  87

  North West Durham

  80

  83

  89

  89

  South West Durham

  74

  79

  82

  85

  Northumberland

  67

  74

  78

  87

  Gateshead

  70

  75

  73

  78

  Newcastle

  70

  74

  75

  79

  North Tyneside

  68

  73

  72

  79

  South Tyneside

  62

  73

  76

  78

  Sunderland

  64

  70

  74

  79

  Yorkshire RHA

  268

  273

  275

  276

  Hull

  65

  68

  69

  73

  East Yorkshire

  85

  88

  89

  88

  Grimsby

  254

  267

  272

  75

  Scunthorpe

  278

  83

  82

  86

  Northallerton

  76

  79

  85

  86

  York

  71

  75

  77

  77

  Scarborough

  76

  79

  81

  81

  Harrogate

  73

  78

  77

  85

  Bradford

  66

  72

  77

  78

  Airedale

  70

  71

  75

  80

  Calderdale

  72

  75

  76

  76

  Huddersfield

  73

  76

  78

  82

  Dewsbury

  69

  57

  71

  74

  Leeds Western

  268

  79

  84

  87

  Leeds Eastern

  —

  73

  77

  81

  Wakefield

  67

  71

  74

  84

  564

  11984

  1985

  1986

  1987–88

  Pontefract

  66

  68

  69

  73

  Trent RHA

  265

  272

  276

  279

  North Derbyshire

  259

  272

  82

  85

  Southern Derbyshire

  77

  82

  82

  282

  Leicestershire

  68

  76

  80

  84

  North Lincolnshire

  67

  75

  73

  73

  South Lincolnshire

  62

  67

  72

  78

  Bassetlaw

  67

  71

  74

  74

  Central Nottinghamshire

  261

  75

  78

  80

  Nottingham

  68

  75

  80

  77

  Barnsley

  61

  69

  74

  77

  Doncaster

  62

  69

  73

  85

  Rotherham

  58

  66

  70

  89

  Sheffield

  264

  270

  270

  279

  East Anglia RHA

  273

  277

  279

  280

  Cambridge

  78

  82

  82

  84

  Peterborough

  67

  71

  71

  76

  West Suffolk

  78

  84

  282

  85

  East Suffolk

  84

  82

  85

  87

  Norwich

  76

  82

  83

  84

  Great Yarmouth and Waveney

  75

  80

  81

  83

  West Norfolk and Wisbech

  73

  77

  78

  79

  Huntingdon

  69

  70

  71

  86

  North West Thames RHA

  264

  266

  271

  274

  North Bedfordshire

  77

  81

  85

  87

  South Bedfordshire

  69

  73

  74

  73

  North Hertfordshire

  268

  75

  77

  81

  East Hertfordshire

  274

  78

  79

  84

  North West Hertfordshire

  275

  80

  83

  86

  South West Hertfordshire

  270

  77

  80

  80

  Barnet

  68

  70

  71

  75

  Harrow

  61

  51

  70

  77

  Hillingdon

  61

  65

  69

  75

  Hounslow and Spelthorne

  59

  62

  79

  73

  Ealing

  57

  257

  63

  67

  Brent

  262

  261

  262

  256

  Paddington and North Kensington

  62

  61

  58

  58

  Riverside

  —

  62

  63

  64

  North East Thames RHA

  252

  258

  262

  270

  Basildon and Thurrock

  49

  63

  67

  77

  Mid Essex

  275

  81

  83

  84

  North East Essex

  251

  274

  275

  81

  West Essex

  251

  58

  258

  266

  Southend

  53

  68

  69

  78

  Barking, Havering and Brentwood

  68

  67

  67

  71

  Hampstead

  43

  51

  48

  53

  Bloomsbury

  244

  243

  245

  251

  Islington

  233

  250

  261

  265

  City and Hackney

  53

  57

  60

  65

  Newham

  46

  54

  45

  51

  Tower Hamlet

  49

  61

  66

  72

  Enfield

  69

  67

  72

  71

  Haringey

  65

  64

  61

  64

  Redbridge

  51

  57

  56

  51

  Waltham Forest

  257

  62

  69

  73

  South East Thames RHA

  260

  266

  266

  270

  Brighton

  62

  73

  81

  74

  Eastbourne

  70

  80

  84

  84

  Hastings

  273

  69

  77

  79

  South East Kent

  262

  272

  75

  83

  Canterbury and Thanet

  67

  70

  73

  281

  Dartford and Gravesham

  73

  72

  74

  77

  Maidstone

  76

  77

  82

  281

  Medway

  63

  66

  72

  84

  Tunbridge Wells

  268

  77

  78

  82

  Bexley

  45

  57

  44

  36

  Greenwich

  40

  51

  50

  68

  Bromley

  68

  71

  74

  84

  West Lambeth

  256

  254

  252

  56

  565

  11984

  1985

  1986

  1987–88

  Camberwell

  58

  52

  49

  58

  Lewisham and North Southwark

  38

  59

  63

  67

  South West Thames RHA

  266

  270

  272

  277

  North West Surrey

  63

  64

  63

  73

  West Surrey and North East Hants

  75

  88

  86

  84

  South West Surrey

  64

  68

  63

  59

  Mid Surrey

  292

  274

  67

  77

  East Surrey

  50

  71

  67

  59

  Chichester

  84

  84

  84

  90

  Mid Downs

  85

  87

  89

  289

  Worthing

  84

  85

  86

  89

  Croydon

  60

  72

  71

  277

  Kingston and Esher

  255

  60

  67

  270

  Richmond, Twickenham and Roehampton

  252

  257

  55

  55

  Wandsworth

  51

  56

  62

  74

  Merton and Sutton

  60

  62

  64

  63

  Wessex RHA

  275

  279

  281

  282

  East Dorset

  77

  80

  81

  86

  West Dorset

  274

  279

  80

  82

  Portsmouth and South East Hants

  73

  72

  76

  78

  Southampton and South West Hants

  84

  87

  87

  90

  Winchester

  82

  86

  86

  89

  Basingstoke and North Hants

  79

  83

  82

  81

  Salisbury

  270

  71

  72

  285

  Swindon

  268

  73

  78

  82

  Bath

  273

  76

  77

  284

  Isle of Wight

  58

  69

  73

  82

  Oxford RHA

  274

  278

  278

  282

  East Berkshire

  267

  265

  76

  West Berkshire

  270

  56

  70

  76

  Aylesbury Vale

  82

  84

  87

  87

  Wycombe

  285

  290

  88

  90

  Milton Keynes

  272

  73

  72

  67

  Kettering

  79

  80

  83

  Northampton

  268

  75

  75

  79

  Oxfordshire

  78

  83

  88

  290

  South Western RHA

  271

  276

  278

  285

  Bristol and Weston

  76

  80

  81

  80

  Frenchay

  73

  80

  79

  84

  Southmead

  80

  85

  85

  84

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  53

  60

  64

  69

  Exeter

  80

  86

  87

  90

  North Devon

  81

  85

  88

  90

  Plymouth

  72

  79

  79

  85

  Torbay

  74

  79

  82

  86

  Cheltenham and District

  71

  73

  79

  81

  Gloucester

  56

  59

  71

  80

  Somerset

  87

  89

  91

  92

  West Midlands RHA

  259

  264

  267

  275

  Bromsgrove and Redditch

  77

  71

  72

  76

  Herefordshire

  74

  73

  76

  80

  Kidderminster and District

  79

  76

  79

  82

  Worcester and District

  81

  79

  82

  83

  Shropshire

  72

  76

  79

  83

  Mid Staffordshire

  46

  62

  80

  85

  North Staffordshire

  38

  71

  77

  80

  South East Staffordshire

  52

  64

  66

  89

  Rugby

  74

  72

  74

  81

  North Warwickshire

  73

  69

  73

  78

  South Warwickshire

  77

  80

  83

  285

  Central Birmingham

  251

  254

  262

  265

  East Birmingham

  238

  44

  62

  52

  North Birmingham

  254

  255

  262

  270

  South Birmingham

  252

  262

  246

  261

  West Birmingham

  68

  77

  58

  64

  Coventry

  58

  62

  68

  73

  Dudley

  68

  73

  75

  78

  Sandwell

  59

  63

  66

  71

  Solihull

  54

  56

  63

  72

  566

  11984

  1985

  1986

  1987–88

  Walsall

  55

  61

  66

  75

  Wolverhampton

  54

  58

  66

  70

  Mersey RHA

  257

  262

  166

  172

  Chester

  85

  89

  89

  84

  Crewe

  81

  85

  87

  85

  Halton

  81

  86

  90

  84

  Macclesfied

  88

  91

  93

  88

  Warrington

  67

  70

  74

  82

  Liverpool

  47

  49

  53

  64

  St. Helens and Knowsley

  41

  54

  56

  65

  Southport and Formby

  58

  67

  67

  80

  South Sefton

  37

  41

  47

  57

  Wirral

  81

  88

  88

  82

  North Western RHA

  253

  259

  166

  171

  Lancaster

  51

  75

  77

  85

  Blackpool, Wyre and Fylde

  41

  50

  59

  62

  Preston

  43

  54

  53

  73

  Blackburn, Hyndburn and

  Ribble Valley

  51

  53

  55

  64

  Burnley, Pendle and Rossendale

  47

  52

  60

  68

  West Lancashire

  41

  43

  69

  77

  Chorley and South Ribble

  37

  47

  61

  63

  Bolton

  70

  73

  77

  83

  Bury

  69

  77

  78

  80

  North Manchester

  54

  60

  63

  68

  Central Manchester

  52

  60

  64

  73

  South Manchester

  47

  48

  54

  57

  Oldham

  52

  61

  66

  72

  Rochdale

  48

  59

  71

  76

  Salford

  46

  44

  60

  64

  Stockport

  67

  70

  74

  80

  Tameside and Glossop

  64

  71

  74

  80

  Trafford

  66

  70

  79

  81

  Wigan

  67

  72

  76

  79

  1 In 1984 figures include combined uptake rates for the following DHAs:

  Leeds Western and Leeds Eastern:

  East Berkshire and West Berkshire;

  Kettering and Northampton.

  2 Uptake rates are those supplied DHA calculated rates have been used.

  Mental Handicap
  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish in the Official Report a table showing the number of long-stay patients discharged from each mental handicap hospital in England and Wales since 1981.

  Mr. Freeman
  Provision of the information for each hospital would involve disproportionate cost. The table shows, for each district health authority, the number of discharges, excluding transfers and deaths, of mentally handicapped patients after a stay of one year or more in an NHS mental handicap hospital or unit in England. The figures in the table may not exactly equate to numbers of people, because some may have been discharged several times during the period. The information for 1981 could not be provided without disproportionate cost due to boundary changes to the district health authorities' areas. The information for Wales is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  NHS Mental Handicap Hospitals and Units in England 1986 Number of long stay patients discharged by Hospitals in districts

  District of treatment

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  Northern RHA

  59

  66

  104

  80

  112

  Hartlepool

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  North Tees

  0

  1

  3

  0

  1

  567

  District of treatment

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  South Tees

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  East Cumbria

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  South Cumbria

  0

  0

  0

  5

  15

  West Cumbria

  15

  14

  14

  22

  2

  Darlington

  12

  11

  35

  12

  18

  Durham

  7

  11

  17

  12

  16

  North West Durham

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  South West Durham

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Northumberland

  25

  27

  33

  29

  59

  Gateshead

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Newcastle

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  North Tyneside

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  South Tyneside

  0

  2

  2

  0

  1

  Sunderland

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Notes:

  (1) Excludes deaths and transfers to other hospitals and Special Hospitals.

  (2) Long stay are those patients discharged after a stay of one year or more.

  District of treatment

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  Yorkshire RHA

  104

  67

  95

  192

  203

  Hull

  40

  9

  11

  5

  14

  East Yorkshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Grimsby

  0

  0

  0

  6

  7

  Scunthorpe

  0

  1

  2

  7

  3

  Northallerton

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  York

  26

  3

  6

  41

  23

  Scarborough

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Harrogate

  0

  4

  4

  18

  44

  Bradford

  8

  13

  24

  12

  34

  Airedale

  4

  4

  4

  15

  7

  Calderdale

  12

  16

  17

  9

  19

  Huddersfield

  0

  0

  2

  18

  3

  Dewsbury

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Leeds Western

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Leeds Eastern

  11

  g

  17

  12

  22

  Wakefield

  3

  9

  8

  48

  27

  Pontefract

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Notes:

  (1) Excludes deaths and transfers to other hospitals and Special Hospitals.

  (2) Long stay are those patients discharged after a stay of one year or more.

  District of treatment

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  Trent RHA

  149

  125

  191

  210

  415

  North Derbyshire

  4

  9

  2

  10

  27

  Southern Derbyshire

  29

  15

  22

  33

  31

  Leicestershire

  16

  15

  10

  28

  26

  North Lincolnshire

  7

  13

  39

  18

  65

  South Lincolnshire

  3

  0

  12

  22

  76

  Bassetlaw

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Central Nottinghamshire

  16

  14

  23

  18

  87

  Nottingham

  9

  2

  3

  32

  33

  Barnsley

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  Doncaster

  0

  18

  13

  10

  7

  Rotherham

  9

  11

  35

  9

  11

  Sheffield

  56

  28

  32

  30

  50

  Notes:

  (1) Excludes deaths and transfers to other hospitals and Special Hospitals.

  (2) Long stay are those patients discharged after a stay of one year or more.

  District of treatment

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  East Anglia RHA

  37

  96

  85

  88

  79

  Cambridge

  2

  15

  8

  15

  4

  Peterborough

  2

  2

  1

  6

  0

  568

  District of treatment

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  West Suffolk

  2

  22

  1

  5

  26

  East Suffolk

  5

  6

  20

  22

  18

  Norwich

  16

  47

  39

  24

  29

  Great Yarmouth and Waveney

  5

  2

  8

  9

  2

  West Norfolk and Wisbech

  5

  2

  8

  7

  0

  Huntingdon

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Notes:

  (1) Excludes deaths and transfers to other hospitals and Special Hospitals.

  District of treatment

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  North West Thames RHA

  72

  77

  84

  83

  70

  North Bedfordshire

  5

  8

  10

  15

  18

  South Bedfordshire

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  North Hertfordshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  East Hertfordshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  North West Hertfordshire

  40

  27

  39

  32

  38

  South West Hertfordshire

  23

  19

  18

  30

  11

  Barnet

  2

  15

  9

  0

  0

  Harrow

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Hillingdon

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Hounslow and Spelthorne

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Eating

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Brent

  2

  7

  7

  6

  2

  Paddington and North Kensington

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Riverside

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Notes:

  (1) Excludes deaths and transfers to other hospitals and Special Hospitals.

  (2) Long stay are those patients discharged after a stay of one year or more.

  District of treatment

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  North East Thames

  RHA

  47

  42

  90

  111

  71

  Basildon and Thurrock

  16

  20

  26

  23

  29

  Mid Essex

  2

  1

  3

  3

  2

  North East Essex

  17

  2

  32

  32

  29

  West Essex

  0

  1

  0

  0

  1

  Southend

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Barking, Havering and Brentwood

  0

  3

  23

  43

  5

  Hampstead

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Bloomsbury

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Islington

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  City and Hackney

  0

  2

  2

  4

  0

  Newham

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Tower Hamlets

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Enfield

  0

  3

  1

  0

  3

  Haringey

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Redbridge

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Waltham Forest

  11

  10

  3

  6

  1

  Notes:

  (1) Excludes deaths and transfers to other hospitals and Special Hospitals.

  (2) Long stay are those patients discharged after a stay of one year or more.
  569

  District of treatment

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  South East Thames RHA

  110

  136

  203

  258

  354

  Brighton

  3

  5

  5

  21

  26

  Eastbourne

  8

  6

  15

  3

  14

  Hastings

  11

  7

  18

  16

  6

  South East Kent

  0

  3

  8

  6

  5

  Canterbury and Thanet

  15

  35

  28

  33

  33

  Dartford and Gravesham

  45

  28

  44

  73

  156

  Maidstone

  0

  0

  2

  27

  13

  Medway

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Tunbridge Wells

  20

  30

  64

  62

  81

  Bexley

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Greenwich

  2

  0

  2

  7

  9

  Bromley

  4

  15

  1

  2

  1

  West Lambeth

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Camberwell

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Lewisham and North Southwark

  2

  7

  16

  8

  10

  Notes:

  (1) Excludes deaths and transfers to other hospitals and Special Hospitals.

  (2) Long stay are those patients discharged after a stay of one year or more.

  District of treatment

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  South West Thames RHA

  74

  120

  144

  189

  297

  North West Surrey

  1

  6

  32

  20

  27

  West Surrey and North East Hants

  0

  2

  1

  3

  3

  South West Surrey

  0

  0

  2

  0

  0

  Mid Surrey

  19

  39

  0

  12

  24

  East Surrey

  7

  20

  29

  14

  33

  Chichester

  1

  2

  1

  0

  0

  Mid Downs

  1

  5

  4

  10

  4

  Worthing

  0

  4

  1

  1

  0

  Croydon

  15

  12

  18

  76

  157

  Kingston and Esher

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Richmond, Twickenham and Roehampton

  2

  5

  3

  2

  13

  Wandsworth

  1

  1

  2

  0

  0

  Merton and Sutton

  27

  24

  51

  51

  36

  Notes:

  (1) Excludes deaths and transfers to other hospitals and Special Hospitals.

  (2) Long stay are those patients discharged after a stay of one year or more.

  District of treatment

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  Wessex RHA

  84

  139

  126

  119

  206

  East Dorset

  0

  0

  1

  10

  2

  West Dorset

  0

  16

  4

  9

  27

  Portsmouth and South East Hampshire

  28

  61

  42

  30

  22

  Southampton and South West Hampshire

  18

  24

  28

  32

  58

  Winchester

  0

  0

  1

  11

  40

  Basingstoke and North Hampshire

  0

  7

  21

  2

  11

  Salisbury

  0

  0

  1

  2

  0

  Swindon

  17

  5

  21

  8

  10

  Bath District

  12

  13

  4

  7

  5

  Isle of Wight

  9

  13

  3

  8

  31

  Notes:

  (1) Excludes deaths and transfers to other hospitals or Special Hospitals.

  (2) Long stay are those patients discharged after a stay of one year or more.
  570

  District of treatment

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  Oxford RHA

  44

  62

  65

  92

  104

  East Berkshire

  5

  10

  5

  5

  1

  West Berkshire

  12

  22

  17

  18

  24

  Aylesbury Vale

  8

  6

  5

  18

  7

  Wycombe

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Milton Keynes

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Kettering

  1

  2

  1

  0

  0

  Northampton

  5

  6

  6

  8

  16

  Oxfordshire

  13

  16

  31

  43

  56

  Notes:

  (1) Excludes deaths and transfers to other hospitals and Special Hospitals.

  (2) Long stay are those patients discharged after a stay of one year or more.

  District of treatment

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  South Western RHA

  123

  168

  410

  251

  193

  Bristol and Weston

  2

  16

  36

  9

  8

  Frenchay

  5

  29

  75

  32

  33

  Southmead

  12

  33

  80

  42

  22

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  22

  11

  34

  37

  16

  Exeter

  40

  57

  123

  59

  56

  North Devon

  1

  0

  4

  1

  0

  Plymouth

  4

  4

  2

  5

  1

  Torbay

  3

  2

  19

  31

  10

  Cheltenham

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Gloucester

  10

  5

  13

  3

  12

  Somerset

  23

  11

  24

  32

  35

  Notes:

  (1) Excludes deaths and transfers to other hospitals and Special Hospitals.

  (2) Long stay are those patients discharged after a stay of one year or more.

  District of treatment

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  West Midlands RHA

  138

  156

  107

  137

  151

  Bromsgrove and Redditch

  0

  0

  0

  0

  8

  Herefordshire

  3

  0

  1

  0

  2

  Kidderminster and District

  41

  41

  25

  50

  36

  Worcester and District

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Shropshire

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  Mid Staffordshire

  3

  0

  1

  0

  3

  North Staffordshire

  13

  14

  6

  13

  8

  South East Staffordshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Rugby

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  North Warwickshire

  30

  35

  21

  29

  37

  South Warwickshire

  1

  10

  5

  14

  6

  Central Birmingham

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  East Birmingham

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  North Birmingham

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  South Birmingham

  5

  20

  26

  10

  9

  West Birmingham

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Coventry

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Dudley

  8

  5

  3

  7

  14

  Sandwell

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Solihull

  3

  3

  5

  3

  4

  Walsall

  31

  25

  14

  10

  24

  Wolverhampton

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Notes:

  (1) Excludes deaths and transfers to other hospitals and Special hospitals.

  (2) Long stay are those patients discharged after a stay of one year or more.

  District of treatment

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  Mersey RHA

  83

  102

  119

  98

  132

  Chester

  0

  2

  0

  0

  0

  Crewe

  18

  19

  15

  21

  17

  571

  District of treatment

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  Halton

  0

  2

  2

  5

  2

  Macclesfield

  5

  5

  13

  10

  30

  Warrington

  4

  17

  57

  35

  27

  Liverpool

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  St. Helens and Knowsley

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Southport and Forsby

  50

  31

  15

  12

  23

  South Sefton

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Wirral

  0

  14

  3

  4

  14

  Notes:

  (1) Excludes deaths and transfers to other hospitals and special hospitals.

  (2) Long stay are those patients discharged after a stay of one year or more.

  District of treatment

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  North Western RHA

  105

  101

  96

  144

  141

  Lancaster

  36

  26

  26

  42

  33

  Blackpool, Wyre and Fylde

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Preston

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Blackburn, Hyndburn and Ribble Valley

  31

  46

  24

  52

  34

  Burnley, Pendle and Rossendale

  29

  22

  40

  43

  45

  West Lancashire

  2

  4

  4

  0

  9

  Chorley and South Ribble

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Bolton

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Bury

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  North Manchester

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Central Manchester

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  South Manchester

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Oldham

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Rochdale

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Salford

  2

  1

  2

  0

  0

  Stockport

  5

  2

  0

  7

  16

  Tameside and Glossop

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Trafford

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Wigan

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Notes:

  (1) Excludes deaths and transfers to other hospitals and special hospitals.

  (2) Long stay are those patients discharged after a stay of one year or more.

  Abortion
  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many abortions have been performed on girls under the age of 16 years at Kettering general hospital in each year since 1968 in actual and in percentage terms: and what are the national percentage figures.

  Mr. Freeman
  The figures for England and Wales and the readily available data for usual residents of Kettering district health authority are shown in the tables.

  Number of abortions performed in England and Wales, to those under 16 years, 27 April 1968 to 31 December 1987

  Year

  Total A

  Under 16 B

  Percent. B of A

  1968

  23,641

  553

  2·3

  1969

  54,819

  1,231

  2·2

  1970

  86,565

  1,822

  2·1

  1971

  126,777

  2,618

  2·1

  1972

  159,884

  3,320

  2·1

  1973

  167,149

  3,660

  2·2

  1974

  162,940

  3,948

  2·4

  1975

  139,702

  4,006

  2·9

  1976

  129,673

  3,835

  3·0

  1977

  133,004

  4,067

  3·1

  572

  Year

  Total A

  Under 16 B

  Percent. B of A

  1978

  141,558

  3,724

  2·6

  1979

  149,746

  3,856

  2·6

  1980

  160,903

  4,143

  2·6

  1981

  162,480

  3,949

  2·4

  1982

  163,045

  4,343

  2·7

  1983

  162,161

  4,566

  2·8

  1984

  169,993

  4,609

  2·7

  1985

  171,873

  4,427

  2·6

  1986

  172,286

  4,240

  2·5

  1987

  174,276

  4,075

  2·3

  Total

  2,812,475

  70,992

  2·5

  Number of abortions to usual residents of Kettering District Health Authority, under 16 years, 1983–87

  1983

  500

  28

  5·6

  1984

  526

  31

  5·9

  1985

  557

  27

  4·8

  1986

  550

  23

  4·2

  1987

  604

  19

  3·1

  Warrington Drug Dependency Clinic
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the total number of people treated within Warrington drug dependency clinic in the latest available year.

  Mr. Freeman
  Responsibility for local services rests with the local statutory authorities. The hon. Member may wish to contact the chairman of Warrington health authority since the information he has requested is not held centrally.

  Medical Services (Durham)
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement concerning the future of the chiropody service within the district of Durham.

  Mr. Freeman
  The provision of chiropody services in Durham is the responsibility of Durham district health authority. The hon. Member may wish to write to the chairman of Durham DHA for the information he requires.

  "Drug Tariff"
  Mr. Walden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much the monthly issue by the Department of Health of the publication "Drug Tariff" costs; and what consideration he has given to circulating this information more cheaply.

  Mr. Freeman
  Information on the cost of production of the "Drug Tariff- is commercially confidential, but I can assure my hon. Friend that the work has been put out to competitive tender by HMSO and awarded to the cheapest tenderer.

  Whitley Councils
  Mr. Wood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will lay before the House the Government's responses to the third report of the Social Services Committee of 1988–89 on Whitley councils.

  Mr. Mellor
  My right hon. and learned Friend has done so today.

  Census Test
  Mr. Conway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the analysis of the proportion of householders in each census test area who returned a completed form is now available; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  Full evaluation of the test will take some time, but the analysis referred to is now available. Of those households recorded as present on census test night, 60 per cent. returned a completed form. The response rates for each area in the test were as follows.
  574

  Test area in:

  Response (per cent.)

  Wandsworth and Merton

  54

  Birmingham

  42

  Scarborough

  73

  Berwickshire

  94

  East Lothian

  89

  Edinburgh

  75

  In general, response rates were in line with expectations based on the results of previous voluntary census tests. The test areas were chosen to cover a variety of circumstances and the variation in response rates reflects differences in such factors as the difficulty of contacting householders and of recruiting enumerators.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Lichfield.
Lord Clydesmuir Lord Clydesmuir—Took the Oath.

London Road Assessment Studies: Funding
Earl Russell Earl Russell asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are prepared to put a cash limit on the cost of the London Road Assessment Studies, and, if so, at what figure.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, the total provision for the studies is about £8 million. The Department of Transport is keeping the expenditure under review.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. He may perhaps appreciate that I would be somewhat relieved if it were to stop there. However, perhaps I may pursue the Question a little further. Has any consideration been given to putting a cash limit on the total amount of work resulting from these studies? In particular, is the Minister in a position to deny the report which appeared in the Independent on 3rd April that the total cost of the work involved is likely to amount to £3·5 billion?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the implementation costs would depend on the measures adopted. Therefore I cannot put an estimate on the unknown. We await the consultants' work. Any new infrastructure in London will of course be costly, but I emphasise that the figure of £3·5 billion which the noble Lord mentioned is certainly not an official, estimate and is only speculation by the press.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, does the Minister recall that on 29th June the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, tabled a Question on the East London assessment study, when the Minister intimated that the report would be available in the summer—presumably July or August—and that decisions would then be taken? Can the Minister give some assurance that before decisions are taken there will be thorough consultations on the report? If consultations are to take place, with whom will they be conducted?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I can give an assurance that there will be thorough consultations on the report before anything is done. Those consultations would be with the local authorities involved, public transport operators and others.
Lord McNair: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell me whether these road assessment studies are anything more than an attempt to buy time, during which the problem of London's traffic will get so much worse that the Government will then feel able
254
to take drastic measures, which they are not prepared to take now, in order to forestall the coming chaos?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I must disabuse the noble Lord that the assessment studies are looking purely at roads. They are looking at public transport and a number of other means of improving the environment. They are certainly not a waste of time. The studies are a good way of looking at some of the urgent problems which need to be solved.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I am sorry to rise again but will the Minister clarify what he just said in reply to the last supplementary question? I think he said that the studies were not looking at public transport. Surely the studies will consider all passible options: roads, environmental questions, public transport and all associated matters, will they not?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am sorry if the noble Lord misunderstood. That was exactly what I was trying to say. I was explaining to the noble Lord, Lord McNair, that the studies were looking not just at roads but at other matters too.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that all this should have been over a long time ago, that it is now the eleventh hour and that further studies are beginning to be too time-wasting?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, it is a matter of argument as regards what should have been done before. The fact is that there are problems of acute congestion in parts of London and it is the action of a responsible government to look into ways of improving that.

Forestry Commission Land: Public Access
2.42 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe Lord Taylor of Gryfe asked Her Majesty's Government:
What further plans they have for the disposal of Forestry Commission land and what steps they will take to maintain public access to these woodlands.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Sanderson of Bowden): My Lords, as announced by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland in another place on 16th June, we have asked the Forestry Commission to sell a further 100,000 hectares of forestry land in the period up to the end of the century. We are giving careful consideration to ways of allowing the general public to continue to enjoy access to these forests in a way which is compatible with management for forestry and other purposes. A copy of the full Statement made by my right honourable friend is in the Library.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that in the past few years 140,000 hectares have been sold to the private sector, and that now an additional 100,000 hectares is to be disposed of? Is nothing sacred in this country any more? The Government have sold off the public's water

255
company, the public's electricity company and now the Government have decided to sell off the nation's land. Will the Minister confirm that last year there were more than 50 million day visitors to the nation's Forestry Commission land? Will he give me a firm assurance that there is no danger of the public being excluded from the land which is now being sold and which is an important amenity?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, the noble Lord has raised two questions. To deal first with the question of access, the Government are well aware of the importance of public access to the commission's forests. Therefore, as has already been said, we are considering ways in which reasonable access can be preserved when commission forests are sold. It is a complex issue, however, involving public access to private property. We must therefore take time and trouble to consider all aspects and get the answer right. There are many ways, through voluntary means, by which access to private woodlands has been achieved, and we are satisfied that that part of the voluntary effort is working extremely well.
As to the first question that the noble Lord put to me about the disposal policy, as he has heard from me before, the Forestry Commission owns 915,000 hectares of forest land, 166,000 hectares of unplantable and miscellaneous land (as at 31st March this year), and 62,000 hectares of agricultural land. Part of the Government's policy is to return some of that land to the private sector. I do not believe that the amount that has to be returned in the period to the end of this century is in any way excessive.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, does the noble Lord know what proportion of that land is being bought by foreign interests?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: No, my Lords, I do not know what proportion is being bought by foreign interest. All I have to say is that widespread interest has been shown in the land that has been disposed of. As I understand it, that will continue.
Lord Rees: My Lords, in view of what my noble friend has told the House about proposed sales of Forestry Commission land, and against the background of the Government's proclaimed planting targets, can he tell the House what thought has been given by the Government to encouraging new forms of investment in forestry, particularly by small investors?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I am very conscious of the importance of attracting smaller investors, and indeed institutional funds, into forestry. I can assure my noble friend that we shall consider carefully any proposals that come forward from the industry. In addition, I have been encouraged by the remarks of those who know about forestry. "A forest of opportunity", an article in Accountancy of February 1989, said:
"Private clients are expressing great interest in woodlands as the full implications of future tax-free income and capital growth have become apparent in an era of lower tax rates and limited tax reliefs".
Lord Grimond: My Lords, are the Government satisfied that the land that has been sold off will remain under forestry, or are the purchasers entitled to make what use of it they like? Can the Minister be more explicit as to how the Government propose to enforce the guarantees, for example, of public access? Is it not the case that, at least under the law of England, once one has parted with ownership in property one cannot enforce burdens on one's successors? Is that not also the case in Scotland and, if so, how do the Government propose to get round it?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, I said that the Government were looking very carefully at the complex issue of access. What I did not say was that we had an answer to the legal problems that surround this particular issue. I did say, however, that the owners of many private woodlands have an excellent record in allowing public access to those woodlands. Perhaps I may say in addition that when the Forestry Commission, as the forest authority, looks at plans for planting on its lands, reasonable provision for public access is being encouraged and there has been a positive response.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, is it not possible to include conditions of access in the disposition when the land is sold?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, we have looked very carefully at this particular issue. There are problems relating to access. There are various possible solutions to those problems, but I should not like to go into them at this stage.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the Minister two questions based on his right honourable friend's statement in another place in the middle of June, in which he stated that rationalisation has been a success over the past 10 years. How long does it take to rationalise? I understand that most of the management rationalisation has been done.
In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, the Minister gave figures in respect of land in Forestry Commission ownership which was not plantable or was agricultural land, and indicated that that was the land which was being sold. That does not tie up with the statement of his right honourable friend which referred to the transfer of forests. Who is right and who is wrong?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, perhaps I may answer the question as to what has already been disposed of in the way of forests. As the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, mentioned in his original supplementary question, 140,000 hectares of land have been sold, of which 72,000 hectares were forest land. The remaining 68,000 hectares were non-forest land. In the future, one of the ministerial guidelines to which the commission must give heed when selecting properties for sale is the maintenance and development of the wood processing industry.

257
The main raison d'être of the Forestry Commission's enterprise is the production of timber for use by industry. We understand from the commission—and it has agreed—that it will not be in the business of selling core forests, but it has plenty of forest from which to draw for disposal up to the end of the century.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, there is one further point. What does the Minister mean by "forest land"? Is that land that has been planted or land that is plantable?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: Both, my Lords. Basically, it is land that is planted.
Lord Morris: My Lords, bearing in mind that it is far from uncommon for land to be disposed of in the United Kingdom with restrictive convenants attached, will my noble friend explain a little more fully and precisely the legal difficulties facing the Government with regard to the disposal of this land?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, it is a complicated issue and, as I understand it, there are legal problems attached to it. My noble friend may have a solution. I must tell him that we are discussing the matter with great detail within government at the moment and we well understand the desire of most people to ensure that there is adequate public access to private land. However, there are major problems attached to the issue.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, will the noble Lord say precisely where the money which is received for that land goes? Does it go back to the Forestry Commission to enable it to do its job more efficiently? Perhaps the Minister will tell the House precisely where it goes.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I believe that I have answered the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition before on this matter. The receipts from the disposal programme are surrendered by the commission to the Consolidated Fund.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, since we are told that rationalisation is complete, are we therefore to understand that the increased sales of forestry and forestry land are a result of the Government's dissatisfaction with the work of the Forestry Commission? If they are not dissatisfied with its work, would it not be easier to leave that forestry in its hands and avoid all the legal complications which seem to cause such difficulties?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I believe that the noble Baroness said that rationalisation was complete. That is not something that I have stated from the Dispatch Box. Further rationalisation can take place in the long-term interest of the forestry industry as a whole. I believe that, when we come to the turn of the century, it will be seen that the Forestry Commission, though somewhat reduced in size, will be supplying substantially more timber to the industry than it does at present.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, is the Minister aware that my Question was prompted by the concern expressed in Scotland that some of that land will be sold to be used as sporting estates from which the public will inevitably be excluded? Is he not concerned about that? Is he aware that his statement about the necessity of maintaining wood production will be very much welcomed in Scotland? However, how will he reconcile that with the fact that the Government's planting target is 33,000 hectares, and that total planting of new wood-lands this year will be 11,000 hectares?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I should like to correct the noble Lord on his figure for new planting this year of 11,000 hectares. It is an interesting figure, but it bears no relation to the facts at this stage, although the noble Lord may have information on the matter that has not come to the Government. So far as concerns the sale in Scotland, the Forestry Commission is well aware that it has the power to dispose of planted land as it sees fit. As I said to the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, most of that land is planted with trees at the present time or is available for planting. I should have thought that it will continue as an investment for those in the private sector who are interested in forestry.

Narrow Money Supply
2.54 p.m.
Lord Bruce-Gardyne Lord Bruce-Gardyne asked Her Majesty's Government:
When they expect the narrow money supply (MO) to return within its target band.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, MO's growth rate has fallen appreciably since last summer. The Government will continue to take whatever steps are necessary to ensure that it reaches, and remains within, the target range.
Lord Bruce-Gardyne: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that reply. In his Budget Statement, my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that he expected MO—or "Little Mo" as it is known in the trade—to fall within the target range of 1 to 5 per cent. very shortly. Is it not the case that in the last quarter for which figures were available—the quarter to May —it was still up at 6·2 per cent? Although some of us may have reservations about the relevance of MO, it is my right honourable friend's current favourite. May we be assured that it will not be jettisoned like some previous favourites as being unreliable, simply because it proves to be somewhat wayward?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I think that I can give my noble friend the assurance that he seeks. "Little Mo" has proved a reliable indicator of monetary conditions. The sixth-month annualised growth rate for last month was 2·9 per cent. Obviously, I cannot give my noble friend a date when it might come within target, but I hope that it will be shortly.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, will the Minister tell us whether he or any other member of the Government believes that MO, or any other wider measure, is an adequate measure of money supply? If they believe that, do they believe that that is the only thing necessary to control inflation, regardless of other indicators?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, as I said, "Little Mo" has proved a reliable indicator of monetary conditions. Obviously, we continue to take broad money, particularly M4 into account in assessment of monetary conditions, but there are a number of other factors which need to be taken into account in measuring the performance of the economy.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that, when the Government came to power, they set great store by controlling the money supply as a means of regulating the economy, but that progressively over the years they have discarded the use of the various money aggregates? Are we now to assume that the control of the money supply no longer plays a part in the Government's policy towards the economy?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: No, my Lords. Indicators have their uses, but, as I said, other things are also important. Firm monetary policy is the only way to get on top of inflation. It has worked in the past and it will work again.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, in the light of the information given to the House by his noble friend Lord Bruce-Gardyne that, at 6·2 per cent., MO is outside the target range already set at one to five in the medium-term financial strategy, will the Minister give any indication as to whether the figures that have been given for 1990–91, 1991 and 1992 are to be revised in view of the apparent unreliability of the present money indicator? Will the noble Lord give the House an undertaking that, as and when the existing definition of monetary aggregate proves to be of little use to them for propaganda purposes and they select a new definition which suits them more conveniently, they will consider using the term "MOO" or, if not, "MOO7"?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I should hasten to add that the Government do not use those indicators for propaganda purposes. I cannot give any information as to any possible revision of targets for future years. The noble Lord will have to wait and see what the Chancellor of the Exchequer says in due course.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, while the technical arguments that we have heard about money supply are very interesting, is it not a fact that Government policy of controlling money supply in the economy has gone completely awry in that, despite high interest rates, credit expansion has gone on apace? Will the Minister ask his right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to get rid of that moribund policy and bring forward a new policy to deal with credit expansion, by insisting that the banks and other credit institutions put special deposits with the Bank of England?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I disagree with the noble Lord that the Government's policy is in disarray. We are experiencing an unprecedented growth rate at the moment which I should have thought would be welcome to most people. With the benefit of hindsight, the loosening of monetary policy post the Stock Exchange crash in 1987 proved to have gone too far; but it was a judgment made at the time when the risk of recession was considered to be great.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the growth is in credit and imports from abroad?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, at the moment all the indicators, whether for imports or anything else, are showing strong upward signs.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, will the Minister reconsider his statement that the only way of dealing with inflation is through monetary policy? Does he not feel that fiscal policy also has a role to play?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, as I said, firm monetary policy is the only way to get on top of inflation. Credit controls would not work again.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I did not mention credit controls. I do not believe in credit controls. I asked about fiscal policy.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, perhaps I should have a discussion with the noble Baroness to find out what her proposals are.
Lord Peston: My Lords, if, as the Minister says, firm monetary policy is the only way to get on top of inflation, why are the Government making such a song and dance about wage settlements at the moment?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, obviously excessive wage demands are in themselves inflationary.
Lord Bruce-Gardyne: My Lords, in view of some of the comments from the Opposition Benches, perhaps I may ask this question. Will my noble friend confirm that it is now clearly the view of Her Majesty's Government that a certain disregard of monetary indicators in the period 1984 to 1987 may have been a significant contributor to our current problems with inflation?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, as I said, there was a relaxation of monetary policy post the Stock Exchange fall in 1987. With the benefit of hindsight, it is clear that the stock market crash was merely a financial phenomenon of little relevance to the real economy. However, at the time and given the balance of risks, the policy was fully justified.

Manufacturing Investment
3.2 p.m.
The Viscount of Oxfuird The Viscount of Oxfuird asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their latest available forecast of the likely growth of manufacturing investment this year.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the forecast presented by the Chancellor with his Budget in March forecast total business investment to rise by 8 per cent. in 1989. No forecast for manufacturing investment was given. The DTI's survey of investment intentions published in June suggested that manufacturers plan to increase investment by 15 per cent. in 1989.
The Viscount of Oxfuird: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. Can he confirm that the United Kingdom's growth in world trade will have to increase by 2 per cent. in order to make good the deficit in the United Kingdom's manufacturing trade? That was expounded by Mr. Glenn Hoggarth, the chief UK economist with the Henley Centre, in his letter to the Financial Times of July 7th. Does my noble friend believe that the forecast investment will achieve that required increase in manufacturing trade?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I read the letter to which my noble friend referred. We do not regard that as a sensible way to see how the current account deficit could be reduced. What matters is how our imports compare with our exports and not our share of world trade. However, the rapid increase in manufacturing investment in 1988, and the continuing strong growth this year, will help to improve further the supply side performance.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, the Minister gave a percentage figure in relation to manufacturing investment. Can he tell the House by how much in real terms investment in manufacturing industry has increased above the level attained in 1979? Will he also confirm that some 14 per cent. of imports into this country in 1988 consisted of capital goods, and that the total deficit on our current account for the importation of manufactured capital goods amounted to about 1·5 billion as distinct from the positive balance of trade in capital goods in 1979?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, in reply to the noble Lord's first question, manufacturing investment grew by 14·5 per cent. last year to reach its highest ever level. In the previous five years it grew on average by 9 per cent. a year; whereas, under the previous government, up to 1979 it grew by less than 2·5 per cent. a year. With regard to his other point concerning imports, I regret that I do not have those figures with me this afternoon.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House when manufacturing investment as a proportion of gross domestic product will achieve the levels that it achieved in the 1960s and 1970s?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I do not have the figure as a percentage of gross domestic product. However, business investment, which includes manufacturing investment, is now the highest ever recorded proportion of gross domestic product.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is it not high time that the Minister acquainted himself with the statistics available for manufacturing investment rather than relying on percentages which cover totally different categories? Can the Minister not give us precise answers to precise questions in the House?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I feel that I have given fairly precise answers to the questions that have been put, particularly as they relate to the one on the Order Paper.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, in view of the substantial gap in our manufacturing balance of payments, is the Minister of the opinion that policies are being pursued now regarding the rebirth of manufacturing industry in this country which will eventually close that gap?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I should have thought that the figures that I gave for manufacturing investment would seem to prove that to be the case.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, will my noble friend say what percentage of the satisfactory increase in manufacturing investment comes from inward investment by overseas companies? Can he also say whether that has been affected by the wildcat strikes and the many claims in the public sector of our transport system?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I regret that I do not have a figure for inward investment; but of course we welcome inward investment and hope that the latest series of strikes will not affect people's judgment when they come to make those decisions.
The Viscount of Oxfuird: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that, despite the increased interest rates at this time, this country's export performance is holding up extremely well?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: Yes, my Lords, I think it is very fair to say that.

Business
3.7 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon, my noble friend Lord Henley will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement to be made in the other place on community care. It may be for the convenience of your Lordships to know that the Report stage of the Social Security Bill will be adjourned at approximately 7 p.m. for about an hour and that during that adjournment the Third Reading of the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill will be taken.

Local Government and Housing Bill
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Caithness, I beg to move the Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to whom the Local Government and Housing Bill has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order:

Clauses 1 to 15,

Schedule 1,

Clauses 16 to 35,

Schedule 2,

Clause 36,

Clauses 64 to 70,

Clauses 37 to 60,

Schedule 3,

Clauses 61 to 63,

Clauses 71 and 72,

Schedule 4,

Clauses 73 to 131,

Schedule 5,

Clauses 132 to 134,

Schedule 6,

Clauses 135 to 144,

Schedule 7,

Clauses 145 to 147,

Schedule 8,

Clauses 148 to 157,

Schedule 9,

Clauses 158 to 163,

Schedules 10 and 11,

Clause 164.—(The Earl of Arran.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Extradition Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of recommitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of recommitment be discharged.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, motion agreed to.

Statute Law (Repeals) Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Pesticides (Fees and Enforcement) Bill
3.9 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Trumpington): My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move
264
a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged.—(Baroness Trumpington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Social Security Bill
Report received.
Clause 9 [Mobility allowance: increase of age limit to 80 years]:
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 9, line 15, at beginning insert—
("( ) In section 37A of the principal Act (mobility allowance) at the end of subsection (1) insert "or is deaf and blind or is suffering from severe mental handicap such that he is either unable to walk or virtually unable to do so without physical control by another person".
( ) In subsection (2) of that section leave out "physical".).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment was discussed in Committee and was then withdrawn to enable those of us who had moved the amendment to study the Minister's response.
We discussed the amendment at some length at the Committee stage and it received support in all parts of the chamber. However, it may help noble Lords if I briefly restate the background to the amendment.
The mobility allowance is a non-means tested benefit. It is paid as a result of physical disability such that the claimant is unable to walk, virtually unable to walk or where the exertion of walking would endanger life or lead to a serious deterioration in health.
A number of problems have arisen regarding the interpretation of the phrase, "virtually unable to walk", especially for the deaf blind and those with severe mental handicap. A number of the commission's decisions attempting to interpret the regulations have been confusing and contradictory and are often reversed on appeal. This amendment is intended to make it clear that a comparatively small group of fewer than 8,000 people should receive the mobility allowance. I should like to make it entirely clear that the intention of the amendment is not to introduce a new concept or to extend the eligibility of allowance to a large new group of people, or indeed to introduce a new allowance. The intention is simply to clarify the current very confusing situation and to ensure that those responsible for some of the most severely handicapped people in our society do not have to apply and appeal up to three times before they receive the allowance. It is a fact that three-quarters of the people concerned qualify if their appeal reaches the third appeal stage. But it is understandable that many cannot stand the trauma of the appeal process and therefore do not attempt to press their case.
There has been some debate about the numbers of people involved. It was thought for some years that the number of people who would benefit from the proposed change would be in the order of 10,000

265
to 12,000. That was a figure which, so far as I am aware, has never been disputed by the Government. However, more recent work by SENSE and MENCAP suggests that a maximum of 3,200 deaf blind people would qualify plus 4,400 with severe mental handicap and thereby unpredictable behaviours. That is a total of 7,600 people.
Like all benefits, there is unlikely to be a 100 per cent. take-up. We are therefore talking about perhaps 6,000 to 7,000 people to be added to the 575,000 who already qualify. The cost would be no more than perhaps £8 million to £9 million per annum to be added to the £750 million which is the current cost of the mobility allowance.
The disability organisations and the all-party disablement group have been pressing for this change since at least 1985. When Mr. Tony Newton was the Minister for the Disabled, he said that he wanted some more information. He said that he would like to find a solution "at the margin". That is exactly what this amendment does. He was succeeded by Mr. John Major who said in 1987 that it was a question of definition and knowing the number involved, which the department at the time agreed was very small.
We have found the definition and we know that the number involved is even smaller than the 10,000 suggested to Mr. Major. Noble Lords may imagine the disappointment of the all-party disablement group when recently it met the current Minister, Mr. Nicholas Scott, and found that he was unaware of the points which had been agreed with Mr. Major. He then produced a new reason for delay. The Government now say that they must await the outcome of the OPCS surveys into disability and the review of the social security benefits which will follow the surveys.
Like many others, I have studied the five published parts of the survey. There is one more to come before the end of this month concerning the transport and education of disabled children. That will complete the six. I can save the department a lot of time. There is no information in the five reports that is relevant to this amendment and the problem with which it deals. There is nothing like a great big survey as an excuse for departmental delay and inaction. There will have to be wide-ranging consultations on the OPCS survey, and understandably so. Then there will be the review of benefits which I understand now is to be conducted inside the department. I suspect that it will be years before the full response to the OPCS surveys comes into legislation.
Those of us involved in this matter have all received dossiers of harrowing cases of people being refused a mobility allowance who on any understanding of the requirement should receive it. I quoted a number of these cases at Committee stage and have since received, not surprisingly, a large number of examples. In each of these cases involving a massive sensory impairment or severe mental handicap, it is quite clear that not only do the people concerned have an immense disability but that those who care for them have an enormous burden.
I shall give one further example that I know well. A women of 38 who lives in our village is brain damaged as a result of the whooping cough vaccine. She spends the majority of her time crouched in the foetal position. She shakes a plastic cup which is her form of security. Every time she moves she has to be assisted and controlled by her parents. She lives in a dim twilight world of her own. She is entirely liable to walk backwards, sideways or indeed under a bus. Her parents who are now rather elderly have to look after her. She requires continous physical control. She obviously suffers from severe mental handicap. She has been refused the mobility allowance because—as the rules state—she is able physically to put one foot in front of the other. In fact she is a very big strong lady.
I think we would all agree that it is entirely wrong that people in this condition should be denied the mobility allowance. The numbers and costs involved—7,600 people at a cost of £8 million to £9 million—are minuscule compared with the total cost of the mobility allowance. I find it hard to believe that the Government will turn us down yet once more. I beg to move.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, I support this amendment. As the noble Lord, Lord Carter, has explained, we are talking about two small and clearly defined groups of people. The amendment does not involve any new principle or any radical departure of policy. So far as concerns the groups of the mentally handicapped with which I have been particularly concerned, it has been accepted that those whose walking difficulties stem from handicaps which can be ascribed to a physical cause such as brain damage—whether the consequence of a genetic condition or the result of an accident—can qualify for the allowance. The additional numbers covered by this amendment, estimated to be at the most 4,400, as the noble Lord has explained, will be those who are severely mentally handicapped and who have behavioural problems requiring constant supervision but whose handicap has no identifiable physical cause. They may be able to walk in the sense of being able to put one foot in front of another, but if left to themselves no one would know which way they would walk, sideways, backwards or straight under a bus, or they might choose to lie down screaming in a tantrum in the middle of the highway.
The number of those who are both blind and deaf who do not already qualify for the allowance can be estimated with reasonable accuracy as being not more than 3,200. I am well aware that the noble Lord has given these figures in introducing the amendment, but they are so significantly small that it is worth rubbing in the very modest total and the very modest addition of expenditure which this would involve.
The Government for their part have not so far challenged either the calculation of the total or the calculation of the amount involved. They have expressed sympathy, but it has been explained that they fall back on the argument that we should wait for the OPCS surveys. It is fair to say that the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, implied at the Committee stage in reply to a question from the noble Lord,

267
Lord Renton, that it could all be dealt with next year in the inevitable social security Bill in the coming Session. But I am afraid he rather took away that impression when on the next amendment, on the clause increasing the age limit—that is Clause 9 in the present print—he said that that clause now gives us a breathing space for five years. He went on to say:
"That is ample time in which to resolve and implement whatever changes may be needed generally concerning the allowance"—[Official Report, 22/6/89; col. 356].
I fear that these remarks serve only to confirm my doubt that it would scarcely be possible to publish the OPCS survey, to carry out consultations on its findings, to consider the outcome of those consultations, to come to decisions and to translate those decisions into legislative form—the point we are concerned with now is only one of a number of issues which will arise—all in time to put the conclusions in a Bill in the Session starting this autumn. My own belief is that there is no escaping the conclusion that, if we do not take this opportunity to help these people now, today, they will have to wait for years.
I confess to being just a shade surprised that the Government have resisted this modest proposal. In speaking to a number of people outside, some of them loyal Tory voters, the reaction I have gained is one of incredulity that they are not already covered. The amendment is concerned with some of the most grievously afflicted members of the community and those who care for them. Anyone who has had direct experience must be aware of the feelings of despair and frustration, the belief that authority is ranged up against one, and all that is involved in the waiting and expense of appeals. Deservedly or not, the Government's reputation among the disabled and their families is not very high. No doubt in a few minutes' time we shall be hearing some remarks about the inordinate length of time it has taken to come to a decision on the Griffiths Report.
The amendment gives the Government an opportunity to show that they are a caring and sympathetic government who are prepared to take this very small step to help some of our least privileged citizens.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, to my mind, the amendment illustrates vividly the difficulty which your Lordships' House is in in discussing one by one amendments to the Bill. Plainly on its merits it excites the sympathy of all your Lordships in all parts of the House. As the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeyfield, with his skill in advocacy brought out, it is comparatively small in its financial impact.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, I am sorry to intervene, but my title is "Abbeydale" not "Abbeyfield", which connotes other things.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I am sorry if I was in the wrong field. Dales are of course far more fertile. As the noble Lord brought out, the impact is comparatively small. Therefore it seems an easy matter for your Lordships to consider, taken in
268
isolation. But the problem is, as any of us with experience of social security administration knows, that it would be possible to find quite a number of other issues which made a similar appeal both to one's mind and to one's feelings of sympathy and sensibility towards human suffering.
Your Lordships are in a difficulty—this is a fault of our procedure, not of your Lordships individually—in having to take these issues one by one. I believe your Lordships will agree that the mobility issue has been a great success. It has done more to relieve human suffering than almost any of the changes of recent years. It is natural that one should want to extend it to the meritorious class of people covered by the amendment. But what the Government have to do—as I am sure the Minister will tell us in a few minutes—is to weigh this against all the other claims which can and will very properly be made. That is the real problem. It is perhaps an argument for waiting for the OPCS survey, which we hope will line up these various good causes in order of proper priority.
I shall certainly wait to hear what the Minister says, but my present feeling is that there is perhaps a little danger in allowing one's natural sympathy with this proposal to cause one to feel that it should be selected for treatment when other issues of equal importance are not being selected, perhaps for good reason. I shall listen to my noble friend's speech and I hope and believe that he will express a good deal of sympathy with the ideas behind the amendment.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Skelmersdale): My Lords, without in any way wishing to curtail the debate, I thought it would be helpful to the House, especially in view of the speech that my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter has just made, if I at this stage put forward the Government's plans concerning help for these most unfortunate of people so movingly described by the noble Lords, Lord Carter and Lord Allen of Abbeydale. As I told my noble friend the Duke of Norfolk in Committee concerning attendance allowance for the terminally ill, we are not afraid to act as promptly as circumstances allow. On this matter of mobility allowance for the deaf/blind and the mentally handicapped, I cannot stress too strongly that we are wanting to act, willing to act, but waiting to act.
The question we have to ask ourselves, therefore is, why wait? The Government are nearing the end of a voyage of discovery—a voyage which when completed by the end of this month will reveal the largest amount of information ever assembled on the numbers, needs and financial circumstances of disabled people. Five of the six OPCS reports are already published. In terms of this amendment they contain information that the noble Lord, Lord Carter, has made quite clear to us he did not know when he and his advisers originally got together to plan what they could do for deaf/blind and mentally handicapped people.
I confirm at once to the noble Lord that it is true that the published reports do not set out in detail the findings on which our estimates are based. Those estimates have been derived from further analysis

269
of the data tapes, drawing on the data relating to behavioural disability. We shall be willing to explore the data with interested groups if they wish. The data tapes are now available in the Economic and Social Research Council's data archive and are accessible to bona fide researchers. They provide all the data not available in the reports themselves. Why do I say that? These reveal that there might be, not less than 8,000 people covered by the amendment, but in fact over 100,000. I say "might" for a very good reason, because we can never say for certain how a particular statutory definition will apply in practice.
I know that the proposers of this amendment sincerely intend that it should apply to only a small group of severely mentally handicapped people. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, explained in Committee, and again today, how the numerical estimate was arrived at. However, as I said, we now have the survey data which shows that there are over 100,000 people who have disabilities affecting their behaviour and intellectual functioning, to such an extent that it could very reasonably be argued that they need to be accompanied in public, even to the extent of physical contact and control.
On the basis of these figures, the amendment could cost anywhere between the £8 million mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, and a massive £120 million. In fact, of course, it would be somewhere in the middle because some people in this position, as my noble friend Lord Renton confirmed in Committee, are already receiving mobility allowance and in some cases attendance allowance as well.
Be that as it may, the fact is that there are probably a considerable number who do not qualify for these allowances, and I go along with the noble Lord, Lord Carter, to say that we must seriously consider whether we can help them. But should it be with mobility allowance which the noble Lord, Lord Ennals introduced? We need to decide whether this is the appropriate benefit, at the very least. Mobility allowance is currently unattached to any specific condition or illness, the criterion being that it is paid in cases of physical disablement resulting in inability or virtual inability to walk. This has stood the disabled in very good stead since 1976, and numbers and expenditure have risen to a very considerable extent. If this is the case, the allowance is already paid; but in cases where a person is physically able to walk where indeed he is a danger to himself or other people, he is not eligible. That is the problem which the noble Lord, Lord Carter, and the Government wish to solve.
And solve it, my Lords, we will, just as soon as we possibly can. But not so fast that we do not take account of all the OPCS reports, which will very soon be available. As the reports have been published we have encouraged all interested parties to comment on them and their implications for benefits. In view of the figures I have quoted, I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Carter, and his colleagues and the organisations with which they are in touch will want to look carefully at the data that is relevant to their special concern, and I hope, to discuss them with the department. But meanwhile,
270
the large sums of money that could be at stake mean that we cannot take this as a quick interim measure regardless of the wider changes that the reports may indicate.
The information we already have from OPCS surveys, and the need to integrate that with the remaining information soon to be received, means that the Government could not honestly and responsibly accept the solution proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Carter—however tempting and sincerely intended that proposal undoubtedly is. But I can assure the House of our serious intent to find some solution to the problem he has posed. I shall now listen carefully to what other noble Lords have to say. If your Lordships give me leave—and I must make the point, only if your Lordships give me leave—I shall reply to their points later.
3.30 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, following the statement by my noble friend the Minister, perhaps I may ask whether the data report will show how many people would go into institutional care if they did not receive the mobility allowance. Will this report show that? I believe that it is a very significant figure inasmuch as institutional care for this category of people is very expensive.
Lord Trafford: My Lords, I agree with everything that the noble Lords, Lord Carter and Lord Allen, said. I was not aware until two minutes ago of the actual figures which were quoted by the Minister. I do not think I am that worried by the figures and the discrepancy between those quoted by him and those of the noble Lord, Lord Carter, for this reason. One of my anxieties about the amendment is the drafting. Perhaps I may refer to the third line:
"is either unable to walk or virtually unable to do so".
One of the problems that is extremely difficult in regard to all social security payments, all allowances and so forth is that of definition. When the attendance allowance was originally introduced and, up to a point, when the mobility allowance was introduced, the problem was that persons would apply and two different interpretations would be given. In many cases the matter would go to commissions and appeals, as in the story which the noble Lord, Lord Carter, told. I believe that about two-thirds of the appeals are usually granted but nonetheless, however many it may be, the situation is unfortunate.
Therefore with these allowances one needs to have a clear definition of what the person is entitled to. I feel that as regards the mobility allowance and the question of being unable to walk—put graphically by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, who described it as "putting one foot in front of another"—we need a clear cut definition. The amendment says, "or virtually unable", and when we talk about that we introduce a doubt. That is why I do not like the phrase in the amendment. We introduce a doubt and the question, what is "virtually unable to walk"? Many people, for example—
Lord Carter: My Lords, will the noble Lord give way?
Lord Trafford: My Lords, perhaps I may finish my point and then of course I shall give way to the noble Lord, with pleasure. Many people are virtually unable to walk. It may be that it would be reasonable for people to argue then that this should be part and parcel of the definition of the allowance; it should be defined more clearly so that we know what we are talking about.
However, I suspect it may account in part for the discrepancy in the figures given on both sides of the House. Perhaps I may say that I personally would very much like to see something done, not next year or in five years' time, as the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, said, but much more rapidly. I should have liked to see an amendment giving an enabling power to the Secretary of State to do something about the situation in the meantime, rather than wait for another Bill, which was talked about previously. I should have liked something along those lines.
However, as regards this amendment I fear that we may run into a problem of definition which will lead to hundreds of appeals. Those are always distressing for people who have to prove that they are decrepit or that they cannot do this, that or the other.
Another point relevant to what I am talking about concerns the mentally handicapped and the behavioural problems which lead to people having to be with them, wherever they go. As the noble Lord, Lord Carter, pointed out in the example which he gave from, I think, his own village, that person was perfectly capable of putting one foot in front of another. These people are capable of walking, but they are not capable of looking after themselves, in the sense that if they go out then they must have people with them. I suspect that what they should have and what would be more appropriate is an attendance allowance rather than a mobility allowance. Once again, the question is one of definition.
I should like to ask the Minister—whether he is talking about the 6,000 or 8,000 referred to when the amendment was moved, or about the 100,000 that might arise in the circumstances—how many of these people have the attendance allowance? I also wish to ask him whether there is any possibility of changing the amendment in such a way that there would be an enabling possibility which did not have to wait for further primary legislation or something similar in the field.
I have had some personal experience of carrying out various investigations and wondering what on earth to put on the bottom line before signing one's name. One knows how to do that, but what does one put on the bottom line as regards the recommendation? There is the need for a clearcut definition. There is this small point in the amendment which would make me feel, from experience as well as guess work, that it could lead to a great deal of distress, a widening of the applications greater than anticipated by the noble Lords. It might also give rise, I should have thought, to some considerable distress in the number of appeals that might result.
I hope that my noble friend the Minister is able to help us further when he comes to wind up on this
272
amendment, both in terms of some form of enabling legislation or a change in the amendment. I hope that the noble Lord will take on board my point about the necessity for clarity regarding definition in order to reduce distress in appeals and the like.
Earl Russell: My Lords, before I attempt to answer the Minister, I should be grateful if I am allowed to set the record straight for having inadvertently misled the House when I spoke to this amendment in Committee. I quoted a figure from the Independent of 13th June saying that only seven out of 359 appeals had been successful. The newspaper published a correction last Tuesday showing that that figure came from the Social Security Appeals Tribunal. However, the figure from the Medical Appeals Tribunal, which is the correct one, was 27 per cent. I owe it to the House to join with the newspaper in attempting to put right that error.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, has made out very clearly the basic case for this amendment. We have a situation in which the law is not treating like equally with like. That has put the Minister in a rather uncomfortable position. We all know that one of the real curses of the profession of politics is people in it who are against power. In listening to the answers to this amendment, we may hear some reasons why that comes to be so.
I know that the Minister cares about these issues just as we do; but he has been put in a position where he has had to come in and hold a bat which would have been unusually dead even for Geoff Boycott on a bad day at Old Trafford. We have the principle of unripe time which always makes me want to observe irreverently that I wonder when the time will come to be rotten.
We have the argument of the floodgates. That shows that the Government very much overrate the attractiveness of their social security benefits. I have not been in the position to check the figure of 100,000 just offered to us by the Minister. However, the Minister told us recently, when we discussed extending the mobility allowance, that the vast majority of those with locomotion difficulties acquired them over the age of 65 when of course they cannot qualify for the allowance. For a start, those people need to be subtracted from the Minister's figure of 100,000. That will then come to look rather less alarming.
The Minister of State in another place has attempted to argue that the case law is beginning to move in the right direction. I think those were his words. The Minister chooses his words with care. In the Lees case before this House, it is indicated that the word "beginning" had a very necessary part in that statement.
We have here, as we had in what is now Clause 11, an example where the case law is beginning to show a divergence. The Government there were quite eager to change the law to bring it up to the case law. It seems to me that there is an even stronger argument for doing that here.
We also have a suspicion constantly showing up in the appeals tribunals and other places that the claimant may be trying it on. That is a rather

273
unrealistic way of looking at things. After all, there is not very much money at stake here. It is £24.50 per week. If noble Lords were offered the chance of having (shall we say?) osteoarthritis for £24.50 per week, I believe they would say that that was not the rate for the job. I do not think that the danger of false claimants being attracted by that sort of rate is nearly as great as the Government suppose. I very much hope that the Minister may yet relent, and that if he does not, the amendment will be agreed to.
3.45 p.m.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, I should like to say that I have found this debate very distressing. Yesterday I went into the ladies' room, and there I saw a Peer's daughter who was blind. She was not deaf but she was blind. She sat waiting for somebody to come and collect her. It came home to me very forcefully that I am lucky enough to be able to move about, to hear, to speak and to see.
Two doors away from me there lives a young boy who is deaf and blind. I had the privilege of going to the school where that boy is employed. In no way can that boy ever go out on his own. Your Lordships will realise that the blind rely on their sense of touch. If you are deaf, you cannot hear the movements around you. Here we sit cold-bloodedly discussing the numbers involved and the cost. If this concerned armaments, there would be no question as to the cost. But we are talking about human beings, and people who have a contribution to make and who cannot do so in many cases because of their disability.
I shall put a blunt question to the Minister which I am quite sure he will not answer despite the skilful blandishments of the noble Lord on the Front Bench who said that on the one hand this and on the other hand that. But I ask myself how he is going to vote. I answer myself that he will vote against the amendment. I make an appeal to the Minister. If he does not like the amendment, and if the Government are going to do so much for this group of people, let him table an amendment at the next stage to cover these points. I appeal to him in the name of charity. We are not talking about a large number of people. Even if we were, surely the money spent on these people will be far more important than the money which may have to be given to a number of other citizens of the state. I appeal to the Minister.
Lord Renton: My Lords, in Committee a very strong case was made for this amendment; but the noble Lord, Lord Carter, withdrew it because there were various uncertainties felt on both sides of the Committee: there was uncertainty as to the numbers involved; there was uncertainty as to the cost to the Treasury; there was uncertainty as to when the review about which the Government told us would be reported—and we hoped that that would certainly resolve the uncertainty about the numbers involved. There was also uncertainty as to when there would be legislation to deal with this obviously hard situation.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, wisely withdrew the amendment, as he said, in order to have some idea
274
of the timetable. The timetable is at the crux of the matter. Regarding the timetable concerning the completion of the review, we have been told that that review is largely completed and should be completed very soon—this month, it seems.
Turning to the legislation timetable, I listened with much interest and some encouragement to my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale. He said that the Government intend, if I may put it bluntly, to come clean about this matter, but he did not say when. He did not tell us that this matter will definitely be dealt with in the Social Security Bill—and that is an annual affair—next year. However, I very much hope that when he replies to this debate he will tell us that it will be dealt with in next year's Social Security Bill.
The alternative is the one suggested, with much to commend it, by my noble friend Lord Trafford. He said that on Third Reading the Minister should be given power to deal with the matter by regulation. That would be a good solution; but of course that would not be as good as an undertaking to deal with it in the next Finance Bill because the regulations might not be made for several years. Therefore, I must say that when my noble friend replies I would prefer an undertaking here and now to the effect that the Government will deal with this matter effectively in the next Social Security Bill.
Implementation was another uncertainty at the previous stage. That must follow legislation, and when legislation comes we shall no doubt press for it to be implemented as soon as possible. I hope that it will not be long.
We are still in a state of uncertainty on relevant matters. We have been told by my noble friend—and I was astonished by the figure—that the amendment would possibly affect as many as 100,000 people. I confess that I cannot see how that can be. The amendment is perfectly clear and, I should have thought, limited in its effect. It refers to people who are both deaf and blind and I should have thought that the numbers of those are already known by the local authorities and health authorities throughout the country. The amendment also refers to those:
"suffering from severe mental handicap such that he"—
or she, as in the case of my daughter—
"is either unable to walk or virtually unable to do so without physical control".
More often than not, that means that the mentally handicapped person can walk only if held up, or can walk but cannot control the direction of movement.
Having worked, in an amateurish way, in the field of mental handicap for many years I should not have thought that the numbers within that category are so very numerous. Therefore, we are still in a state of uncertainty on that. I am sympathetic towards what the noble Lords, Lord Carter and Lord Allen of Abbeydale, have said and I hope 1hey will forgive me if I say that in my mind (if I am wrong I stand to be corrected) there is a further uncertainty; namely, whether many of the 3,000 deaf-blind and the 4,400 mentally handicapped, unable to walk, are already eligible for mobility allowance under the present arrangements. If a substantial proportion of them are eligible then, to put it bluntly, there is rather less need for this amendment.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, I intervene because perhaps I did not make it clear that I am speaking about the mentally handicapped. The numbers that we are now speaking about are people whose handicap has no identifiable physical cause and who would therefore not be eligible under the present rules.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, that clarifies the point and removes the uncertainty in that respect. I am sure that all noble Lords are also grateful.
I must say that, although much of the uncertainty has been removed, I find myself in a state of unbearable conflict of loyalties. I am a past-president of MENCAP. I want to do all I can to help the mentally handicapped. I am also an admirer and supporter of the efforts of the Government to control public expenditure—referred to by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter. Of course, it is in the interests of those who are the least fortunate in our community that public expenditure and, therefore, inflation, should be kept under control. Such people could be indirect sufferers if we allow public expenditure to run unchecked. I am unwilling to cause pressure which might upset the plans of my right honourable friend Mr. John Major, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. Incidentally, perhaps I may introduce a personal note. He now represents my old constituency, and does so very well.
With this unbearable conflict of loyalties I shall listen to the rest of the debate and then if, unfortunately—and it would be unfortunate—we have a Division I shall decide how to vote. However, I shall be very much influenced by what my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale says as to exactly when the Government propose to cover in legislation the intentions of this amendment. If it is any later than next year I shall have to vote for the amendment.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, I have only one simple point to make. It has been covered in part by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, but I believe it to be so important that it should be repeated. In fact, I should like to go a little further than did the noble Lord.
I refer to the statistics. In this Chamber we are all accustomed to discrepancies in statistics. The noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, gave a figure of 8,000. The letter from the mobility allowance campaign—which perhaps most of us have received—states that approximately 8,000 people are affected and that that is probably the maximum. The Minister, however, gives the figure as 100,000. That discrepancy is too big for the normal style of debate in this House. Therefore, my first point is that I hope the Minister will tell the House exactly how that figure of 100,000 was arrived at.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Renton, I have an interest in that I am president of the Association of Physically and Mentally Handicapped. Like him, I also find it impossible to believe that the number of people who are deaf-blind or suffering from severe mental handicap can be anywhere near 100,000. Therefore, I hope that the Minister can give the House an explanation.
276
There is another implication. If the figure is 8,000, or thereabouts, my understanding is that the overall maximum cost at current benefit rates—presumably that is the right basis to take—is about £10 million; which is less than 2 per cent. of current mobility allowance expenditure. If the figures are 8,000 and £10 million some of us see no reason to hesitate. Some items appearing in the newspapers recently—I hope noble Lords opposite will agree with me in this aspect—concern the obscene pay increases that some chairmen of companies are getting. I do not want to make a major point, but if that is what is going on in some parts of society—and here we are referring to a mere £10 million for the most severely handicapped people—what kind of society are we living in?
Disabled people have waited long enough. All of us here, and some of us when in another place, have dealt with the disabled. The cost to them in terms of energy, sheer inconvenience, lost benefit and in lengthy appeals—appeals can extend into many months; a point that has already been mentioned—cannot be justified, and there should no longer be a delay. Therefore, I hope that noble Lords on all sides will support the amendment.
Lady Kinloss: My Lords, I support the amendment. I ask the Minister whether the deaf-blind can be included in a similar interim measure as those who are to receive the mobility allowance until the age of 80 instead of 75? I should have thought that being deaf-blind is a sufficient disability without the trauma, in most cases, of having to prove their inability to walk alone. They should receive the mobility allowance automatically if they wish to apply for it.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, there is one aspect that has not yet been emphasised in this short debate. I believe that it is an important aspect; but it will certainly not be popular compared with the speeches made by the noble Lords Lord Carter and Lord Allen.
If it were just a matter of numbers or cost, both of my hands would go up in support of the amendment. However, I do not believe that numbers or cost comes into the argument compared with the strength of the necessity to want to help people who need assistance. But what is our function? We are not distributors of social services, excellent though they are and much as we want to see them properly distributed in the right quarters.
We are also legislators. Our main function this afternoon is not to be kind and generous however much we may wish to be so, to people who need our generosity; it is to be good legislators. It is not good legislation if we put on the statute book words that carry doubt and uncertainty. I do not believe that that helps. Clause 9 of the Bill as it stands, and the subsection affected by this amendment, are very clear. Section 37A of the principal Act raises the age from 75 to 80 for the people who are entitled under the Act to have the allowance.
This amendment, though excellent in intent, confuses that clear-cut instruction. It will have to be administered in the future by someone. It will

277
create a situation about which there may be considerable doubt. I was very impressed by the speech of my noble friend Lord Trafford. As a medical man it would be his job and that of people like him to decide whether "virtually unable" to do things was "virtually" or not. One is putting uncertainty into legislation which has to be clear and understandable if it is to work without disruption.
I am on the side of the noble Lord, Lord Allen. I want him to succeed in what he seeks to achieve, but I am convinced that to attach this amendment piecemeal to the Bill is not the right way of doing so. I have more sympathy with my noble friend Lord Renton. I believe a case has been made for doing something for the people affected by this amendment.
4 p.m.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, the noble Lord speaks as though this amendment has invented the phrase "virtually unable to walk". It is already in the principal Act.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, the noble Lord who, as a doctor, would have to decide the matter, recognises doubt. He said that it makes his job of doing the work that we as legislators want done, that much more dificult. When further investigation is made into the claims of these people, who is to say that the mobility allowance as set out in the Bill is the right way of helping them? It may well be that we shall wish to add to the numbers of the deaf and those virtually unable to walk.
That is why I agree with my noble friend Lord Renton. I wish my noble friend at the Disptach Box to give a clearer undertaking as to when the Government are prepared to take the next step to implement the general principle behind this amendment and the speeches that have been made on all sides of the House. I have had to fight many elections; I believe I recognise the importance of appearing to be popular. It is very easy to make compassionate speeches and appeals which are very well based, but we have to do our duty as legislators. We have to put on the statute book words that can be easily interpreted in a way that assists the people we wish to help.
Lord Carter: My Lords, the phrase has been on the statute book since the Social Security Act 1975 was enacted.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, it may well have been wrong then, because the phrase is creating doubts now. I am asking noble Lords, who are colleagues of mine in this House, to approach this matter not as politicians wishing to help their fellow man but in their capacity as legislators. The piecemeal attachment of this amendment to the Bill as it stands is not the cleanest and the most effective way in the long run of carrying out what we wish to do. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Allen, and those who support him have done their job very effectively. They have alerted the Government and their colleagues in this House and, I hope, in another
278
place, to speed the time when these particular unfortunates can be more effectively dealt with than they will be merely by attaching this amendment to the Bill.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I may have got it wrong, but I ask the Minister whether he can be right as regards the figure of 100,000 people who are deaf, blind and have difficulty in walking. That means one in every 560 of the population, if I have done the sums correctly. We cannot have one in every 560 people in this country who are blind, deaf and unable to walk. Where are they all?
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, perhaps the noble Baroness has missed the point that we are speaking of people who are blind, deaf or unable to walk. I do not believe that all three disabilities have to apply to the same person. However, I agree with the noble Baroness that it would be an impossible situation otherwise in terms of numbers. I shall not vote for this amendment. That is not because I do not have sympathy with the cause. I believe it has been magnificently presented by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, and also in typically moderate tone by the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale. I shall not vote for the amendment because as I have listened to the debate, it has become quite clear that no one really knows the situation. The review that is currently being conducted will give the answers in a positive way as regards the number of people involved.
I remember opposing the mobility allowance when it was introduced. I was very upset at the time. As I remember it, it was at the time when the little three-wheeled vehicles were taken away from people. Because the vehicles were not safe, the mobility allowance was brought in. Those who lost their vehicles were pretty upset about it because they did not believe that the money compensated for the loss. The allowance is historically partly due to that. Obviously, the first people to get the mobility allowance had been drivers, but the people we are talking about today, owing to their degree of disability, can never have been drivers. Perhaps that is why they were never considered as regards this provision right from the beginning. I believe all Members of this House believe that there is a case made out for them.
I can tell your Lordships of other cases of people who should be considered. I have those dear to me who have tried for a mobility allowance but have been unable to get it because they have disabilities that come and go. There are all kinds of people who are disadvantaged from time to time. Certain conditions have periods of remission and there is nothing to cover those people. Therefore, I believe that special pleading for one section of people as regards this amendment is something that I shall not support: I wish to see a full review. Other points were made that are highly relevant. I am surprised that it is not possible to bring in some provision for these people under regulations. I am surprised to hear that the power does not exist.
I support the view expressed by my noble friend Lord Trafford. He said that if there was some

279
enabling legislation brought in and if the survey, when it is completed, shows an appropriate case, it would mean that at that stage action could be taken before the next Bill. My noble friend Lord Renton made the point that he would rather have a firm promise for next year. I do not feel that one provision does away totally with the other. These regulations should vary from time to time. For example, AIDS victims can very rapidly deteriorate to the point where they cannot walk. In social security terms it would be very helpful to have more powers to introduce measures under regulations.
That is a valid point. It does not prevent anyone saying that they will bring in such provisions in a successive Bill. In passing, the point should be made that the London boroughs are very good at helping people to get around. There are schemes whereby people pay £1 and can have a taxi ride to the value of £10. There is also the Dial-a-Ride scheme that has only come into effect in recent years. These measures are all means of helping people. For as long as I can remember blind people have not only had free travel on London Transport; they have also had the right to be accompanied if they need assistance. I see people managing very well. They are probably not blind and deaf—I would not know if they were deaf—but they are certainly blind. They travel on the London Underground and manage very well. It gives them a sense of independence to do so. Those people are certainly not immobile. They may need financial help and assistance but they certainly do not lack mobility. That is another reason why I think the phrase "mobility allowance" is not appropriate. Although I have every sympathy with the case presented, I cannot support the amendment today.
Lord Wolfson: My Lords, I support the purposes of the amendment on humanitarian grounds. The cost would be minimal and could quite easily be saved in other directions. The question of priorities is always difficult, but I think it is clear that the unfortunate people covered by the amendment are a priority. The Minister, I am glad to note, has confirmed this.
I was very much influenced by the remarks of my noble friend Lord Renton who is so experienced in these matters. He mentioned a conflict of conscience which I also have. I was also influenced by the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, who gave us a sad example. I was very much taken with the views of the noble Lord, Lord Trafford, who is also experienced in these matters. I take his point about people being virtually unable to move, which I think gives rise to confusion as regards the amendment.
I must declare an interest as a company director although I am not clear where the salaries of company directors come into the matter. Forty per cent. would go in taxes, which is probably enough to pay for the amendment. The proposal is modest and eminently right. My noble friend said that he cannot accept the amendment. I hope that when he comes to reply he will be able to put forward an amendment of his own or say that at Third Reading he will be able to introduce an amendment to bring
280
about the purposes for which this amendment has been tabled. By that time the full facts should be available.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, much as I admire my noble friend Lord Wolfson I am astonished that he, with his keen sense of commerce, should be willing to commit the Government to large sums of money—many millions of pounds—without knowing the facts, especially at a time when we are just about to have the results of the survey which will give us the facts. I have a great deal of personal sympathy for the amendment because I have a brother who is both blind and deaf. I know the difficulties of getting about; I understand the problems. But before the Government are asked to commit themselves I think that we should wait, especially when it is only a matter of weeks, or perhaps months at the outside, to find out the facts.
I should like my noble friend to give a specific undertaking, so far as he and my noble friend the Leader of the House can give an undertaking, that legislation will be brought forward in the next Session. I would be happy to support my noble friend if he could give us, so far as is possible, an undertaking in that direction.
Lord Wolfson: My Lords, with the leave of the House, perhaps I may reply briefly. I thank my noble friend for his kind remarks but I did suggest that when all the facts were available at the time of Third Reading that might be the time to consider the matter.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I assume from the remarks I have heard that I have the leave of the House to reply very briefly to this debate. My noble friend Lord Wolfson with his unerring skill has put his finger right on the facts. We all support the amendment. There is no doubt about it whatever. Every noble Lord supports the amendment. But we need to know the facts. Those facts will not be available by Third Reading. They will not be available, first, until the last OPCS report is published; and, secondly, until the data tapes to which I referred earlier have been properly studied not only by the Government—I get a distinct impression from all around the Chamber that noble Lords do not trust the Government in this matter—but have been independently checked. That must be right. That is why we cannot do it by Third Reading.
The noble Lord, Lord Allen, referred to remarks that I made which he said rather downgraded what I had said earlier in Committee when talking about the five years. The five years is made available by extending the age limit from 75 to 80. It was never meant as being any indication of how long it would take to implement changes arising from the OPCS findings. The point I was making in Committee is that even the most suspicious noble Lord—me at my worst, my Lords—will have no difficulty in believing that we will act well within this time. My noble friend Lady Faithfull wanted to know how many of the people would resort to institutional care. Neither the reports nor the data will answer that

281
question directly for one very good reason. The survey covered specific disabilities. It is a matter of professional judgment. Various individual cases are after all involved. Whether or not they need residential care is a matter for doctors.
My noble friend Lord Trafford answered the question of the noble Lord, Lord Carter, about tribunals and appeals. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, believes that the mobility allowance is in a muddle. I go along with him to a great extent by saying that the mobility allowance is in a muddle. That is one of the reasons why I believe that this is not the time to make it into what my noble friend Lord Trafford would call—I am sorry to put words into his mouth—a greater muddle. The question of entitlement is a matter of medical opinion. It will never be possible, whatever the criteria, to achieve full consistency. However, I agree with my noble friend Lord Trafford; we must get our definition as right as possible, a point made also by my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes. The appeal system allows people to have a further opinion on their possible entitlement and to produce evidence should they wish.
My noble friend eloquently and cogently identified the problem of definition which lies at the heart of the gulf between the estimate of the noble Lord, Lord Carter, and the Government's alternative estimate. Some of those who need to be accompanied in public will also satisfy the eligibility criteria for attendance allowance. However, I am afraid that I cannot give a number this afternoon. The idea of an enabling power is quite ingenious but, as I said a few moments ago, it may well be that we would decide that the best way to help these people is by means other than the mobility allowance. That is why I must also tell the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, that I cannot come back by Third Reading with another amendment. My noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls made this point particularly clearly.
The noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington, and the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, got to the crux of the matter of figures, which many of my noble friends find do not actually matter very much. However, I shall answer the point because it has been addressed several times. The OPCS data show that more than 100,000 people have difficulties affecting their behavioural and intellectual functioning to such an extent that it could reasonably be argued that they need to be accompanied in public even to the extent of physical contact and control. That is what we have taken as our figure. We are not saying with any certainty, a point that I hope I made earlier, that the figure will be 100,000—in other words, that 100,000 will definitely qualify—but the data show that there are some 100,000 people whose behaviour is sufficiently disturbed to raise serious questions about the need for them to be accompanied in public. At the end of the day, that is what the amendment is about. To set this in context, it was shown that there were 650,000 people between the ages of 16 and 59 who have behavioural disabilities at any level of severity.
The noble Lady, Lady Kinloss, suggested that deaf-blind people should be dealt with separately. The noble Lady's suggestion is of course persuasive.
282
However, I must tell her that to me, at any rate, it is uncomfortably divisive. Deaf-blind people are far fewer in number and raise fewer problems as regards identification than the level of behavioural disturbance that requires physical control. But the Government will have to consider most carefully whether to help the one group more quickly than the other.
To sum up: we want to act; we wish to act; and we shall act. However, we need to give more thought as regards how we want to act. But act we assuredly will at the earliest possible date, on what my honourable friend the Minister for Social Security and the Disabled calls, "a very fast track". I believe that I have made it clear that the Government have the best will in the world in this area, but we have not seen what is in the last OPCS report, nor have the data tapes to which I referred been properly studied. Until that has been done, we cannot, even with the best will in the world, come to a conclusion in this matter.
Our basis for bringing forward our detailed proposals will be those findings. We wish to look at them properly; we wish to look at them with the help of your Lordships; and we wish to look at them with the help of all the various voluntary organisations to whom I pay credit in this area. They have done a tremendous amount for disabled people over many years. With their help, we can continue to help such people.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, I notice that he has studiously avoided answering the question which I put to him, which was: will the Government give an undertaking that, having gone through all this negotiating and consulting process, they will deal with the matter one way or another in a social security Bill in the next Session of Parliament? Because, speaking for myself, a lot depends on that.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I made it quite clear to my noble friend, and to the rest of the House, that we shall act in this matter. We shall act in the first social security Bill after this matter has been concluded.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, is there any reason why the Third Reading of this Bill should not be postponed until the overspill period, when the relevant facts will be available, as I understand it, and when suitable legislation could be brought forward during the current parliamentary Session?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, most regretfully, when we reach a later part of this Bill—Schedule 5—your Lordships will find that this legislation must receive Royal Assent by 30th July of this year. Otherwise, we shall be in breach of our EC obligations. I am afraid that the noble Lord's suggestion, although a wise one, is not on this occasion an option.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I begin by thanking all noble Lords who have spoken in what has been

283
an excellent debate. I should also apologise for an omission I made at the beginning of my speech, when I forgot to congratulate the Government—something which does not often happen from this side of the House—for the fact that mobility allowance has increased 10 times in terms of numbers since 1979 to a figure now not far short of 600,000 people. That is why I find it so surprising that the Government are not able to accept an amendment which affects fewer than 8,000 people. I shall return to the issue of the figures later.
Perhaps I may deal just briefly with some of the points which have been made, and in particular one made by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. We already have an interim measure in this Bill to extend the mobility allowance from the age of 75 to the age of 80. Therefore the Government are prepared to use the Bill for an interim adjustment, and to use the case law to support such matters in many respects. I thought that that is what this Chamber was all about: to clarify confusing situations; to tighten legislation; and to ensure that Acts mean what they say. That is the purpose of this amendment; it is designed to tighten down legislation. I shall return to the question of the wording at a later stage.
The Minister said that he hoped that the OPCS survey would set out all the priorities. In fact, it will not do so. It will contain a wealth of statistics and information, but it is the Government who will have to choose the priorities.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord will allow me to intervene, as he referred to me in his remarks. His second version of what I said is the more accurate. What I said, or indeed what I intended to say, was that the OPCS would give us the whole picture and it would then be for the Government, and Parliament, to decide in the light of that action what changes, if any, to make.
Lord Carter: My Lords, that is absolutely true. If the OPCS survey was relevant to this amendment, then that would be quite correct.
The Minister said that the Government would act as promptly as circumstances would allow and that they are wanting and willing to act. But, why wait? We have had to wait for the response to the Disabled Persons Act 1986 and we are still in fact, as the noble Lord will know, waiting for that to be completed. Further, I imagine that after this amendment has been dealt with we shall hear the response to the Griffiths Report, which has taken long enough. I return to the fact that the OPCS survey is really not relevant to this matter.
I turn now to the business of the data tapes. This reminds me of the Perils of Pauline, in that at one bound the Government were free. We have been discussing this matter now since the early 1980s. The figures have never been in dispute up to this point; indeed, they were not in dispute until the Committee stage. But, all of a sudden, the data tapes have become available. However, we are told that the report is not yet published and that the data tapes cannot be properly studied. But, despite that
284
fact, the Government suddenly produce a figure of 100,000 people, which as the noble Baroness said, defies common sense.
I ask your Lordships to think about the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. For example, do we really think that there is one person in every 560 people who is so severely mentally handicapped that they need continuous physical control by another person? The organisations involved—namely, Sense and MENCAP—have done their research most carefully, Indeed, they have used the Government's figures; they have used the 1971 survey which states the incidence of mental handicap; and they have produced a figure of 7,600 people. I am prepared to believe them.
Many noble Lords remarked upon the phraseology of the amendment; that is, the words,
"unable to walk or virtually unable to do so".
However, those are the words contained in the principal Act. It says:
"unable to walk or virtually unable".
We have merely extended the wording to read:
"or is deaf and blind",
or is unable to walk, or virtually unable to walk, as a result of the severe mental handicap. That phraseology has been on the statute book since 1975.
Lord Trafford: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord for giving way. I am aware of the last point he made. However, my point was that that itself has given rise to some difficulty, even when dealing with much more clear-cut physical matters. I suggested to him that he might consider changing the wording in this amendment, or in a subsequent amendment, simply for the sake of clarification. Clarification is quite important in reducing the distress of appeal. That was the point of raising the matter.
Lord Carter: My Lords, if this amendment were accepted there would still be some borderline cases. Indeed, there always are in such matters. However, they would be very much reduced in number. That is the point. As I say, the phrase is already in the Act and in the regulations.
I gave the example of the lady in our village. I shall now give your Lordships another example. It is of a woman who suffers from ME. She is able to walk from here to the other side of Westminster Bridge; but she receives a mobility allowance, because she would be so ill the next day and would be in bed for a week were she to do so. She is able to receive a mobility allowance—and I know her—but the girl whom I described in our village who is so severely mentally handicapped is refused a mobility allowance. That just cannot be right.
I turn now to the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Renton. We know the numbers and the cost. The review was completed a long time ago; it is only the publication of the review which has taken a long time. Indeed, the review was completed certainly some months ago. Of course, it takes some time to publish such documents.
However, I repeat that Sense and MENCAP have done their sums most carefully yet, all of a sudden, at this late stage the Government produce a figure

285
which undoubtedly includes all severely mentally handicapped people with behavioural problems. But, this amendment does not deal with that matter; it deals with those who are so severely mentally handicapped that they need continuous physical control by another person.
The noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, said that we have done our job in that we have alerted the Government. But the Government were alerted to this problem in the early 1980s. We have been trying to get this concession through since that time. The noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, said that mobility allowance altered from time to time and that the condition which gives rise to it recedes. That is absolutely true; but not in the case of the deaf-blind and the severely mentally handicapped, which is what the amendment is all about. There is no recession in their condition ever.
Perhaps I may conclude with some remarks about the Minister's speech. The last report has not been published. The data base cannot be complete. How does the Minister know that the figure is 100,000? Have the civil servants made a big hearted guess? The figure does not stand up. The Minister says that the mobility allowance is in a muddle. It is, and the amendment is intended to deal with it. The excuse is always given that it is never the time. We asked the Government in 1981. We saw the Minister in 1985. We saw the Minister in 1987. We saw the Minister in 1989. We are now told that we must wait; we must wait for the OPCS survey; we must wait for consultations; and, "We will give it a fast track".
The Minister says that over 100,000 people have behavioural problems. I listened carefully to the Minister's words. In support of his case, he described a large group of people. We chose the wording of the amendment to restrict its purpose. The wording is tight. The numbers are known. The only way to solve the problem is to ask for the opinion of the House.
4.31 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 124; Not-Contents, 114.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Allen of Abbeydale, L. [Teller.]

Carter, L.

Alport, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Ampthill, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Ardwick, L.

Craigavon, V.

Auckland, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Blackstone, B.

David, B.

Blyth, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Bottomley, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Briginshaw, L.

Dunrossil, V.

Broadbridge, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

286

Ennals, L.

Mottistone, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Mountevans, L.

Ezra, L.

Mulley, L.

Faithfull, B.

Murray of Epping Forest, L

Falkender, B.

Nicol, B.

Falkland, V.

Northfield, L.

Gainford, L.

Ogmore, L.

Gainsborough, E.

O'Hagan, L.

Gallacher, L.

O'Neill of the Maine, L.

Galpern, L.

Perry of Walton, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Peston, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Phillips, B.

Greenway, L.

Pitt of Harnpstead, L.

Gregson, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Grimond, L.

Haig, E.

Prys-Davies, L.

Halsbury, E.

Reilly, L.

Hampton, L.

Renton, L.

Hanworth, V.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Rochester, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Russell, E.

Hayter, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Hirshfield, L.

Seear, B.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Seebohm, L.

Hunter of Newington, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Hylton, L.

Serota, B.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Shackleton, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Shannon, E.

Jeger, B.

Shaughnessy, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Shepherd, L

John-Mackie, L.

Simon, V.

Kennet, L.

Somerset, D.

Kilbracken, L.

Stallard, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Stedman, B.

Lawrence, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Swann, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Lloyd George of Dwyfor, E.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Lockwood, B.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Longford, E.

Tordoff, L.

Macaulay of Bragar, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Underhill, L.

McNair, L.

Walston, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Milverton, L,

Winstanley, L.

Morris, L.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Effingham, E.

Alexander of Weedon, L.

Elles, B.

Allerton, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Annaly, L.

Erne, E.

Arran, E.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Ferrers, E.

Beloff, L.

Fortescue, E.

Belstead, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Bessborough, E.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Blatch, B.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Boardman, L.

Goold, L.

Borthwick, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Butterworth, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Caithness, E.

Havers, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Henley, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Hesketh, L.

Carnock, L.

Hives, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Holderness, L.

Cockfield, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Hooper, B.

Colwyn, L.

Ingrow, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Craigton, L.

Joseph, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Kimball, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Lauderdale, E.

Dilhorne, V.

Long, V.

Dundee, E.

Lothian, M.

287

Lyell, L.

Quinton, L.

McAlpine of Moffat, L.

Rankeillour, L.

McFadzean, L.

Rees, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Mansfield, E.

Savile, L.

Margadale, L.

Selborne, E.

Marley, L.

Sharpies, B.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Merrivale, L.

Stockton, E.

Middleton, L.

Strange, B.

Monk Bretton, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Mountgarret, V.

Sudeley, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Suffield, L.

Munster, E.

Terrington, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Nelson, E.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L

Nelson of Stafford, L.

Trafford, L.

Norrie, L.

Tranmire, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Trumpington, B.

Orkney, E.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Wynford, L.

Pender, L.

Young, B.

Prior, L.

Young of Graffham, L.

Pym, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, this might be a convenient moment to take the Statement. Therefore we will resume consideration on Report later.

Community Care
4.40 p.m.
Lord Henley: My Lords, with the leave of the House I should like to repeat a Statement that is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a Statement on the Government proposals for the future organisation and funding of community care.
"Community care is a policy to which successive governments have been committed for almost 30 years.
"The key aim of this policy is to enable people to live as full and independent a life as is possible for them in the community for so long as they wish to do so. For many people, this means providing the services and support they need to continue to live in reasonable comfort in their own homes for as long as possible. For others, who may have experienced long stays in hospital and have more intensive care needs, it means helping them to re-establish their lives away from large institutional settings. I am sure that the vast majority of people wish to live in or near their own homes until or unless age or disability make that impossible. It is the Government's purpose to help them and the people who care for them to achieve that aim. Success depends crucially on the availability of adequate services in the community.
"The background to the developments I am about to announce is one of tremendous growth
288
in both resources and manpower for community care. To give the House some examples of the progress that has been made between 1979–80 and 1986–87, expenditure by the NHS on the community health services has risen by 40 per cent. in real terms, and local government spending on the personal social services has grown by almost 27 per cent. The number of day centre and day hospital places for mentally handicapped people rose by 10,000. The number of home helps grew by 20 per cent. and the number of day centre places for elderly people by 18 per cent. The number of residential places for mentally ill people rose by over a half, and places in day centres and day hospitals by a third. Between 1981–86 the number of community psychiatric nurses doubled. This growth in resources has been taking place alongside a dramatic change in the delivery of care and the movement of people out of hospitals and into community settings. Between 1980 and 1986 the number of children in mental handicap hospitals fell from 2,500 to less than 400 and the number of mentally handicapped adults in hospital fell by around 14,000, while the number in local authority, voluntary and private community based homes rose by 11,000. In addition we have, through the benefit system, put huge additional resources into supporting people in private residential care and nursing homes. The amounts spent on supporting these people have increased from £10 million in 1979 to £878 million in 1988.
"Nonetheless, I am sure that we all agree that progress has not been as even or as rapid as we should like. The rapid growth of residential and nursing home care has been unplanned and largely based on the availability of social security benefits. The Government recognised the need to see whether the arrangements for delivering community care could be improved when we asked Sir Roy Griffiths in December 1986 to report on ways by which the better use of public funds for community care might be achieved.
"We are indebted to Sir Roy for his report Community Care: Agenda for Action, which we published in March last year. The report has succeeded in stimulating valuable public debate. Over 280 organisations, professional bodies and members of the public, have sent us their views on it, many in support of the recommendations, but some favouring other options. We have taken full account of the wide range of views expressed, and considered a wide variety of options. Our conclusions are as follows.
"We accept the distinction Sir Roy Griffiths makes between health and social care. Our proposals do not alter the functions or responsibilities of health services. The community health services will continue to play an essential part in meeting the medical and nursing needs of people outside hospital.
"We are proposing to make important changes in the way in which non-health care is provided and, where necessary, funded at public expense. The great bulk of community care will continue to be provided by family, friends and neighbours. The majority of carers take on these

289
responsibilities willingly, and I admire the dedicated and self-sacrificing way in which so many members of the public take on serious obligations to help care for elderly or disabled relatives and friends. Our proposals are aimed at strengthening support for those many unselfish people who care for people in need.
"At present, people who are unable to support themselves and need help with social care can look to two separate sources of statutory help: to social security offices for payments towards the cost of places in residential care and nursing homes; and to local authorities, for home care, day care and residential care services. We accept that the present arrangements are flawed because they cannot ensure that priority is given towards supporting people at home where that is possible and desirable. Social security payments for residential and nursing home care are subject to no assessment of individual needs for care. The public agencies have a financial incentive which no one ever intended to give to them, to rely as much as possible on the availability of social security for residential care. We do not believe that these present arrangements secure the best possible outcomes for people in need, or indeed the best possible use of taxpayers' money.
"We therefore accept Sir Roy's recommendation that those two sources of public funding should be brought together and allocated on the basis of a proper judgment of an individual's needs. By creating this unified source of funding for the full range of social care services, we can ensure that the objective of sustaining people in their own homes wherever possible be given the necessary priority.
"We propose to introduce a new funding structure for those seeking help from public funds for the cost of care. In future there should be a single budget to cover the costs of care whether in a person's own home or in a residential or nursing home. This will enable sensible decisions to be taken about the type of care that best meets an individual's needs and provides best use of public money. At the same time we will remove the perverse incentives in the present benefit system by making all claimants eligible for income support and housing benefit on a similar basis, whether they are living in their own homes or in independent residential or nursing homes.
"We have considered carefully which care authority should hold this new budget and take on the responsibility for the assessment of need and provision of care. Local authorities are already responsible for the full range of social care services and have a great deal of expertise in this area. We have concluded that the best way forward will be to build on local authorities' existing responsibilities. We accept Sir Roy Griffiths' proposal that local authorities should assume responsibility for the care element of public support for people in private and voluntary residential care and nursing homes, and for making the best use of those funds in relation to an assessment of people's needs and priorities. Collaboration between medical, nursing
290
and social services agencies will be essential in assessing individual needs, and in designing suitable arrangements for care. We shall look to local authorities to ensure that suitable multi-disciplinary assessment procedures are in place, and to health authorities to make their contribution to those procedures.
"We attach great importance to securing a smooth transition to this new structure, avoiding uncertainty for people currently living in homes and for their relatives. We therefore propose that the new arrangements for social security benefit entitlement will apply only to people not already in residential or nursing home care after the date on which the new arrangements come into force.
"Residents of homes who are in receipt of income support when the new system is introduced will therefore retain their entitlement to help through the existing system. People who are self-financing residents of registered homes when the new system is introduced will also be able to apply for income support under the existing arrangements if their funds become exhausted subsequently. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Security is today announcing further details of these new arrangements.
"We accept that further efforts will be needed to improve co-ordination between health and social services in the arrangement and delivery of services to individuals. We believe that the clarification of roles in our proposals will make it easier to achieve this.
"The local authorities' responsibilities, in collaboration with others including doctors and other caring professions, will be to assess individuals' needs, design suitable care arrangements, and secure their delivery. It is not necessary for local authorities to provide all this service directly themselves and they should make maximum possible use of the voluntary, not-for-profit and commercial sectors so as to widen individuals' room for choice, increase the flexibility of services and stimulate innovation.
"The Government have long urged local authority social services departments to act in an enabling, and not just a providing capacity. Some authorities are already moving in that direction. To minimise disruption and to ensure that local authorities have every incentive to make use of the independent sector and offer people choice, we propose that they should continue to meet the full cost of accommodating people in local authorities' own homes, subject to their existing powers to make charges according to residents' ability to pay. My right honourable friend is not therefore proposing to change the benefit rules for residents of these homes.
"We believe that these new financial arrangements will give local authorities the necessary incentives to develop better services for people at home, and make greater use of independent providers. It will be important that local authorities should have clear plans for the development of community care services, worked

291
out in collaboration with health authorities and the independent sector. I shall expect all authorities to have such plans, and shall ensure that they are open to inspection by my Social Services Inspectorate. I also propose to take powers to call for reports on local authorities' community care services.
"Local authorities will need adequate resources for their new responsibilities. That means that we shall transfer to the local authorities the resources which the Government would otherwise have provided to finance care through social security payments to people in residential and nursing homes. The aggregate amount of transferred resources will allow for the projected growth in the numbers of people needing support. Resources will be needed by the local authorities to carry out their new tasks of assessing individuals' needs, arranging appropriate care services for people at home, and buying private residential and nursing home care.
"We are confident that the proposed funding arrangements, by putting more emphasis on supporting people in their own homes, will provide both more appropriate services closer to individuals' wishes and needs, and better value for money from public spending than under the existing arrangements. We shall be discussing the detailed financial implications with local authority representatives. The necessary decisions on the resources to be transferred will be taken in the public expenditure survey next year.
"I have summarised our conclusions on the main proposals in Sir Roy Griffiths' report. They represent a major challenge for local authorities and social services departments. There are a number of associated issues on which the House will expect me to make the Government's position clear.
"First, we have been especially concerned to ensure that care for severely mentally ill people is properly managed. Here, as in other areas, we have concluded that the right course is to ensure that existing responsibilities are discharged effectively. On the health side, I will ensure that discharges of seriously mentally ill people from hospital will take place only when adequate medical and social care is available for them outside hospital. More details of the initiatives we are taking here will be announced shortly. On the social care side, we have decided to create a new specific grant directed at encouraging local authorities to make their necessary contribution to services, in line with health authority plans and objectives. To achieve that, we have decided that the grant should be payable by health authorities, acting as my agent, on the basis of plans and targets put to them by the relevant local authorities. The details of this proposal will be worked out in discussion with health and local authority representatives.
"Secondly, both Sir Roy Griffiths and Lady Wagner made recommendations about the registration and inspection of residential care and nursing homes. Local authorities will be asked to
292
establish inspection and registration units, at arm's length from the management of their own services, which should be responsible for checking on standards in their own homes, and to involve independent outsiders in these arrangements. We have concluded that, for the present, existing statutory functions should remain unaltered.
"Thirdly, we would expect general practitioners to ensure that social services departments are aware of their patients' needs for social care, as recommended by Sir Roy Griffiths in his report.
"I have outlined our conclusions on the main issues. My right honourable friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales are today announcing separately our conclusions of particular relevance to them. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will be doing the same early next week. We propose to spell out our proposals in more detail in a White Paper which we aim to publish in the autumn. It will be necessary to ensure that the necessary legislative framework is in place before implementation, which we propose should be in 1991.
"Our proposals bring the policy of community care up to date and will improve the way in which it is put into practice on the ground. Community care is no longer primarily about providing an alternative to long-stay hospital care. The vast majority of people needing care have never been, nor expect to be, in such institutions. The policy aim now is to strike the right balance between home and day care on the one hand, and residential and nursing home care on the other, while reserving hospital care for those whose needs truly cannot be met elsewhere. The changes we propose will for the first time ensure that all public monies are devoted to the primary objective of supporting people at home wherever possible. They provide a solid basis for the future, and are founded upon the principles of preserving individual independence, freedom of choice and providing services in a sensitive and personal way. I believe they deserve wholehearted support, and I commend them to the House".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.57 p.m.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for repeating the Statement. It must be a great relief for him to be able to do so because, by my calculation, he himself, and his noble friends Lord Skelmersdale and Lord Hesketh, have on 21 occasions used variations of the word "soon" regarding when the reply would come.
The Statement was a very important one, and I must say that I welcome the general thrust of what has been said this afternoon. We welcome the Government's decision to rethink their attitude to Sir Roy Griffiths' proposals, and hope that this may also apply to the ill-considered proposals for the reform of the National Health Service. Hope springs eternal!
Is the noble Lord aware that our satisfaction and our broad acceptance of the Government's broad

293
acceptance of Sir Roy Griffiths' proposals is somewhat clouded by irritation and, at times, anger at the incompetent manner in which this matter has been handled by the Government? Bearing in mind the urgency of the problem, the very great increase in the number of elderly, the increase in the number of patients being discharged into the community from long-stay hospitals and the rapid expansion in the number of homeless people, how can the Government justify a 17 month period of consideration of an issue as important and urgent as this? Everone else found time to reach their conclusions. During the period when Ministers sat on this report, the Secretary of State wrote a whole White Paper which has thrown the National Health Service into some chaos and confusion and, of course, into a massive rejection by the public.
What a contrast between the tortoise-like speed of the consideration of this important report and the kind of race track speed at which the Government have handled the White Paper. Even now, it seems to me that the Government show very little sense of urgency, despite the fact that the number of over-85s has exceeded by 10 times the proportion of people attending day hospitals for the elderly; and that over the past 10 years 25,800 long-stay patients were discharged from mental health hospitals, while only 2,230 extra day care places were provided for them in the community, and only 4,000 extra residential places. At a time of greatly increased need for community care provision, those places are at present grossly under-funded. Of course, there has been a great increase in expenditure, but this is largely based on the growing needs of the population which have required additional expenditure.
I wish to put a number of questions to the Minister for his response. First, I note what has been said about the discharge of severely ill people from hospital only when adequate measures of social and medical care are available. Great concern has been expressed in this House about discharges from psychiatric hospitals into the community when provision was not available. Broadly, we welcome the decision, but I hope that it will not mean simply imposing a brake on the closure of psychiatric hospitals when what is needed is a great increase in the availability of community care services in order that we may effectively transfer people into the community.
Secondly, yesterday was the third anniversary of the passing into law of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act. Several provisions of that Act have not yet been implemented. Will the noble Lord say something about the timetable for the implementation of the remainder of that Act, some parts of which are very urgent?.
Thirdly, we welcome the appointment of the local authority as the lead agency for community care. Do the Government still propose to remove from the new health authorities representatives of local authorities? In view of the new confidence in and challenge to local authorities, should the Government not drop the very mean proposal that under the new reorganisation local authorities
294
should no longer be represented on local health authorities? I hope that they will look at that matter very seriously.
Fourthly, why have the Government decided to discourage local authority social service departments from providing their own community services? I do not really understand the Secretary or State's motive. Is there any evidence that their standards are lower than those of privately provided services? My own impression is that it is the other way round. How can local authorities set high standards if they are not themselves to be responsible for providing their own services? Surely it is a matter of both enabling and providing, not one rather than the other.
Fifthly, what about the Griffiths proposal for a Minister for Community Care? That was one aspect of Sir Roy's recommendations which gained support from all sides. Not a word was said about it in the Statement. I hope that the noble Lord can comment on that proposal.
Sixthly, what is the Government's policy in respect of helping the carers at a time when growing responsibility, recognised by the Secretary of State in his Statement, is falling on families and their friends to care for the elderly and infirm, often involving, as he said, very great sacrifice? His thanks are welcome, but some of them need money. At present there are 150,000 carers of disabled people who now find themselves £5 a week worse off as a result of recent government action. There is an increasing number of elderly, frail arid handicapped people who are now unable to pay nursing home fees because of social security cutbacks. Some of them have already had to delve into their savings and some are frightened that they may have to leave. That is very bad for people in that position. Complaints were made by Age Concern only today on that score.
Seventhly, and most importantly, there is the question of the provision of funding for the community care programme. I noted that the Secretary of State said in his Statement that the two sources of funding—from social security offices and local authority budgets—are to be brought together. That is broadly to be welcomed. There is merit in a unified source of funding. It is difficult to comment until we have full details and until your Lordships have seen the Statement which was apparently also made today by the Secretary of State for Social Services. However, we on this side of the House must be satisfied that local authorities will receive funds which are adequate to meet the new responsibilities. It is no good putting a new pattern into place if the local authorities are to be starved of funds to enable them to fulfil the task. That is the situation at present and we must have assurances on that score. The discussions which are to take place with local authority associations are extremely important.
Eighthly, I welcome the announcement following the report of Sir Roy Griffiths and Lady Wagner on the registration and inspection of residential care in nursing homes and other accommodation. Will there be some national system of inspection and national standards, or will it simply by a system of local standards? It is important that private care provision

295
must come up to the same standard as public and voluntary organisation provision. We must make a great effort to maintain high standards. At present I am very worried about some of the provision made in the private sector, although very substantial profits are made.
My final question concerns the timetable for the White Paper and for legislation. It is of crucial importance that as soon as the White Paper is published we should have the opportunity for a debate in your Lordships' House. As I have said, it is a very important Statement and there is a great deal of information which we want to absorb. I should like to know whether we will have a debate and whether the legislation to bring these proposals into effect will be introduced at the same time as the proposed legislation on the reform of the National Health Service. The two go together and I would expect that the legislation for both would come together.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I should like to say from these Benches how much we also welcome the Statement given to us today. I can only say, better late than never. I shall not digress on the very large number of times that we have asked when the Statement was coming; I shall merely say that I am delighted that it has now arrived.
In the main the contents are very acceptable. We are very glad indeed that the Government have decided to place the responsibility with the local authorities. If ever there was a job which should appropriately be done by local authorities, with their local knowledge, ability to rally local support and to keep in touch with local voluntary organisations, it is in the area of community care. We have felt all along that that was where the responsibility should lie and we are very glad indeed that the Government have now made up their mind along those lines. Of course it is recognised that that job has to be done in full consultation with the health authorities.
We welcome the idea that there should be individual assessments of need by one authority so that there will be one department in the local authority ensuring that once the assessment is made the provision is available and the needs of individuals who have been assessed will be met. One can see from the proposals put forward, echoing as they do the proposals in the Griffiths Report, that the machinery can be brought in at last to ensure that a programme of care for the individual is mapped out, that care is provided, and, of the very greatest importance, that the services that are being provided for people who need care will be inspected.
Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, I very much welcome the fact that use is to be made of voluntary organisations and the private sector, provided always that inspection standards are suitably high. As I read the Statement, it does not rule out the provision of care by local authorities. It merely says that in addition to local authorities making their own provision, care can also be provided by the commercial and voluntary sectors.
While welcoming that fact, perhaps I may add that from the point of view of the voluntary
296
organisations, if care is to be provided by voluntary organisations there must be adequate funding. To take the approach—welcomed on these Benches—of using a variety of resources to meet the needs could be a disaster unless money is provided to ensure that it is done properly. From experience in other areas in which voluntary bodies are asked to collaborate and provide services, it is clear that they must have an assurance that money will be available over a reasonable period of time and that there will not be frequent changes in the way in which it is made available.
Nothing is more devastating from the point of view of the voluntary organisations—we have had so much of this over recent years—than for them to be encouraged to provide services and to put resources, effort and enthusiasm into them only to find, six months, nine months or a year later, that the financial arrangements have altered. There must not be continuous chopping and changing about provision. Voluntary organisations must be given confidence to know that there will be adequate money and that that will be sustained over a proper period of time.
There are one or two points upon which I should like further clarification, although I think that, from the wording of the Statement, the Government are not absolutely clear as to how they intend to handle the matter themselves. The Statement says that the new provisions will not apply to people at present in residential care. I am looking for the appropriate page of the Statement.
Lord Henley: My Lords, will the noble Baroness give me the paragraph number?
Baroness Seear: My Lords, that is what I am looking for. If I could find it, I should be only too delighted to give it to the noble Lord. I have read the passage three times so I am absolutely certain that it is there. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, can find it. It is a rather important point. I shall come back to it in a moment.
Another point on which we seek clarification is the provision for the mentally ill. The Statement says:
Here, as in other areas, we have concluded that the right course is to ensure that existing responsibilities are discharged effectively … discharges of seriously mentally ill people from hospital will take place …".
That is fine, but the responsibility is to be through the health authorities. The Statement goes on to say:
"the grant should be payable by health authorities, acting as my agent, on the basis of plans and targets put to them by the relevant local authorities."
Will the Minister explain the relationship between the health authorities and the local authorities in the area of people discharged from mental hospitals? There is a clear distinction between that and the way in which one handles other cases. The funding will be different in that it is payable to the health authorities, yet the local authorities still come into the matter. I do not know whether the Minister is in a position to make clear how that mechanism will work. I do not think that it is clear in the Statement. Perhaps it has not yet been fully worked out. Again,

297
providing care for mentally ill people is an expensive business. Will the funding be on the same scale or greater? May we be assured that it will be adequate when people move out of mental hospitals? That is an important point.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, the passage to which the noble Baroness referred previously is in paragraph 13.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ennals. That is what one calls comradeship.
Paragraph 13 states:
"We attach great importance to securing a smooth transition … We therefore propose that the new arrangements for social security benefit entitlement will apply only to people not already in residential or nursing home care".
What does that mean? If those people come out, who will provide for them? Presumably, if they are already in a home, some of them will come out. Are they excluded from the new provisions even when they come out? That does not appear to be clear from Paragraph 13. Perhaps the Government have not fully worked it out; but we shall need to know about that because it is an important point. It seems to me that, as the provision is worded at the moment, such people are excluded from the provisions. The new arrangements will apply only to people not already in residential or nursing home care. Will the Minister clarify that point?
However, having said that—in a somewhat confused way, I fear—I should say that we welcome the proposals. We are glad that they have at long last come forward. We hope that they can be brought into force with great speed. I should like to echo the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ennals; namely, is the question of a Minister for community care to be considered? Finally, surely this is a subject on which we need to have a debate, rather than having a quarter of a debate now.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I thank both the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, and the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, for their generous remarks in generally welcoming the Statement. I am pleased not to have to use the words "soon" or "shortly" for the moment. I imagine that the same would apply to my noble friends who have also used those words. There has been a delay, but the noble Lord knows that community care is a complex and sensitive area in which a number of departments have a keen interest. We need to take a broad and considered view of government policy.
We are now clear that the proposals outlined in the Statement offer the best way forward. I shall try to deal with quite a number of the points made by the noble Lord. I believe that there was a total of nine.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I believe that there were 10.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I suspect that I might have missed some—I counted nine—but I shall try to cover them all.
298
The noble Lord spoke about the discharge of the severely ill. Perhaps I may say in passing that there will be an announcement about further initiatives very soon. For once, I can tell the noble Lord what the word "soon" means. My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Mr. Freeman, will make a speech tomorrow to the National Schizophrenia Fellowship in which he will outline the Government's new initiatives for the care of the mentally ill. There is at present no intention to change policy or rein back on the closure of psychiatric hospitals. We intend to encourage local authorities to play their part in that process.
The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, raised the question of residents who cannot meet the fees in nursing homes because of cuts in social security. The level of social security benefit is a matter for my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Security. I know that the rates are sufficient in the majority of residential care and nursing homes. My right honourable friend looks at them each year and I am sure that he will review them in the course of events.
The noble Lord was also worried about the question of local authorities' own homes. I was pleased to have some support on that matter from the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, who, I took it, understood that we still accept the fact that local authorities should run their own homes if they so wish. However, they should be encouraged to make use of the private and voluntary sector. We are not making any change to the existing arrangements for people in local authority homes. We are simply encouraging local authorities to beef up their community care domiciliary services in the other sector.
Both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness asked about the recommendation in the Griffiths Report that there should be a Minister of State with special responsibility for community care. We feel that that is unnecessary at the moment. Clearly, the Minister of State for Health already has that responsibility and we feel that there is no need to create a new ministerial post.
The noble Lord also said that carers were badly off as a result of social security. Aain, that is a matter for my right honourable friend. I am sure that he will take note of the noble Lord's comments. The idea behind the social services departments presenting a package is that they can obviously take into account the needs of the carers as well as those of the clients in setting up that package. Obviously, that is a relevant matter.
The noble Baroness mentioned voluntary organisations. I was pleased that she gave credit to the important contribution that they make. We are in a new and exciting climate in which we hope that they will collaborate with county councils and other social services departments in a meaningful way.
The noble Baroness also asked about the specific grant. The intention is to encourage Focal authorities to build up their mental illness services from a low basis and to ensure that the development of their services will be consistent with health authority plans. Health authorities will administer the grant. The grant is not intended to cover all costs—"pump

299
priming" I think would be a better word. The level has not yet been decided and will be discussed in the White Paper.
Both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness asked about the timetable of the White Paper which will be published in the autumn. As noble Lords will understand, whether or not we have a debate on that White Paper is a matter for the usual channels. However, I am sure that the usual channels will take note of the extensive interest on this matter in the House.
With regard to the matter of legislation, noble Lords will appreciate that I cannot pre-empt the Queen's Speech.
No doubt I have missed out some points but perhaps I could now say a brief word on funding, although I cannot be very specific. There will be a transfer of funds from central to local government to ensure that the local authorities have adequate resources to carry out their new responsibilities. That means that we shall transfer to the local authorities the resources that the Government would otherwise have provided to finance care for those receiving social security payments in residential care and nursing homes. The transfer of resources will allow for the projected growth in the number of people needing support. Detailed financial implications will be discussed with the local authority associations.
Perhaps I may turn now to paragraph 13, which was causing the noble Baroness some confusion; I thought that it was self-explanatory. Those who are in residential homes at the moment will not lose out because of the new arrangements. Also, those who are there and paying for themselves but who later need support will be protected. It only affects people who go in after the scheme has been set up.
I hope that I have answered Most of the points that have been raised. If not, I shall write to the noble Lords covering any points that I have missed.
Lord Renton: My Lords, perhaps I may first say that the Statement is very welcome, although one will need time to consider the details of it because as Statements go it was very long. I wonder whether my noble friend can give some broad idea as to whether the proposals will lead to a reduction in the number of mentally handicapped people—I am not talking of the mentally ill, but the mentally handcapped—in long-stay hospitals of whom there are still several thousand.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I can only say that we shall continue our existing policy. Where possible we should like to see people coming out of long-stay hospitals. Obviously if mentally handicapped people had been in a long-stay hospital for such a length of time that it would not be a satisfactory care solution to allow them back into the community, then they would stay in the hospital.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, I too am delighted that after 16 months' brooding the Government have at last hatched this egg. In view of the enormous increase in the cost of residential
300
care and nursing homes and the Government's declared aim of keeping people in their own homes so far as is possible, will they make sure of providing local authorities with adequate and if necessary earmarked funds for paying for personal alarms for the elderly and disabled in their own homes in cases where alarms cannot be afforded now that they can no longer be charged to housing benefit?
Incidentally, can the noble Lord say whether in fact the additional funding that the Government will supply to local authorities for implementing the Griffiths Report will be earmarked? Finally, could he possibly say how the hospices will fit into this scheme?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Lady asks about personal alarms. Obviously this will be a matter for the social services departments to consider in relation to all their other home care services. It is the home care services that we wish to see expand. If it is felt that they would make it easier for people to stay in the community, then obviously personal alarms could be of great benefit.
The noble Lady also asked about hospices. Currently the position of hospices is the subject of separate consideration and they will not be affected by the proposals announced today.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I too should like to thank my noble friend very much for this Statement which I think is good so far as it goes. I should also like to congratulate him and his right honourable and honourable friends on producing the Statement before the Summer Recess. At one moment it seemed that we might not have it and I like to think that perhaps my Schizophrenia After-Care Bill had some effect in hurrying it up.
I am also most grateful to hear that his honourable friend Mr. Freeman will be addressing the National Schizophrenia Fellowship; he will make a Statement on the detail as regards the severely mentally ill which is still awaited. I hope that the not so severely mentally ill will also be included. The term covers a wide range of people and I hope that he will not be as restrictive as that. In general I welcome what we have heard today.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for those remarks. I do not know what my honourable friend Mr. Freeman will be saying. However, knowing the noble Lord's interest and having listened carefully to the discussions on his Schizophrenia After-Care Bill when it was going through this House, I think it very likely that tomorrow he will be there to listen to my honourable friend's speech and take note of what he says.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Belstead): My Lords, this has been a very long Statement and it is quite understandable that the House has wanted to take the length of time that it did to discuss it. Nevertheless, we have been discussing it for half an hour. Perhaps I may suggest that we now take the next intervention, that of the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, and then pass on to the next business.
Lord Seebohm: My Lords, I shall be brief. I speak in my capacity as president of Age Concern. The announcement that we have heard today comes as a very great relief to me and, I am sure, to all my colleagues in Age Concern. My main worry is whether we shall have sufficient funds to undertake all the training and retraining that will be necessary as well as the other facilities that will be required in setting up this new system. I think that that will be very important.
It may be of some small interest to the House to learn that after nearly 20 years on the 24th of this month I shall be handing over the presidency of Age Concern to Sir Roy Griffiths.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his comments. As regards funding, I cannot add to what I have already said. We spend a great deal on community care, and funding has been rising steadily throughout the past decade. Of course, Her Majesty's Government will ensure that adequate funding is made available.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, I should like to put two brief and specific questions to the noble Lord before we proceed to other business. First, since local authorities will be given the resources to provide community care rather than merely the opportunity to take the blame for community care not being provided, does he think that it would be helpful if a named and known local government officer were to be made responsible for this work? If so, does that mean that there is now a case for restoring the old and much respected office of medical officer of health in local government? The medical officer of health carried out many of the new functions which the noble Lord has just described, saying that local authorities will have to undertake them.
Secondly, can the noble Lord confirm the new arrangements for ensuring that mentally ill patients are not discharged from hospital until the community care arrangements are in place? Will those new arrangements come into force tomorrow, after the Minister speaks, or will they have to wait until 1991?
Lord Henley: My Lords, with regard to the noble Lord's first question, I should have thought that what they call the officer is a matter for the local authorities. In my view the title director of social services is just as good as chief medical officer but I leave that matter to the local authorities.
So far as concerns discharges from hospitals, I can only repeat that the position remains the same. No one should be discharged from hospital until adequate care arrangements are available. That has always been the case.

Social Security Bill
5.30 p.m.
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed on Clause 9.
Lord Stallard Lord Stallard moved Amendment No.. 2:
Page 9, line 16, leave out ("paragraphs (a) and (aa)") and insert ("paragraph (a)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it might be for the convenience of the House, and certainly in the interests of time, if I were to link my remarks with Amendment No. 4.
We all accept the changes in Clause 9 to extend the age limit, although we have reservations on how far we extend it. However, the extension principle was welcomed. In my amendment I am concerned to abolish the age of 65 on first qualifying for mobility allowance. I should like to see. the 65 age limit abolished. The present rules create the ludicrous situation by which someone becoming disabled the day before his or her 65th birthday may receive mobility allowance for the next 10 or 15 years. But someone receiving precisely the same injuries the day after his or her 65th birthday will receive no benefit whatever. It is an anomalous and ridiculous situation for such people. I can find no logic or justification for that situation. It does not cost a person aged 65 and a day with disabilities any less to cope with those disabilities than it costs someone who is younger. Nor does it matter less to the older person to be able to get about because he is a day over 65.
I am particularly distressed at this assumption. It goes against all current trends in discussions that we are having on ageism. The assumption underlying the imposition of the upper limit on eligibility for first claims is that disability in old age—"old age" being 65—is the norm. That is not an assumption that has been accepted by people who are at this moment studying ageism from a more positive stance than hitherto. There is a school of thought, to which I subscribe, that does not accept that mobility requirements decrease at the age of 65. People are quite capable of performing a very useful, productive function in society long after 65. It is long after 75 for some. I look around me if I need proof of that. Noble Lords are mentally fit, active and alert but they may be a little unsteady on their pins. They are no less mentally alert and fit after 65. I therefore say that the 65 upper age limit goes against the trend. It is against the Government's stated policies.
As I understand it, the Government would like to enable elderly people to maintain maximum health and independence in later life. That is what it is about.
One may say that "later life" stops at 65. But one cannot say both. One cannot say that one is in favour of maximising independence and mobility in later life and then put a stop on it at the age of 65. That emphasies that life stops at 65 for social security legislation. I believe that the upper age limit of 65 is an anomaly. I suggest that it ought to be abolished. I hope that the House will accept this very modest amendment.
I sometimes become a little worried about discussions that take place on social security in your Lordships' House. I sometimes think that I am discussing a finance Bill rather than a Social Security Bill. The tendency seems to be to discuss finance first, second and always. If there is anything left, then we talk about compassion, but only in passing.

303
The main aspect is finance. How much will it cost? How much can we save? How much have we got? I am a little worried that we have the matter a little out of balance. Of course there has to be consideration of finance. One would be a fool if one did not accept that. One has to accept and understand that. One has to act within certain restraints. However, within those restraints we ought to be able to discuss priorities and to consider them and not all the time to be saying, "That is that. There will be no bother. We shall not budge."
It might be more honest if the Minister sometimes were to stand up and say, "I have to tell you before we start this Committee that I am under instructions to accept no amendments that cost more than the price of a first-class stamp. Therefore you are wasting your time if any of your amendments will cost money." That would be the honest situation. I become very depressed when I feel that atmosphere developing in a Committee.
I hope that it will not be the criterion this time. I hope that the Government will seriously consider this amendment in the light of current thinking on ageism on people over 65, and that they will see fit to accept the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, seek to extend mobility allowance to enable people to claim it at any time up to age 80, which he has just explained. The age limit of 80 for the payment of the allowance which we propose in Clause 9 would still apply.
I do not ever recall mentioning in Committee the subject of money. Indeed I was congratulated on the fact on several occasions. In fact I have the feeling that the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, did so himself. However, I do not think that one can go through a Social Security Bill without mentioning the subject of money. It is right that the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, should himself have requested a balanced approach with regard to money and other reasons for accepting or not accepting a particular amendment.
It was exactly because of money that when the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, introduced the mobility allowance he said that there would be an upper age limit for claiming mobility allowance. That has been maintained ever since. We estimate that the extension such as the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, requests would be very costly. The reasons for this are clear; locomotion disabilities are by far the most common of all disabilities, and their prevalence increases dramatically with age.
I should like to remind your Lordships of the figures from the OPCS disability surveys which I quoted in Committee. These show that the prevalance of locomotion disabilities is 31 per 1,000 in the 15 to 59 age group; 195 per 1,000 in the 60 to 74 age group; and 464 per 1,000 at age 75 or over.
This means that the proposed amendments would involve significant extra costs. We estimate that to extend the age limit in the way proposed would initially cost around £400 million a year with a steady rise well beyond that in the following years. In the light of the OPCS findings, it would not be appropriate to incur such large additional
304
expenditure in advance of our examination into the benefit system. I have mentioned the cost implications of the epidemiology of ageing, which mean that we cannot dismiss the rule which allows people to claim mobility allowance for the first time only for disability incurred before the age of 65.
There is also a very good practical reason, even though the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, in his short speech called it anomalous. The age limit is less arbitrary than it may seem. It is disability incurred during working life which casts the longest shadow because if it affects earning capacity, it affects people's capacity to save and to build up pension rights and to prepare for an old age in which sober realism indicates to us that reduced mobility is very likely. Mobility allowance therefore continues to be available to claimants disabled up to age 65 with a further year's grace in which to claim.
We shall of course have to consider what effect another part of the Government's programme has on this issue. It is the abolition of the ernings rule, and indeed the intended changes—when we make concrete proposals in legislation—for the equalisation of pension age, to which we are committed. For the moment I would say that we appreciate that there are difficult cases among people who find themselves just on the wrong side of the dividing line. But that will happen wherever a dividing line is drawn. In seeking to mitigate the effect of any dividing line, we have to consider whether the group in question does indeed have the highest priority for the resources available to us.
From what I have said, the House will realise that I am firmly persuaded that these are not matters which can be resolved here and now in response to these amendments. I must urge your Lordships that this must wait until after everyone concerned—I refer now to the list I mentioned at the end of the last amendment—disabled people's own organisations. government and parliament—have had the opportunity to consider carefully all the information which is now becoming available from the OPCS surveys. In the circumstances, although I have some sympathy with the noble Lord, we believe that this requires a lot more study. I am grateful to him for raising the issue.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his reply and the detail that he has mentioned. I deliberately mentioned in my remarks the current approach to ageism and age. The Minister's reply simply restates old myths: that 65 is the dead end. There is a great school of thought that accepts that age expectancy is far longer now than it was when the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, first introduced his mobility allowance. That is a factor that has to be taken into account. The pension rules, the discussions and arguments and the implementation in some places of flexible retirement means that people can work beyond 65 and can become injured beyond 65. They could qualify for the mobility allowance in all kinds of circumstances beyong 65. Therefore that must be taken into account.
The earnings rule means that many more people will be encouraged to work beyond 65. One of the

305
Government's aims in abolishing the earnings rule is to allow older people who are fit and active to return to the workforce because of the shortage of youngsters. All these factors will have to be taken into account when we discuss positively our approach to the problems of the elderly. The Minister's reply could have been given to the original discussion in the 1970s when it was first raised. It is totally out of date with modern thinking and modern conditions. The only straw that the Government can clutch at is that the Minister says that there will be a review and that they will be thinking about this in the course of the surveys that are taking place. They are latching onto that. I accept that in good faith, and I shall wait until I see the results of that. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.45 p.m.
Baroness Jeger Baroness Jeger moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 9, line 17, leave out ("80") and insert ("85").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I hope that the Minister will believe me when I say that I am trying to help him. We find that it is extraordinary that there should be an upper age limit for the mobility allowance. As the Government have agreed that the age limit should be raised from 75 to 80, that seems to indicate to my simple mind that the Government do not have a philosophical objection to 80 year-olds driving.
I have put down the amendment suggesting the age of 85 rather than repeating the arguments for abolishing it altogether because I know that the noble Lord thinks in what I believe the other day he called quintiles. By suggesting this increase to 85 I was trying to come to terms and not to be absolute in the amendment.
Another affection which the Minister seems to have for quintiles was when he indicated in his reply at Committee that:
"However, taking up the point we made on the previous amendment, we have a five-year period before we need to make a further change".—[Official Report, 22/6/89; col. 355]
Although the Minister might have a five-year period, all we old people probably will not have a five-year period before there is a change. It seems to me to be rather illogical to expect people to look forward in their old age to the Minister's words and think that perhaps it will be all right for me in another five years. That is not what life is like. It does not seem to have any logic or sense. I do not want the Minister to tell me how much it will all cost because we have heard enough about that this afternoon. I suggest that when he is having his discussions he will bear in mind that perhaps there is not a great deal of logic or sense in the proposal to give a five year increase. It would be much more generous and much more popular and kindly, as I know the Minister always likes to be, if he could see his way to further increases in the age allowance for this mobility allowance. I beg to move.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I appreciate that the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness
306
seeks to make only a modest improvement to what we are proposing in Clause 9. I am grateful to her for that. In effect, it doubles from five to 10 years the proposed extension of the age limit up to which mobility allowance can be paid to those who have already qualified for it.
When we brought forward our proposal to extend the current limit from 75 to 80, we made it quite clear that it was an interim measure to prevent the oldest recipients of the allowance losing it from next November which otherwise would have happened. The five-year extension will give us more than enough time to consider the findings: of the OPCS disability surveys and to bring forward our long-term proposals and to implement them.
The noble Baroness groans, which gives me a clue at least to her thinking, which sometimes I do not get through any other method. But the fact is that it is over five years from today that elderly people will under the Bill stop drawing the allowance. Therefore it gives us a breathing space which I described earlier today and in Committee as more than enough time to discover where we go from here and how.
The five-year extension gives elderly recipients of the allowance the full opportunity to plan ahead for their mobility arrangements, in the knowledge that they will not lose their payments, which they will have been receiving for 10 years or more. The possibility of more far-reaching changes, and the age limits in particular, will, as I said to the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, figure very largely in our thinking on the review.
If it is any help to the noble Baroness—and I suspect it is not, which is why I am saying it—a quintile of 80 is 16.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, can he assure me that when I am 81 I shall not lose my mobility allowance? That might be very soon.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the noble Baroness will not qualify, because as we discussed on the last amendment she was not eligible before she was 65.
Baroness Jeger: Yes, my Lords, that is another bad thing. In view of the explanation and the interesting discussion which we have had, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 4 not moved.]
Clause 10 [Extension to personal pensions of occupational pension provisions relating to the abatement of unemployment benefit and the meaning of "earnings".]:
[Amendment No. 5 not moved]
Clause 11 [Unemployment benefit: requirement to seek employment actively.]:
[Amendment No. 6 not moved.]
Baroness Jeger Baroness Jeger moved Amendment No. 7:
After Clause 12, insert the following new clause:
("Prescribed circumstances.
. In section 35(2) (attendance allowance) of the principal Act, after the words 'and (b)' there shall be inserted the words 'except in such circumstances as may be prescribed'.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, we put down this amendment because we hoped that some ideas might be contributed towards the difficult matter which we discussed at Committee stage in relation to an amendment moved by the noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk, which concerns whether we ought to keep the six-months' rule for attendance allowances.
Your Lordships will recall that attendance allowance cannot be claimed by people who need total care unless they have been in that situation for six months. There are various complications about this sensitive matter. All of us on this side appreciated the Minister's approach. I say that in all seriousness.
We have had some discussions with the people concerned. It seems that the problem falls into two parts. There are those about whom great anxiety was expressed who do not survive six months after the diagnosis of their terminal illness.
This is a very difficult matter to translate into some legalistic formula. I know from my experience in our practice how one has very carefully to decide how to tell people that they are terminally ill. How does a doctor tell someone that they have not got six months, or that it will only be five months? How will the family react? How will the patient react? It seems to me that if we make an amendment to the attendance allowance regulations to give a definitive description of the unlikelihood of the patient surviving six months, that might be very difficult in some cases.
The second group of people about whom I am worried are those who have an acute illness which does not last for six months. It might be a stroke which incapacitates them for four or five months. During the whole of that time they might need total care, as set out in the previous legislation, but they cannot get it because they have not been ill enough for long enough. I have known cases of terrible traffic accidents where people have been totally incapable for three, four or five months. But, thanks to advances in medicine and treatments, they make a recovery. However, for the whole of the interim period of their very acute and serious illness we say, "You can't have an attendance allowance, you've got to linger on. If it lasts for six months, you will get it". I know that it is easy for noble Lords to say that we brought in the six months rule. The attendance allowance was introduced by the Labour Government, there was no such thing before we introduced it. I have a feeling however that social security allowances should all be looked on as growing provisions and that many changes occur in society. We all ought to have second thoughts on how things work out.
I think it was Emerson who said:
"…consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds".
Maybe we can be inconsistent this afternoon and say that we are not tied to the six months rule, we wish it had been revised before. I appreciate all the difficulties which face the Government in trying to deal with these very complicated, personal problems.
In putting down the amendment it seemed to me that rather than trying to prescribe the kinds of situations, illnesses and circumstances involved, the prospects of life or death of the people involved, perhaps we could give the power, as the amendment says,
"except in such circumstances as may be prescribed."
Then we shall not be putting labels on people or making it a very legalistic matter.
I hope the noble Lord, Lord Trafford, will forgive me, in that again we are putting more work onto the doctors who can look at the provisions as set out in the previous legislation, which defines very closely the general state of patients who have to be in need of attendance. Then, perhaps at a later stage, we could find some form of words that would deal with these difficult problems. It is in that spirit that I move the amendment.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, if I remember rightly, at the last stage of the Bill my noble friend the Minister was very sympathetic to the whole matter of the recommendations made by the hospice movement. He said that he was willing to consider them and bring the consideration to the fore. I think that we have all received representations from the hospice movement that this is something, not of an emergency, but that cannot wait all that long, perhaps it cannot wait for another social security Bill next year. Therefore I wonder whether my noble friend the Minister would address his mind to a proposal being put forward, such as the noble Baroness has suggested.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am most grateful for the explanation of the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, about why we have been asked to consider the amendment today, and for the great sympathy which she showed in moving it. I hope that from what I said in Committee noble Lords understand that I share that sympathy. Nevertheless, I must admit that I remain uneasy both about the purpose and the timing of the amendment.
As regards consistency, I am about to demonstrate an inconsistency in that what I say now is rather different from what I was able to say in answer to Amendment No. 1. As my noble friend Lady Faithfull has pointed out, I am sure that we all remember vividly the debate in your Lordships' Committee on 22nd June about the problems of terminally ill people who satisfy the disablement criteria for attendance allowance, but who die before the six months qualifying period is complete. At the end of that debate I gave a clear declaration that the legislation necessary to tackle these problems without a six months qualifying period will be laid in the next social security Bill and that it will be implemented as soon as is practicable, after Royal

309
Assent to that Bill. I could not give that commitment on Amendment No. 1, and I believe firmly that it was that which got me into the gravest trouble. However, never mind.
That declaration was not made lightly; nor was it made as a delaying tactic. As I indicated on 22nd June, we are determined to tackle the problems of the terminally ill. We are also determined that in tackling those problems we get it right. What we need to do is to make sure that we reach all terminally ill people; not just those receiving hospice care, but also those for whom open recognition of death and the support needed cannot be so readily assumed. In a situation which inevitably involves difficult and sensitive judgments and entails an unequivocal statement that a person is dying, we have to ensure that the practical arrangements achieve what is intended and avoid distressing misunderstandings. To make sure that we do get it right, we need time to work out the details. In our estimate the earliest point in time that we can reasonably hope to achieve these objectives is in the next social security Bill.
I realise that there are many people, including Members of your Lordships' House, who would wish us to move very much faster on this issue. I believe that the amendment before us today is intended to do just that. But, sympathetic as I am to these aspirations, I am also concerned with practicalities. In practical terms, the amendment does not move things forward at all. It simply provides an enabling power to exempt people from the six months qualifying period and requires regulations to fill in the details. Whether by primary legislation or by regulations, we cannot move any faster on this issue than the timescale I have already outlined.
With that timescale, it would be premature now to fix the precise form which the legislation will take. It may well be that when we have resolved the practicalities of what we are committed to do for terminally ill people, the legislation will take the form proposed by this amendment. It is equally possible that it may need to be entirely contained in primary legislation. At this stage, we cannot be certain. However, I am certain that we should not, prematurely, be committed to one particular course.
We are firmly committed to tackling the problems of terminally ill people in the timescale I have mentioned. This will give us the opportunity we need to ensure that we make arrangements which effectively tackle the problems in a sympathetic and sensitive manner and which, above all, work. Achievement of these objectives will not be helped or speeded up by this amendment.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. He constantly referred to the terminally ill, whereas I share the anxiety of many people—as I tried to say in my brief contribution—for the acutely ill, for the survivors who have to endure the six months without help.
In conclusion, I hope that the Minister will put into the melting pot of his thinking that aspect of the problem as well. It is far more complicated and goes well beyond the other problem of the terminally
310
ill. I know that it causes great strain and distress in many households where people have to be on the six months probationary period before they receive the help that their relatives or family members need. I thank the Minister for his concern and his promise to go further, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment in the hope that the Minister will take on board that other, larger, question.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 13 [Disqualification for unemployment benefit]:
6 p.m.
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 12, line 12, at end insert ("or
(c) to seek or accept any employment in which, in the opinion of the adjudication officer, his normal earnings would have been so low that his financial circumstances would have deteriorated if he had accepted that employment.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I hope that this is an improved version of an amendment which I moved in Committee. The Minister pointed out some drafting faults in that which I have endeavoured to correct.
I cannot do better than to rely on the Minister's own description of the effects of this amendment. He said that,
"this amendment seeks to introduce into legislation the concept that a person should not be disqualified from receiving unemployment benefit if he turns down or fails to follow up an opportunity of employment which would leave urn less well off than if he had been on benefit".—[Official Report, 29/6/89; cols. 875–6.]
In that, I quibble only with the use of the word "introduced". The basic principle of this amendment is one stated by the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, when he was Secretary of State and which most of us believed until recently to be the law. It has come into question as a result of the general tightening up of case law, and the intention of this amendment is for the law again to be what, until very recently, we all believed it was.
I must say that, like the Minister, I am concerned about the total cost of the social security system. I watch what is before us to see whether there are matters which may make the cost rise where there is no need for it to do so. I believe that here we have a case of that sort because, apart from unemployment, one matter which contributes to the high cost of that system is the large number of people who claim benefit while in full-time work—a fact which tends to prove the willingness of most people to work.
I believe that we should notice that during the period of the tube strikes, there has been evidence that the work ethic in this country is very much alive and well. This is not a minimum wage amendment, but is a freedom of choice amendment and, as such, I should have thought that that would be well within the limits of the Government's expressed philosophy.
It is one thing to let people take a job which is below benefit level because they happen to want to work, it is quite another to force them to act against their own economic interests to take a job and to use the threat of deprivation of benefit to make them

311
do so. I should have thought that that attempt to make people act against their own economic interests was dead against this Government's philosophy. I believe that there is some reason to think that where people are worse off in work than on benefit, that is a case for saying that wages in that occupation have become too low.
In Committee the Minister expressed doubt about the idea of benefit subsidising low wage jobs. I read what the Minister said several times and I still wonder whether or not it amounts to a contradiction in terms. He said:
"I do not believe that family credit subsidises employers paying low wages. It is there to help working families with children who do not have enough money coming in from their earnings".—[Official Report, 29/6/89; col. 878.]
I should have thought that that was a contradiction in terms, because an economic job should be one which can be taken by a mother or father with children. It is not a living wage unless that is the case. In fact, it is only in the case of part-time work that the Minister's statement would not be a contradiction in terms. If a job cannot pay a living wage, it is an uneconomic job. If we are going to use the benefit system to subsidise uneconomic jobs in a blanket way, that seems to me a colossal commitment to future expenditure. It seems to be a new Speenhamland system coming in here.
I shall take only one case by way of illustration. At present it is claimed by NALGO that 11 per cent. of local government white collar workers are eligible for income support. I know that from these Benches we have often argued for more generous Government treatment of the finances of local authorities. However, is that really the most efficient way to do that—a blanket subsidy to low-wage jobs, regardless of their efficiency and necessity? I believe that that could be done with a great deal more efficiency. In fact, I believe that this is a case where targeting has something to be said for it. I beg to move.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I rise to support the amendment moved by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. As he said, the amendment is rather similar to amendments moved from these Benches when the Bill was in Committee, except that we return to it this afternoon having had the benefit of the Minister's reply last time round and, as the noble Earl said, the wording has been amended to take some account of what he then said.
We on these Benches are anxious to avoid claimants being forced into work at sub-standard pay, pay which in effect is being subsidised by the social security system and pay which enables bad employers to offer a rate below that which should be paid for any sort of work.
As we have repeatedly said, the evidence is that most unemployed people are quite realistic about the rates which they are likely to command in the labour market. If they have been unemployed for some time they are significantly less choosy about jobs and, in any event, as we have seen, there are restart programmes, counselling, monitoring and so on to ensure that those people know what they are likely to receive by way of remuneration.
312
Why should we not say quite explicitly on the face of the Bill that such claimants may not be compelled into sub-standard employment where they could well be receiving less than they would receive on benefit? Last time we debated this matter the Minister said that,
"we have ensured that in practice nearly everyone is better off in work than remaining on unemployment benefit or income support".—[Official Report, 29/6/89; col. 877.]
Surely that is a desirable objective, but the people who should be ensuring that that is the case are those who are offering employment. I believe that to maintain a system where employers are enabled to employ people at sub-standard rates, rates at which people get into a cycle of deprivation and debt is, in the end, socially uneconomic because in those circumstances such people often present other social problems. They may become ill, and in extreme circumstances—and examples of this have been quoted to me by a number of voluntary organisations concerned in this sphere—there may be instances leading to suicide, and then families have to be taken care of by the social system.
Therefore, I appeal to the Minister this time to accept the revised wording. We have taken on board what he said last time and we think it quite inequitable that people should be forced to accept jobs by the threat of deprivation of benefit, jobs which are at a sub-standard level at which employers are being subsidised by the social ecurity system. I support the amendment.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, that is all very well, but the Bill does not do anything of the sort, as I hope to go on to explain. I should point out that although the noble Earl, Lord Russell, has tried to redraft this amendment, I am afraid that in terms of drafting it inevitably suffers from much the same deficiencies as did its predecessor, but I should not dream of dwelling on that.
The real charge here is that the Government are forcing people into work against their own economic interests. As I said, we are not doing that. Family credit ensures that very few people will be worse off in work than on social security benefits. However, the important matter is that no one will be forced.
While we believe it right that, immediately after becoming unemployed, a claimant should be able to concentrate on looking for work which offers a rate of pay similar to that which he has been receiving—and we are providing that by way of our concept of a "permitted period"—we do not believe that an automatic right to a certain level of pay is helpful thereafter.
We think the present legislation is unnecessarily restrictive and has an adverse effect on the availability of work. Employers seek to recruit the staff they need at rates of pay they can afford. If they cannot recruit staff at anything other than a so-called "rate for the job", this inevitably will have an adverse and unnecessary effect on their ability to develop their business and generate more jobs. The noble Baroness will agree that that cannot be in the interests of employers. It benefits no one.
An employer must be able to take into consideration how up to date are the abilities, skills

313
and experience of potential recruits in deciding what pay to offer them. It cannot be right that people should continue to expect to be paid on the basis of a job they left months or even years previously. Nor should they be encouraged to hold out such hopes. I believe the noble Baroness said that the majority of unemployed people do not; but this is a case where we are concerned not with the majority but with the minority who have unrealistic expectations of what they are worth.
Nevertheless, as I have said, recently unemployed people with skills that are still relevant to the labour market and who have experience that is still new can reasonably expect to look for a period of time for jobs in their usual occupation at rates of pay they used to receive. That is why we are allowing a "permitted period" ranging from seven days for only a tenuous link with a particular occupation—for example, a person whose first employment was very recent—to a maximum of three months in which claimants will be able to do just that.
After that period they will be expected to widen their scope but we intend to ensure that people will not be penalised for turning down ridiculous wages. We propose to provide specifically in regulations that good cause for failing to follow up a job opportunity advised to the claimant by the employment service cannot be shown where the failure arises from the claimant's expected financial position. To ensure, though, that unemployed applications for jobs are not taken advantage of by unscrupulous employers we intend to provide, through the regulations, that a claimant will not have to show good cause for refusing or failing to apply for a vacant situation, or refusing to accept such a situation when offered, where he learns of the vacancy from a potential employer.
I can, however, assure noble Lords that the employment service will seek to offer vacancies which are representaive in terms of pay and conditions of employment available in the labour market. They will ensure that the vacancy is one the person can do and fits not only his skills, experience and other qualifications, but also takes account of the length of time he has been unemployed. In addition, claimants will, as now, be made aware of the benefits they can claim when they are in work. Therefore, I believe that both the noble Earl and the noble Baroness are labouring under a misapprehension. I hope I have been able to show that there is absolutely no intention in the Bill of forcing people into work against their own economic interests.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I connot claim to be satisfied with that reply. There is perhaps a misapprehension but I think there may be some question as to where it resides. I could not help wondering, in listening to that reply, whether, whether it was drafted for the amendment in Committee on suitable work. There is no attempt in this amendment to suggest that people should be able to look for a rate of pay that they have had in a specific job. The suggestion is only that they should not suffer a loss
314
of unemployment benefit by refusing a job which is below benefit level.
The Minister repeated again the point about unrealistic expectations which has been debated exhaustively already. However, leaving that aside, I find it hard to imagine that for a full-time job it is unrealistic to expect the equivalent of benefit level. That is a very limited expectation indeed. If that is to be classified as unrealistic we are getting dangerously near to returning to the days of sweated labour. I commend the amendment.
6.15 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 8) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 79; Not-Contents, 129.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Kinloss, Ly

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Lawrence, L.

Blackstone, B.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B

Bledisloe, V.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Lockwood, B.

Bottomley, L.

Macaulay of Bragar, L.

Briginshaw, L.

McNair, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L

Nicol, B.

Ogmore, L.

Carter, L. [Teller]

O'Neill of the Maine, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Peston, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Phillips, B.

Craigavon, V.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

David, B.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Rea, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Rochester, L

Ennals, L.

Russell, E. [Teller.]

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Ryder of Warsaw, B.

Faithfull, B.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Gallacher, L.

Seear, B.

Galpern, L.

Seebohm, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Serota, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Simon, V.

Grey, E.

Stallard, L.

Halsbury, E.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hampton, L.

Swann, L.

Hanworth, V.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Hayter, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Tordoff, L.

Hirshfield, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Underhill, L.

Hylton, L.

Walston, L.

Jeger, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Winstanley, L.

Kennet, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Kilbracken, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Alexander of Weedon, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Allerton, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Annaly, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Arran, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Butterworth, L.

Beloff, L.

Caithness, E.

Belstead, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Birdwood, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Blatch, B.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Blyth, L.

Carnock, L.

Boardman, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Borthwick, L.

Colwyn, L.

315

Cork and Orrery, E.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Craigton, L.

Margadale, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Marley, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Merrivale, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Milverton, L.

Derwent, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Dundee, E.

Morris, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Mottistone, L.

Effingham, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Elibank, L.

Munster, E.

Ellenborough, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Elles, B.

Newall, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Norfolk, D.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Norrie, L.

Elton, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

O'Hagan, L.

Ferrers, E.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Fortescue, E.

Orkney, E.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Pender, L.

Gainford, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Pym, L.

Goold, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Greenway, L.

Rees, L.

Haig, E.

Renton, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Renwick, L.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Rodney, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Harvington, L.

Savile, L.

Havers, L.

Selborne, E.

Henley, L.

Sharples, B.

Hesketh, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Hives, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Holderness, L.

Strange, B.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Hooper, B.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Ingrow, L.

Torrington, V.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Trafford, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Tranmire, L.

Joseph, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Keyes, L.

Trumpington, B.

Killearn, L.

Ullswater, V.

Lauderdale, E.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Liverpool, E.

Westbury, L.

Long, V.

Wise, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Wynford, L.

Lyell, L.

Young, B.

McFadzean, L.

Young of Graffham, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.23 p.m.
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 9:
After Clause 13, insert the following new clause:
("Invalidity benefit.
. In section 17(1)(d) of the Social Security Act 1975, as amended by the Social Security (No. 2) Act 1980, after the words "not more than 8 weeks" there shall be inserted "(or not more than 12 weeks, in the case of a trail work periiod as defined for the purpose of section 12 of the Social Security Act 1989" ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a probing amendment to deal with a rather complicated point concerning the invalidity benefit. The Social Security Bill now provides an exemption from disqualification from employment benefit that will enable people to undertake a trial period of work of 12 weeks without jeopardising their entitlement to unemployment benefit. The proposed amendment would extend this trial work period to people in receipt of invalidity benefit.
As the Bill stands it gives people, including the disabled, the right to go onto unemployment benefit without any penalty after a 12-week trial period. However, that does not help the person who, at the end of the trial period, is incapable of work. The invalidity benefit is much higher than the unemployment benefit and it is often higher than income support. But, once lost, as a result of the period at work, it takes 28 weeks to requalify. It is a real barrier for disabled people who are anxious to work again but who have families and financial responsibilities to consider, if they are unable to make the grade despite their best efforts.
We suggest that the trial work concept introduced for the purpose of entitlement to unemployment benefit can be extended equally helpfully to invalidity benefit. Until the Social Security (No. 2) Act 1980 introduced the eight-week linking period, sick or disabled people could have up to 13 weeks back at work without losing entitlement to invalidity benefit. Obviously, that can be very important to disabled people. For someone who has been off work for six months or more and then tries to find out whether he can again cope with a job, the period of 12 weeks will have a distinct edge on the period of eight weeks as the trial period.
I repeat, as it stands the Bill gives people, including those who are disabled, the right to go onto unemployment benefit without penalty after a 12-week trial period. But it does not help the person who is incapable of work when the trial period ends. The principle of the incentive to work should be extended to those whose disability or ill-health has given them reason to be apprehensive about returning to work in that they stand to lose most if they find themselves incapable of working and lose on their current benefit. As I have said, invalidity benefit is much higher than unemployment benefit, and it is often higher than income support. But, once lost, as a result of the period at work, it takes 28 weeks to requalify. That is a very real barrier to disabled people who are anxious to work again but who have families and financial responsibilities to consider, if they are unable to get back into work despite their best efforts.
The proposed amendment will extend the trial work period to the entitlement to invalidity benefit. The wording may not be exactly right because, as I have said, it is a probing amendment. I hope that the Minister will be able to respond helpfully on this rather complicated but important matter. I beg to move.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I wish to begin by making a personal apology to the noble Lord, Lord Carter. I know that he was very keen to discuss this matter with me before today, but unfortunately our paths did not cross after he made the request. I would have told him that we have already come a long way along the road that he would have us take. This is to be found in Clause 13(4) of the Bill.
In essence this covers a new opportunity to take a job on trial. It will help any long-term unemployed persons whether able-bodied or not, to overcome natural apprehensions about taking up unfamiliar employment by providing a trial period for them to

317
give the new employment a try. If, after having given it a real chance, they are then unable to settle, they can come back onto unemployment benefit, or income support where appropriate, without suffering any voluntary unemployment sanction. This general approach applies equally to invalidity benefit for people who have to give up the attempt to restart work within eight weeks because they are still incapable. Indeed it is inevitable that those returning to invalidity benefit must have originally been long-term unemployed.
I come now to the noble Lord's amendment. As he has explained, he is concerned about the person who is unable and incapable of work and in receipt of invalidity benefit. Under the present rules, if an invalidity pensioner recovers sufficiently to take a job, but then falls sick again within eight weeks, he can go back on to invalidity benefit immediately. If the gap is longer than eight weeks, he will instead be entitled to either sickness benefit or statutory sick pay and will need to requalify for invalidity benefit. As invalidity benefit is payable at a higher rate than sickness benefit, there could be some reduction in benefit if he does not requalify for invalidity benefit. The noble Lord's amendment would extend from eight to 12 weeks the period under which a former invalidity pensioner who had taken a job under the job trial arrangements could return to invalidity benefit if he had to give up work because he fell sick.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, wants us to go even further. I have to say to him, as I said to the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, in Committee, that the Government are equally concerned about helping the long-term sick and disabled back into the employment field where this is possible. Indeed it is a personal crusade of mine. However, it would clearly be anomalous to have a different linking rule in this area from that for other incapacity benefits. But I cannot go further today, because the Government are fully committed to reviewing the whole issue of the rules governing the incapacity and disability benefits in the light of the results of the OPCS surveys on disabilities.
All the rules governing incentives to work for the disabled will be looked at together once all the reports have been received and studied. We shall also need to take account of the Department of Employment's review of services for the disabled. I have to tell the noble Lord therefore that, while I am sympathetic to the aims of his amendment, it would not in the Government's view be sensible to introduce piecemeal provisions for specific categories of disabled people in advance of the consideration being given to the basic rules for incapacity and disability benefits as a whole.
As the noble Lord has said, this is an extremely complicated subject and no doubt he will want to read very carefully what I have just said.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. We could save a good deal of time on the Bill if on successive amendments he were to stand up and say, "OPCS" and then sit down. In the light of what he said, which I found fairly helpful, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 14 [Income support and unemployment]:
6.30 p.m.
Lord McNair Lord McNair moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 13, line 28, at end insert—
("(3) In regulation 71(1) of the Income Support (General) Regulations—

(a) the words "90 per cent. of", wherever they occur, shall cease to have effect;

(b) for each of sub-paragraphs (a)(iii) and (d)(ii) there shall be substituted—

"any premiums applicable under Parts II and III of Schedule 2; and".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, at first sight this is one of those obscure amendments which means nothing unless one is armed with the necessary regulations and documents. It is essentially very simple. We are talking about asylum-seekers —people who see themselves as refugees—and we are concerned about what happens to them during the time their applications for refugee status are being considered. We are not remotely concerned with the ideology of the regime from which they are fleeing but simply with refugees as defined in the 1951 convention of which we are a signatory nation.
The social security problem is that until the changes which came into force in April last year asylum-seekers were entitled to supplementary benefit except for a reduction during the first two weeks. After April 1988 they became entitled to income support but for some reason only to 90 per cent. of what was paid to nearly every other claimant. They were not then entitled to any of the premiums —family premium, one-parent premium, disablement premium and so on—except for the pensioner premium.
It is difficult not to suspect that the exception was made in favour of the pensioner premium because so very few of them would be in a position to claim it. However, there is some good news. As a result of what was said in another place and of representations made by the British Refugee Council and other bodies, the department has relented in the matter of premiums. For this concession all of us who are concerned with refugees say a sincer and heartfelt thank you. But the abatement, as it is called, in the personal allowance, cutting it to 90 per cent. of what other claimants receive, is still in force. It is this which we seek to remedy because we can see no possible justification for it.
Is it simply intended to penalise these people for being foreigners? That would sit very ill with the proud claims we so often hear about the traditional hospitality of this country towards the oppressed? Does it not ignore the fact that asylum-seekers, unlike other claimants, are not allowed to look for work or to take it? This abatement lasts for the full time during which the claimant's right to asylum is being assessed. It is seldom less than a year and is quite often more than two years. We are asking the noble Lord to tell us today that the Government are ready to take this last small step towards justice for asylum-seekers by agreeing that they should be paid the same personal allowance of income support as other people—100 per cent. and not 90 per cent. I beg to move.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, I rise briefly to support what the noble Lord has said. It is a matter of justice and fairness that people seeking asylum should not suffer deprivation. It does not cost them 90 per cent. of what it costs other people for rent and living expenses. While we welcome the concessions to which the noble Lord referred, we hope that the Government will take this further step of abolishing the 90 per cent. rate and making the payment equal for all. I support the amendment.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I support the amendment. Some things do not change. One of them is the spirit in which entry into this country is sometimes approached. I am reminded of a friend who was parachuted behind the German lines at Arnhem. He had the misfortune to break his leg on landing. He crawled away after nightfall and made his way to France. When the Gestapo came to his hotel he leapt out of the window. He got in touch with the French Resistance and was taken across the Swiss frontier, discovering a minute before he crossed that the French Resistance had planted spying documents on him. He finally made his way to Portugal and after a three months' wait got a boat home. He had with him one bottle of sherry. He said, "The Customs impounded it and then I knew I was home." That is the same spirit behind this 90 per cent. regulation.
I have been trying to investigate the question which my noble friend raised. Why should there be this 90 per cent. rate? This is the usual problem of social security debates. If we wrote them up as a comedy we should entitle them "The wrong box". These refugees have been put into the wrong filing cabinet. They have been put into a category of special hardship cases for those who have been deprived of benefit as a penalty. In Committee in another place (at col. 674 of the Official Report of 21st February) the Minister said:
"The existing regulations ensure that if they would suffer hardship they will receive a regular, if reduced income. That reflects the fact that they are not strictly entitled to benefit. The reduction is not merely because they seek asylum; it applies to others too".
Precisely, my Lords. These people have been put in a category of those who have suffered a penalty when they have done nothing to which a penalty should legitimately attach. This is simply a mistake in filing categories and I hope that it can be put right.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am glad that both noble Lords and the noble Baroness welcomed the Government concessions with regard to paying income support premiums at the full 100 per cent. rate to all people and not just to pensioners. The amendment covers more than just asylum-seekers. The Government intend to reduce the number of groups to whom these provisions apply by allowing seasonal workers in the off season to receive income support in the normal way as soon as the appropriate regulations can be introduced later this year.
The noble Lord, Lord McNair, was particularly concerned about the effect of this abatement on asylum-seekers. We must remember that asylum-seekers can seek a work permit after six months. In most cases this will be granted. The reason for the abatement is that even though income
320
support does not have a contribution or residence test, it is not intended that it should be freely available to everyone entering the country. People such as tourists, students, people visiting relatives, business people and those about whom the noble Lord is most concerned, asylum-seekers, are therefore excluded from normal income support because they have been granted limited leave or temporary admission by the immigration authorities. Instead they can claim under the urgent cases provisions. United Kingdom citizens whose source of income has been interrupted are likewise only temporarily without funds and are therefore not eligible for income support at the normal rate.
The logic of the 10 per cent. abatement is that there is no point in having rules which exclude people from benefit and then paying full benefit anyway by another route. Housing costs and children's allowances are paid at the full rate, and in future, as I said earlier, premiums will be payable. We are convinced that a 10 per cent. abatement of the applicable amounts for adults is still justified and reflects the fact that they are not entitled to full benefit under the normal rules. I hope that what I have said will enable the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, this is quite an important amendment. I am sure that it would be obvious to anyone who thought about it that the first six months in this country for an asylum seeker, who probably arrives totally destitute, will be the most difficult months of his stay, even if later he may be able to obtain normal work. Surely the regulations could distinguish between asylum seekers on the one hand and EC nationals and tourists on the other. I hope that the noble Lord who moved the amendment will not withdraw it too lightly.
Lord McNair: My Lords, I cannot possibly pretend to find the response encouraging. I too studied the matter as it was put forward in another place, and the noble Lord has more or less repeated what was said there. It is like a parent, asked by a recalcitrant child, "Why should I?" replying, "Because I say so". There is little more in the Government's position than that.
The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, made the point that I wished to raise as regards the first six months. Six months is a long time when a person is trying to live on an amount of between £20 and £30 a week. On the other hand, the evidence produce this evening suggests that there is not very much to be gained by asking the House to divide and thereby decide the matter. Therefore, most reluctantly, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Henderson of Brompton Lord Henderson of Brompton moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 13, line 28, at end insert—
("(3) In section 22 of the 1986 Act (income related benefits) after subsection (8) there shall be inserted—
"(9) In relation to income support and housing benefit the applicable amount for a person in board and lodging accommodation shall include an amount in respect of his being a person in board and lodging accommodation.

321
(10) For the purposes of this section "board and lodging" accommodation means—

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

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

(11) Regulations may prescribe the circumstances in which the facilities for the preparation of food are deemed to be inadequate." ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg leave to move Amendment No. 11 which, I regret to say, is identical to an amendment which was moved in Committee by the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull. I say "regret" because I had hoped that the opinion expressed throughout the Chamber would have moved the Minister during the interval to put forward an amendment of his own. However, as I have not heard from him I find that my only course, with support from friends on all sides of the House, is to put down the amendment again in the hope that perhaps we may achieve some movement between now and Third Reading.
The amendment concerns the notorious and infamous concept of board and lodging which all of us find extremely offensive. I am sure that the Government share that view. I know that they are doing everything they can to phase out board and lodging. Meanwhile, a pressing problem has emerged since 10th April. The amendment is designed to reintroduce an additional amount or premium into the claimants' income support where people are boarders; that is, living in board and lodging accommodation as defined in subsection (10) of the amendment.
Under the old system those living in such accommodation received a special rate of benefit which included an "eating out" allowance. However, that allowance was ended on 10th April when the Government decided to switch the benefit to housing benefit. I fully understand the logic of that switch. As the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, said in Committee, this is basically a housing problem. In the meantime, until the Government have managed to phase out board and lodging, which we all dislike, depressing deprivation is being experienced by those who have suddenly had their "eating out" allowance taken away.
I think that all Members of the Committee expressed the view, which is undeniable, that those living in board and lodging accommodation simply cannot be expected to eat out on the same allowance as all the other claimants who are in receipt of income support. I say that because they either have to buy expensive convenience food or they have to eat out. I defy the Minister to say that in those circumstances he would be able to eat out, or buy convenience food, on anything less than the old "eating out" allowance.
I must say that I was most surprised when the Minister said in Committee, on 29th June at col. 893 of Hansard that,
"the main point to remember is that meals allowances payable under the old rules were too generous".
As I understand it, the meals allowance payable under the old rules was about £27 a week; that is, £3 a day. Will the Minister tell us how you can eat out on that, especially if you have not even been provided with breakfast in your so-called board and lodging? How can a person survive on £3 a day, either taking in convenience foods or paying for meals at eating out places? That sum could not possibly be described as generous. Yet that is how he described it. It is in fact barely adequate. Moreover, the allowance has been taken away from these people since 10th April.
It is a crying shame that the allowance has been taken away. In my view, it is absolutely essential that it should be reinstated. This is, if the Government are successful in their policy of doing away with the concept of board and lodging, a problem of short duration. Indeed, it will disappear when they have succeeded in eliminating the condition which gives rise to the deprivation. It will of course cost something to do this now; but such cost will be constantly diminishing—diminishing in proportion as the Government are successful in their policy of doing away with board and lodging accommodation. In the meantime, this absolutely obvious hardship for those living in such conditions must be dealt with.
I asked the Minister in Committee what he was prepared to do about the matter. He said that he recognised the problem. But, he said, for some reason or other our amendment was inadequate for the purpose. In our turn, I think we recognised, bearing in mind his expertise and the advice which is available to him, that something was perhaps wrong with the amendment. In the meantime, however, what is he going to do about the matter and do quickly? This is an urgent problem and one which must be dealt with.
The allowance must be made available until the time comes—which I hope will be as soon as possible—when board and lodging is discontinued. Until that time, something along the lines we suggest must be done. In the circumstances, therefore, I make no apology for reintroducing the amendment in the same form as it was when moved in Committee. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: My Lords, this appears to be another "wrong box" amendment. I say that because under the new system we have a separation into housing benefit, which is for lodging, and income support, which is for eating. And never, it seems, the twain shall meet, particularly if it is a case of bed and breakfast. Of course, those categories were based upon the notion that people live and eat at home, as of course people short of money normally do. As is fairly obvious, eating at home is a great deal cheaper than eating out, especially in London.
Until April of this year there was an extra £21.70 a week for meals for people living in board and lodging accommodation. That was little enough. I

323
do not know whether any of us could keep ourselves fed in London by eating out on £21.70 a week. However, now we do not even have that; we simply have eating out in London on income support.
It is, I think, the basic purpose of the social security system that everyone should have enough to eat. This amendment, and the next that we have to discuss, relates to two cases where that purpose is not being met. I have no doubt that we shall be told that we should await the result of the review of homelessness being undertaken by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness. I wish him luck with that review, but I cannot see that we can get away from the bed and breakfast system until local authorities are able to spend their capital receipts. So far as I can see, that does not seem likely to be in the near future. Meanwhile, we want to keep the people concerned alive.
The noble Lord, Lord Trafford, argued at length on that point in Committee. I gave him notice that I would answer him tonight. At lunchtime, he expected to be in his place and I am sorry that he is unable to be here. He argued that passing the amendment might lead to rackets and to landlords putting up the rent. I regret to say that I believe that the noble Lord achieved overkill. We have here, in effect, a system which has been privatised. We have people providing a public service for private profit, and it is of the essence of that, where it happens, that the people doing it have an incentive to maximise their profits by cutting their costs—in fact, by providing a poorer quality sevice. That has been true, as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, once pointed out, since right back to the reign of Elizabeth I. It is the same story as that of the Dungeness lighthouse which was financed by tolls. With an incentive for cost-cutting, those who ran it used one candle as the lighthouse.
The noble Lord's arguments in fact went entirely against a privatised system of board and lodging. Granted that, I cannot see that there is any reason for supposing that there is more incentive to cut costs if the basic finance is adequate or that there is more incentive to raise rents if the amount of money is adequate. Of course, the argument about the incentive to raise rents applies with every annual uprating of social security benefits. If the noble Lord wishes to persist with that argument, he should stop the whole of the annual uprating for fear that someone might be encouraged to make a profit out of it. I believe that that is a little more than the noble Lord intended.
Meanwhile, we have a health problem, as my noble friend Lord Winstanley pointed out in Committee. Wherever there is a health problem, there is a problem of concealed costs. I wonder whether the Government save as much money out of the situation as they think they do.
So far as I know, no one has died of starvation on the streets of this country since 1649. I hope that it will stay that way. To ensure that it will, we should carry the amendment.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, I must point out one thing: as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said, one does not eat much on £27 a week if one has to
324
eat out; and one eats very little on £21 a week. I must ask the Minister to remember that when one eats in restaurants one has to pay VAT on every mouthful. When one buys food to cook at home, one does not.
Lord Seebohm: My Lords, I want to add little to what I said last time. The problem is mainly one of housing. With the best will in the world, it cannot be cured within three or four years even if the Government were to have an advanced building programme. What are the people to do during that time if they have no money for food?
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, for moving the amendment. I moved a similar one in Committee. I withdrew it, although it was supported on all sides, because I wanted to make further inquiries about the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Trafford; and the health of the children involved.
I am given to understand by a group of bed and breakfast places that the noble Lord's surmise would not have been true, as was said by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. Secondly, I have consulted the health visitors involved with some of the Bayswater bed and breakfast places. There is no doubt that the health of the children is suffering.
If a person is in ordinary board and lodgings they have easy access to a kitchen or at least one meal is provided for them. The bed and breakfast accommodation either has nowhere for cooking or the cooking facilities are four floors down and shared by a tremendous number of people. If one finds that one has forgotten the pepper or the salt and goes upstairs, by the time one returns the food has disappeared.
It is a distressing state of affairs for the people involved, and economically it is a bad state of affairs because, as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said there are hidden losses. The health of the children and the mothers is suffering. That is the opinion of the health visitors who deal with the bed and breakfast places.
We pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Caithness who is well aware of the scandalous situation with regard to bed and breakfast accommodation. With all the goodwill in the world, he cannot do away with it within a few years. If we have to wait until he does away with the system the children's health will suffer; and the parents and the families will suffer. I support the amendment.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I support the amendment. For the past 30 years or more we have suffered from acute local housing shortages and attendant homelessness. As a result, the housing problems have had to be picked up by social services departments and social security payments. I hope that the Government will be successful in their attempts to make it no longer necessary to use bed and breakfast accommodation, especially for families with children.
In the past I have drawn to the Government's attention the success story of Leicester city. Although it has severe housing problems, it has managed to minimise the use of bed and breakfast

325
accommodation by employing a whole range of other strategies. I have corresponded with the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, and asked him why the Government do not reward those local authorities which use their housing resources efficiently by enabling them to spend, in the year of receipts, the proceeds they receive from selling council houses, flats and other assets. That is a situation which has obtained for many years in Northern Ireland. The Housing Executive, which is responsible for housing throughout the Province, has that facility. Why cannot it be granted to at least those English or Welsh authorities that have an acute problem, but that make the best possible use of their existing housing?
The noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, has experience in the Department of the Environment. I hope that he will be highly sympathetic to the amendment.
7.15 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, as we are all aware, the bed and breakfast system is unsatisfactory. Bayswater is full of people from other boroughs all over London who are in bed and breakfast accommodation, although it is Westminster accommodation. I have spoken previously about how children from Lambeth have to go there every day for various services although they live in Westminster.
Part of the problem lies in the fact that we are a free, democratic society. There are plenty of parts of the country with spare housing, but we cannot oblige people to leave London and to live there.
Last week, through my family, I received an appeal from a woman who did not want to be moved out of bed and breakfast. She was begging to stay in bed-and-breakfast accommodation in Leominster Square because she did not want to move out to Lewisham, which she did not like. Lewisham is not very far away. She had a very satisfactory housing offer but she did not want it.
People are very unreasonable in terms of being moved out of bed and breakfast. Although we think that bed and breakfast is unattractive and undesirable—and I think that it is unsatisfactory—obviously the people in it are more reluctant to move.
When I was Chairman of Social Services, people lived in those places even then. The council officer rang me and said that a woman would not move unless she was sure that she would have somewhere to bath the baby in the place that she was going to. He said that he could not give her a place where she could bath the baby in a separate bath. All he could do was offer her what he had, which was an acceptable standard of housing unit. I went to see the woman. She asked me to promise that she would have a place to bath the baby and I said that I could not promise that. I said that all I could promise was that we would buy a plastic bowl to put in the sink or bath in which to put the baby. She accepted that. She said: "At least you have been honest about what you are offering."
There is a degree of fear as to what these people are going to. No matter how bad the bed and breakfast is,
326
they grow used to the surroundings. They get used to the terrible job of taking children right across London for other services. However, they do not want to move to an area that they do not know, and they certainly do not want to move out of London. I do not know how that matter can be dealt with.
The problem of providing food is genuine. The suggestion was made at Committee stage of giving people cooking facilities. It would be a nightmare to consider providing those facilities in the type of bed-and-breakfast hotel that we are talking about because it is difficult enough as it is to police the safety standards of accommodation. If cooking facilities were put into those rooms, it would not be on. I am not sure whether this amendment is the answer. I do not know what the answer is.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, this amendment seeks to overturn arrangements that have been in force for just over three months, by modifying the way in which benefits are paid to people living in board and lodging accommodation.
The remarks of my noble friend Lady Gardner have put another complexion on this complicated matter. I should like to add a third. Much of the discussion today and during the debates on this amendment at Committee stage has centred on the position of homeless families. Your Lordships might therefore be led to believe that all boarders were homeless families. As I am sure many of your Lordships realise, that is by no means the case. Homeless families accounted for only 10 per cent. of all boarders. A large number of those in bed and breakfast accommodation were single young people. I feel that it would be prudent to remind the House of the position which existed before April and which led the Government to change the old arrangement.
The special rates of income support for boarders were a carry-over from the supplementary benefit scheme. They had created perverse financial incentives for many claimants, particularly the young, to seek boarder status at prices people in work would scarcely have been able to afford. Landlords were not blameless in this area. Many took advantage of the system by making higher charges without always providing extra services. Some, to their eternal discredit, went so far as to place advertisements in newspapers stating, "DHSS welcome" and "DHSS only".
The old rules included special meals allowances which were particularly generous when compared with normal income support. I was interested to hear a comment that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, made. He said that the £21.70—and I confirm to the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, that this is the figure that we are talking about—was in addition to normal income support. I was then asked how people could feed themselves on £3 a week. The point is that it is an extra £3 a week, and the normal income support rates apply. The income support rate, for single people aged 25 and over is £34.90, and £54.80 for a couple. They might also get premiums. That also puts a different complexion on this matter.
Claimants living in board and lodging could receive up to £ 29.40 per person per week for food alone, irrespective of age. That was clearly

327
anomalous when one considers that other claimants living in bedsits and flats, and with broadly similar lifestyles to boarders, received the basic rate of income support to cover all their living expenses, not just food, and without any extra money.
You will not be surprised, my Lords, to hear that all these factors resulted in a dramatic increase in the numbers of boarders and a consequent rise in public expenditure. In the period December 1982-December 1984 expenditure trebled.
All our evidence suggested that boarders lived in accommodation similar to that of other claimants in bedsits or flats. The only difference was that their benefit was calculated on a different basis because their landlord sometimes provided them with a meal, however inadequate that might be. Boarders received income support to help with both their accommodation charge and living expenses, whereas other claimants in rented accommodation and boarders in work received housing benefit for their accommodation costs. The changes introduced from April put boarders on a par with all other claimants in rented accommodation and are an important step in ensuring that the benefit system does not make distinctions based on the type of accommodation involved. All claimants now look to housing benefit for help with accommodation costs, and to income support for other living expenses.
Noble Lords have mentioned their concern about the levels of income support now paid to people in board and lodging accommodation. Your Lordships will appreciate that income support does not include specific amounts to cover individual items of expenditure, such as food. The rates set take account of a number of factors, includingl the level of income available to people who are not receiving benefit. They are intended to cover all normal day-to-day living expenses. Premiums are payable, in addition to the personal allowances, to help towards the extra living costs of certain vulnerable groups, for example, families, disabled people, and lone parents and pensioners.
This Government is committed to protecting those who need to live on income support. During our period in power supplementary benefit levels increased by over 5 per cent. in real terms. In setting the income support rates, an additional £220 million was committed to the budget. This has been maintained in real terms in this year's uprating. Commencing this week—a point we will be discussing later—16 and 17 year-olds on income support who, of necessity, have to live independently, will see an increase of nearly 32 per cent. in their benefit level.
Whatever rates are set, there will always be some people who are housed, or house themselves, at prices that cannot be afforded on the normal levels of income support. It is clearly not right for the benefit system to subsidise or encourage such behaviour. However, your Lordships will gather from what I have said that this is precisely what happened under the old rules. The board and lodging provisions created perverse incentives for claimants to seek, and landlords to provide, such accommodation.
328
Returning to the position of homeless families, I shall repeat what I said during Committee, at shorter length I hope; that the solution to the problem lies fairly and squarely in the hands of local authorities. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, and my noble friend Lady Gardner, who made this point. There is no point in repeating the figures which I gave during our earlier debate on this question. Suffice it to say that improved management of the housing stock by local authorities would release other, more suitable and less expensive, forms of accommodation in which to house these unfortunate families. If, despite all our advice and guidance, local authorities insist on placing these families in unsuitable bed and breakfast accommodation, there is very little that the Government can do to prevent it.
Local authorities, on the other hand, can. In Committee some noble Lords suggested that income support was adequate if there were reasonable cooking facilities. In this connection I understand that the London Boroughs Association operates a bed and breakfast information exchange which monitors the standards of accommodation in hotels used by local authorities to place homeless families. It was set up and is run by the association and helps to ensure that families are placed in accommodation with adequate facilities, including cooking arrangements. This is an admirable situation and I should like to see it extended to other parts of the country, even though the problem is chiefly in London.
It is my strong view that local authorities should not be placing homeless families in bed and breakfast hotels. I think that this view is shared by the whole House. If they do so this arrangement should help to ensure that the kinds of difficulties to which noble Lords have referred are minimised. It may be that, where problems exist, the local authorities concerned are unaware of the information exchange and are not using its services.
Local authorities had over a year to prepare for the changes and homeless families placed by local authorities were entitled to up to three months transitional protecton to give them time to adjust to the new arrangements. I therefore see no good reason why these families should not have been rehoused.
As I said at the outset, this amendment seeks to overturn arrangements that have been in force for just three months. It would simply restore all the anomalies and problems of the old system, and I must therefore urge your Lordships to reject it.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, I do not at all wish to press this amendment. I want the Minister to do something about the tragic situation which has come about since 10th April. However, what the Minister is doing is washing his hands of this problem. The Government are washing their hands of this problem. The Minister said that the solution lies fairly and squarely in the hands of the local authorities. That may be so, but what do we do in the meantime? The Minister is doing absolutely nothing. I gave him the opportunity in Committee to come back and do something ad interim, and all he says is that our amendment is no good because

329
it restores the situation that existed before 10th April. That may be so, but it is better to restore the situation before 10th April than do nothing, until the bed and breakfast scheme is eliminated.
All I am asking for is a transitional arrangement. I appeal even now to the Minister to consider bringing in a transitional arrangement until bed and breakfast is abolished. Will the Minister respond to that appeal?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I have already referred to the transitional arrangement which was in place for three months. I maintain my view that local authorities had plenty of time to get people out of bed and breakfast accommodation. They had accommodation of their own or accommodation which could be rented to achieve this. There is no excuse for local authorities placing people in bed and breakfast accommodation.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, meanwhile the health problem which was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, and buttressed by what the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, said about the suffering of mothers and children remains. Is the noble Lord content that that should be so? There is the concealed cost in future social services to redeem the lack of imagination by the Government to deal with this parlous situation. There is concealed cost and continuing health problems, but nothing is to be done in the interim and everything is blamed on local authorities. The Government are washing their hands of this problem. In these circumstances there is no alternative but to press the amendment.
7.13 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 11) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 67; Not-Contents, 95.

DIVISION NO. 3

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Greenway, L.

Airedale, L.

Grey, E.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Hayter, L.

Barnett, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L [Teller.]

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Blackstone, B.

Hooson, L.

Blyth, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Hylton, L.

Bottomley, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Jeger, B.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Kinloss, Ly.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Lawrence, L.

Craigavon, V.

Lockwood, B.

David, B.

McNair, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Nicol, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Ogmore, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

O'Neill of the Maine, L.

Faithfull, B.

Peston, L.

Gallacher, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Galpern, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

330

Rea, L.

Swann, L.

Rochester, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Russell, E.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Russell of Liverpool, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Turner of Camden, B.

Seear, B.

Underhill, L.

Seebohm, L.

Walston, L.

Serota, B.

Willis, L.

Simon, V.

Winstanley, L.

Stallard, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Annaly, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Arran, E.

McFadzean, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Barber, L.

Margadale, L

Beloff, L.

Marley, L.

Belstead, L.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Blatch, B.

Merrivale, L.

Bledisloe, V.

Milverton, L.

Boardman, L.

Mottistone, L.

Borthwick, L.

Munster, E.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Nelson of Stafford, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Newall, L.

Buttenvorth, L.

Norfolk, D.

Caithness, E.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Carnock, L.

O'Hagan, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Orkney, E.

Clitheroe, L.

Pender, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Plumb, L.

Colwyn, L.

Pym, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Rankeillour, L.

Craigton, L.

Renton, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Renwick, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Rodney, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Savile, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Sharpies, B.

Dundee, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Effingham, E.

Stockton, E.

Elibank, L.

Strange, B.

Ellenborough, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Elles, B.

Suffield, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Elton, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Feversham, L.

Torrington, V.

Fortescue, E.

Trafford, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Gainford, L.

Trumpington, B.

Haig, E.

Ullswater, V.

Harvington, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Henley, L.

Vinson, L.

Hesketh, L.

Westbury, L.

Hives, L.

Wise, L.

[ngrow, L.

Wynford, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Young, B.

Keyes, L.

Young of GrafTham, L.

Killearn, L.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L

Long, V.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
7.20 p.m.
Lord Henley: My Lords, this may be a convenient moment to break the proceedings on the Social Security Bill. I suggest that we return to the Bill at 8.15 p.m. I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned.
Moved accordingly, and, on question, Motion agreed to.

Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill {H.L.
7.21 p.m.
Lord Brooks of Tremorfa: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time. In moving the Third Reading I can do no better than to refer to the Special Report of the Select Committee which, over 13 sitting days together with a day to view Cardiff Bay and no doubt several sittings in private, considered every aspect of the Bill in the greatest detail. Your Lordships will note from paragraph 6 of the Special Report that the Committee had before it an Instruction from this House to pay particular attention to two aspects: the achievement of an acceptable water quality standard and the effect on fish migration. I draw your Lordships' attention to the Select Committee's study of those aspects in paragraphs 33 to 41 and I commend the Committee on its findings.
In its conclusion the Committee's report states in paragraph 42 that:
"the case for the barrage stood or fell on the economic evaluation of the investment which would be attracted to the area … the Committee were convinced on the evidence that the economic case was sound and that the investment prospects were good."
I ask the House to endorse the findings of the Select Committee.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time.—(Lord Brooks of Tremorfa.)
Lord Moran: My Lords, all of us would wish to thank the committee very much for their work in considering this question. I read through the whole of the transcript of its hearings, and it is clear that the noble Lord, Lord Elibank, and his colleagues went into all aspects of the problem over many days with great care and thoroughness. We must all be very grateful to them.
I should say a word about the House's Instruction to the Committee, which I moved at Second Reading. Perhaps I may remind your Lordships that it called, first, for an acceptable water quality standard at all times and the safeguarding of public health; and, secondly, for the safeguarding of the passage of migratory fish.
On both those issues the authoritative experts in Wales are, without question, Welsh Water. Halfway through the hearings I asked Welsh Water when they would be giving evidence. I was told that they had not been invited to do so—and they are indeed not mentioned in the transcript among the prospective witnesses listed by the promoters on Day 4 of the proceedings (pages 3 and 27). I thought that surprising as I did not see how the committee could carry out the terms of the Instruction given to it by your Lordships' House if the promoters were not going to call Welsh Water. I therefore raised the question with the clerks. I assume that your Lordships' committee did then raise it with the promoters because, happily, Welsh Water were subsequently asked to give evidence on fisheries and water quality, and that valuable and comprehensive evidence is now on record.
Perhaps I can deal first with the second point in the Instruction dealing with fisheries. I studied Dr
332
Cresswell's evidence on Day 7. I note that Welsh Water has laid down stringent conditions, which seem to me reasonable, given all the work that they have done and are doing to rehabilitate the fisheries on the Taff. I am content with what is proposed. One cannot be absolutely certain that it will work—I believe that the fish will have to swim downhill to get into the lake—but I very much hope that it does.
Turning now to the question of water quality, that seems to me of central importance. It has been suggested that at Second Reading I exaggerated the risks. I have looked again at what I said, which was based very largely on Welsh Water's original petition and their subsequent public statement, and I do not think that there was any exaggeration. Indeed, it seems to me that what I said was substantially endorsed by what was said by the experts at the hearings.
It was confirmed that there can be no immersion sports (Day 1, page 35) and that there is no possibility of raising the water quality to bathing standards (Day 8, pages 21 and 33). At Second Reading I said that there would be a health hazard for those who fell into the lake. I did not then know that an unfortunate man had fallen into the Taff during a raft race and subsequently died, very tragically, from leptospirosis, as recorded on Day 4, page 62.
The committee were given the fullest evidence on the problems of algae, of blue-green algae and toxins, on non-biting midges—which I am sorry to see might need to be controlled by chemicals—and on the quantities of rubbish carried down by the rivers Taff and Ely. Those problems are to be dealt with by Vitox units, slurp units, booms across rivers and "water witches", at substantial cost. They will require a major continuing effort which we must hope will be effective.
I observed that Mrs. Essex, a planner with Mid-Glamorgan County Council and a Cardiff City councillor, said in her evidence,
"I feel very strongly that the water quality of the impounded lake is nowhere near the point of quality we were all led to believe would be the case when the barrage was first mooted".
Incidentally, no one appears to have asked how the rubbish and algae which are to be collected from the rivers and lakes are to be disposed of. I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Brooks, about that. As it is, domestic refuse has hitherto apparently been dumped in the Penarth dock and will have to be cleared out at a cost of f 12 million or more (Day 3, page 22). That is more than double what it is proposed should be spent on an alternative facility for the birds.
The question of the funding of nutrient stripping after 20 years is still, so far as I know, unresolved and is not referred to in the Committee's report. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Brooks, can tell us how that stands.
I recognise that by the use of machines great efforts are going to be made to deal with water quality problems. But machines can go wrong and, as we know, men can go on strike. The Times of 8th May, for example, reported one of the worst pollution incidents in recent history when storms washed sewage into the Thames, the "bubbler" machine which puts oxygen into the river was being repaired,

333
and vast numbers of fish were killed along the river from Kew to Tower Bridge—there were dead fish floating down past your Lordships' House.
The hazards of water quality are not fantasies. They are very real, not only in this country but in many other parts of the world. The Daily Telegraph of 4th July reported that:
"At the eastern end of the Baltic, near Leningrad, a 14-mile dam nearly complete across the Neva delta is causing major problems".
A Soviet expert said:
"Because of inadequate water treatment there is an alarming increase of blue and green algaes … Three months ago, the bacteria count was one thousand times the permitted level".
The Sunday Telegraph of 18th June carried a very strange photograph of a gondolier with two passengers in a gondola on the Grand Canal in Venice with the Rialto Bridge in the background, but all three of them were wearing face masks. The caption under the photograph read:
"Gondoliers and tourists guard against the growing stench of the Grand Canal by wearing face masks".
The accompanying article quoted the mayor of Venice as saying:
"We are on the brink of catastrophe … Almost the entire lagoon is covered. The algae are changing the whole environment, and I'm afraid I have little faith in the measures we are taking".
The article went on to quote the man in charge of the operation as being "pessimistic" saying:
"These algae double in size every 15 days. It's simply a battle we cannot win".
The article added:
"Nearby towns have already blocked barges trying to dump the mess on their doorsteps".
It went on:
"Worse is in store, for the scum … is a perfect breeding ground for billions of tiny flies. Once hatched, they head for the lights of Venice. Last year they descended on the city in a plague of biblical proportions. The city's airport was closed as carpets of insects made runways unusable and infiltrated aircraft engines. The railway station was cut off and street lighting obliterated".
It is clearly a nightmare situation in Venice, but it shows what can happen when questions of water quality go wrong. Subsequent reports have described growing and serious problems with algae all down the Adriatic coast. Venice is a city—if ever there was one—with a "superb maritime environment", but the deterioration of water quality is creating grave problems. It shows what can happen. I greatly hope that those problems will not come to Cardiff. We must all hope that.
Turning to the other question of the extinction of the Taff-Ely SSSI and the problem of the wading birds, I see that the Nature Conservancy Council said in their evidence on Day 12 that the Severn estuary is an internationally important wetland and Cardiff Bay a uniquely important component of that wetland; that,
"very large populations of birds of several species depend on Cardiff Bay for their feeding and their survival";
and that,
"passage of the Bill would lead to the destruction of the Cardif Bay and thus do serious damage to the nature conservation interest of the Severn estuary as a whole".
As the committee noted, this appears to be the first time that an entire site of special scientific
334
interest might be eliminated as a result of development proposed by a public authority. Sir Peter Scott was quoted as saying,
"You may also add my personal voice to those vehemently against this disastrous proposal".
There can be no doubt that it would be an extraordinarily damaging precedent for development elsewhere. That is a worry when some 30 barrage schemes are being considered in Great Britain on the Tees, Severn, Humber, Mersey, Morecambe Bay and many other estuaries.
It runs against the spirit, if not the letter, of the Ramsar Convention, which requires the wise use of wetlands, and the Community's birds directive, and would result in the loss of many birds, including some like the dunlin which are becoming scarcer. The committee noted that the outlook for the dunlin, redshank and curlew is not, in its words, "reassuring".
The alternative area proposed is regarded by the experts, according to the evidence that they gave, as far too small to make a real difference. I am surprised that the committee did not require the promoters to provide something much more substantial. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Elibank, will say a word about that.
The case against the barrage is essentially that it is purely cosmetic, that it will do away with the tides, the SSSI and most of the wading birds and that, while seeking to create a "superb maritime environment", it will shut away the sea behind a wall of concrete and Cardiff will become rather less maritime than it is now. It has also been argued by the petitioners that the welcome development of Cardiff docklands is going ahead anyway.
The case for the barrage seems to depend on the assessment of the property developers. Their expertise clearly carried weight, but not all their remarks create confidence. On Day 7 Mr. Richardson, of Rothschild's, for example, talked about,
"a freshwater lake which is blue and sparkling"
That betrayed a surprising ignorance, for it has been clearly established that, whatever else it is, the lake is unlikely to be blue. The promoters also used rather cloudy language when talking about the barrage, describing it on Day 6 as "a destination" or "an attraction". In summing up, their counsel used the word "superb" five times in describing the plan.
I am strongly in favour of the development of the Cardiff Bay area, but I am still not happy about the barrage. With the greatest respect, I think that the committee gave insufficient weight to the extinction of the SSSI and its consequences, both national and international. I think that they should have stipulated a much better alternative for the birds. Although the committee profess themselves satisfied that the water quality will be satisfactory visually, biologically and for limited recreational purposes provided that strict standards of control are maintained, I must say that, if I lived by Cardiff Bay, I would be nervous about the problems of water quality and algae in the bay. Those environmental questions matter a great deal to people as recent evidence shows. I do not think that we should assume

335
that the public always want developmental considerations to prevail. But we must now, I think, leave it to another place to consider the question.
Lord Elibank: My Lords, I must begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Moran, for his kind words about the work done by our committee which I know that all the members will appreciate.
This is a project which stands or falls, as we said in our report, by the economic evaluation of the attractiveness of the development possibilities either with an impounded freshwater lake behind a barrage or, as with existing circumstances, when the tide rises and falls freely. When the tide is low, the area is covered by mud flats with birds coming and going.
It is entirely possible and reasonable to hold either of those points of view, but the committee was greatly influenced by the weight and experience of those witnesses whom the promoters brought before us and who had enormous experience in the development of estates and areas throughout the United Kingdom.
We considered the evidence very closely because it was, as I have indicated, critical to our assessment of the merits of the Bill. I believe that, in the end, we were all convinced that the project offered great economic benefits to Cardiff. It is not that, if the barrage were not built, south Cardiff would remain an area of desolation. There is no doubt that development would take place over a considerably longer period of time. We were offered evidence which showed that the quality of much of that development would be inferior to the development with the barrage.
I emphasise that economic aspect because, as the noble Lord, Lord Moran, rightly pointed out, there are drawbacks to the scheme which we again considered very carefully. He mentioned the effect on bird life. There is no doubt that the bird life in the area will suffer. The experts on that subject were modest in their evaluation of what might happen. There was no degree of certainty except a general consensus that the number of birds, particularly dunlin and redshank, would diminish. Some would find another site in the Wentloog artificial lagoon. Others would find sites in the Severn estuary, but a number would not return to the estuary and some, it must be presumed, would die in transit.
That is a serious disadvantage as is the other point mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Moran, about the extinction of the SSSI and the impact that the Bill will have the public's attitude to the Ramsar Convention and the relavent EC directive. Again, I do not think that the committee was particular happy about that outcome, but it had to be weighed against the economic advantages.
The noble Lord, Lord Moran, asked me why the Wentloog lagoon should not be larger. I think that there are two reasons. Primarily it is a question of money. There is a certain amount of money made available for its construction and any larger lagoon would obviously cost more. The second reason is that it is experimental in nature. It may or may not be a success; but if it is a success there is no real reason why the lagoon should not be extended
336
further eastward along the Severn estuary. It can be increased in size if it turns out to be a successful attraction to the birds.
One of the questions that most worried the committee concerned groundwater. The impoundment of the bay will lead to a rise of up to 3 metres in the groundwater levels. Groundwater is a sinister element rather like gas which creeps up on the householder very often unnoticed until his cellars, basements and even the superstructure of his house are damaged.
It is fair to say that the promoters have gone to quite extraordinary lengths to provide reassurance, by way of surveys and engineering works, to the citizens resident in the area around the rivers and around the impoundment lake. The relevant clause, Clause 12, was much discussed in evidence. The Committee thought it right to extend further the protection offered by Clause 12 to those residents between the inner and the outer zone. That not only extends protection to those citizens but in our view also made the Bill a great deal easier to understand for all the residents of Cardiff.
Lastly I come to the issue of water quality which, I think it is fair to say, is the main concern of the noble Lord, Lord Moran. It concerned the committee also. The basic problem is that the water from the rivers which feed into Cardiff Bay—the Ely and the Taff—are polluted industrially and by sewage. It will be very difficult to make the quality of the inland lake better than the quality of the two rivers which supply the water to it, at least in the short term. There is every prospect down the road that the new water authorities will be able to take action to decrease the pollution in those two rivers and so improve the quality of the lake.
However, that must lie in the future. In the meantime, we have to grapple with the project as it stands today. There seem to be three real problems with which the promoters have to deal: the debris on the surface; the algae that will form from time to time in the lake; and the oxygenation of the water which affects its quality and particularly any fish in it. Again, the promoters have promised or undertaken to take quite elaborate measures to ensure that those three problems are properly grasped when the lake is finally impounded behind the barrage.
The committee listened very carefully to the evidence given principally by the Welsh Water Authority, whose evidence was most helpful and most useful, but also by other witnesses that came before us. One cannot be totally reassured about the quality of the water. A point that may be helpful to a layman in judging the quality is that no full immersion sports will be tolerated or permitted. That is to say, bathing will not be permitted, at least in the initial stages, but other water sports that involve the occasional ducking—for instance, sailing—will be allowed. I think that gives a fair indication of the level of water quality that the promoters hope to achieve.
It is only fair to say that in the course of the committee's visit to Cardiff we saw what was the Bute Dock—a system of water without any of the

337
benefits that the promoters propose to use to improve the quality of the inland lake. To the superficial and inexpert eye the quality of that water appeared excellent. So we are hopeful that the level will be of an acceptable standard. Certainly I should put it no higher than that.
The noble Lord, Lord Moran, mentioned—and indeed it was in the committee's Instruction—that we should have regard to the ability of fish to come and go over the barrage. Again in most respects that involves a fairly conventional engineering contrivance, and the Welsh Water Authority was perfectly satisfied with the steps that the promoters proposed to take. The one ingenious or novel aspect is that at times the water outside the barrage will be higher than the water in the lake, and so the fish will have to descend rather than ascend at that point. However, that has been provided for and will be monitored from the time that the impoundment takes place.
All in all the committee felt (I must say with varying degrees of enthusiasm) that the benefits of this scheme outweigh the drawbacks, which are undoubted and have to be clearly faced. For that reason we recommend that this Bill should be allowed to proceed through your Lordships' House.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, the House is grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Elibank, and the members of his committee for having discharged the task which it delivered into their care. I trust that my noble friend Lord Brooks of Tremorfa will forgive me when I remind the House—not that it needs to be reminded—that the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill has been contentious; and notwithstanding the reassuring nature of the report, it remains contentious in Cardiff. There has been a flow of opinion in its favour; but it has also created a barrage of criticism. The conflicting views and pressures remain. I feel that that fact must be placed on the record in your Lordships' House.
I have studied the report produced by the committee, and as one would expect it took into account all the anxieties which were voiced during the Second Reading debate in this House. I shall limit my comments this evening to one of those; namely, the damaging effect on residential properties of the raising of the water table. Indeed, that has been very fairly underlined this evening by the noble Lord, Lord Elibank. On this issue, which is one of the key issues, there is at least one significant disagreement between the experts: the expert evidence produced by the promoters and that brought forward by the people—the residents whose properties might be adversely affected.
The committee acknowledged that:
"The uncertain results of changes in groundwater levels were a cause of very real concern to many of the residents of the area".
However, having heard the evidence, the committee was also satisfied that the amendments made to Clause 12, which is a very complex clause dealing with the protection to the property near the bay, together with the undertakings given by the
338
promoters, would adequately meet that concern. I have this afternoon checked in the Private Bill Office that the undertakings relate to Clause 12(2)(b) and Clause 12(24). The noble Lord, Lord Elibank, and his committee are satisfied with the terms of those undertakings.
As my noble friend Lord Brooks pointed out, the committee accepts in paragraph 42 that the case for the barrage stands or falls on the economic evaluation of the investment which would be attracted to the area. Therefore while the committee accepts that that case has been made out, it also acknowledges in paragraph 42 that the assessment is "in large measure subjective". I believe that the words I have quoted provide some food for thought.
I have no other point to make except to say that as the regeneration strategy is implemented I would expect the promoters to keep a watchful eye on the position and fully to implement the undertakings that they have given, if that need arises. I very much hope that my noble friend Lord Brooks of Tremorfa will be able to give that confirmation to the House.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, I had not intended to intervene in this debate except briefly to pay tribute to the work of the committee. Like the noble Lord, Lord Moran, I have read all the evidence and I was deeply impressed by the thoroughness with which the committee undertook its responsibilities.
I must declare an interest. I am a director of Associated British Ports which is a major landowner with development plans in the area. I had considerable responsibilities for the origins of this scheme. Clearly I am a believer in the scheme. I set out the arguments in Second Reading and I do not propose to repeat them. But when the evidence of developers is questioned and we are told that it is subjective, I think that I am entitled to say that it is not just the view of a few people carefully selected by the promoters to give evidence but of a much wider circle of expertise.
During my period as Secretary of State, before we took the firm decision to go ahead we spent more than a year talking to every single person in the property world on both sides of the Atlantic who we thought might be able to guide us in the wisdom of the matter. It was only after we had heard their overwhelming consensus on the economic merits of this scheme that we decided to proceed. Since then I have been actively involved with a company with a direct interest and have met a very large number of others who have supported that view. It must be said that there really is a very strong economic case of which the committee is convinced, as my noble friend Lord Elibank has made clear.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, said that the scheme was contentious. I suppose that all great, massive schemes—in particular schemes involving property—will be contentious. However, I can think of very few schemes of this scale and magnitude that have had such comprehensive cross-party support or which have united so effectively differing local authorities and groups of people as this scheme has in Cardiff. There are those who have fears; there are those who are critical. But there is a quite strikingly impressive unity of opinion among the elected

339
representatives in local government and many others besides.
Of course anxiety has rightly been expressed about the need to do away with an SSSI. It was one of the points that, as Secretary of State, I faced up to myself. I called upon the best environmental advice. As the committee has made clear, it too weighed up the unhappy consequences of the loss of an SSSI and some possible effects on bird life against the economic arguments. Just as I had, it decided that the economic and social arguments prevail.
I add, as I added at Second Reading, that there are also environmental arguments. There is a very strong environmental case for this Bill. It is not just that habitats will be created—and they will be created—but that much will be done to improve the environment in the whole area, indeed right into the heart of the City of Cardiff. That must also be weighed in the scales.
However, what prompted me above all to rise to my feet and to say rather more tonight was the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Moran. He said that at Second Reading he did not exaggerate. On that occasion he certainly painted a very alarmist picture. I remember being told that we faced the prospect of hundreds of thousands of dead fish and all sorts of other horrible things. Reading the evidence I formed a rather different impression. It happens that I brought into the House tonight the evidence given on 24th April when Mr. Owens, the witness of the Welsh Water Authority, was cross-examined in detail. I shall not refer to the fisheries issues because the noble Lord said that he was content. But he also said that the evidence of Welsh Water was valuable and comprehensive. It should therefore clearly be put on the record that Mr. Owens, giving evidence for Welsh Water, made it absolutely clear that it was satisfied that the standards that it felt were necessary could be met. When the examination had been conducted and re-examination took place, Mr. Owens was asked this.
"On the question of the steps needed in order to ensure that the water quality standards are adhered to, and the cost of those steps, are those matters which you have gone into in detail, or have you been concerned with what the standards and what the level of monitoring should be? A. It has been Welsh Water's responsibility to consider the standards that are to be applied to that lake. We have satisfied these in the dicussions with the promoters. The promoters have commissioned a whole series of studies into these various aspects. We have discussed those studies with the promoters and we have had access to all the findings of those studies which have been carried out by a whole range of consultants. Our judgement has been formed basically on knowing standards which we have set, our own judgement as to the validity of some of the studies carried out and some lessons which have been learnt from those studies".
He subsequently made it perfectly clear that it had looked at the uses that will be made of that area of water. He stated:
"We have set down the standards to safeguard those uses".
That is the view of the expert evidence of Welsh Water. It should be weighed against what we heard earlier in this debate.
Of course there are hazards in undertaking sports in polluted rivers, although the River Taff is nothing like as polluted as is sometimes made out. Mr. Magnus Magnusson is quite wrong when he said in
340
the course of last week that it is one of the most polluted rivers in Great Britain. If it were, the noble Lord, Lord Moran, would be expressing justified concern about the survival of the salmon that now pass up that river. However, there is much to be done and I declare an interest. The NRA will have to ensure that the quality of those rivers and the water system in South Wales is substantially improved in the years ahead. That will be one of my responsibilities; it clearly must be.
Welsh Water is satisfied that the standards will be adequate for the uses to which the water will be put. In Bristol immersion sports are not permitted, but major sporting activities take place in the docks at Bristol. I referred at Second Reading to my own past when I spent more hours than perhaps today I like to think of rowing and sailing on the Thames. I frequently fell in. At the time the Thames was a great deal more polluted than it is today. Some noble Lords may recall a regatta not very long ago during which the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, fell in. He, for many years, represented a part of Cardiff. He and I survived. The truth is that the water quality is not perfect, it will not be pristine, but in the view of the experts it will be quite adequate for the uses to which it is put.
Disposal of rubbish is always a problem. But Penarth Docks is not to be emptied to deal with the problems of water quality. The idea is that it should be emptied because the value of land for development in the area will be so considerable. People do not wish to freeze land which has been used in a rather thoughtless way when there could be a future use for it were it not unsuitable because of methane and other problems connected with refuse disposal. However, the refuse of Cardiff and the surrounding area will have to be disposed of whether the barriage is built or not.
I believe that the committee has rendered an immensely valuable service in answering the understandable concerns in great detail. I do not believe that anyone who has read the report, still less anyone who has read the massive evidence presented to the committee, can have the smallest doubt that this House is well justified in allowing the Bill to pass for consideration in another place.
Lord Galpern: My Lords, as the only member present here this evening who served under the chairman I should like to say a few words. It was a great pleasure and an honour to serve under the noble Lord, Lord Elibank, as chairman. As a member of the committee I learnt a great deal about wildlife on the Severn Estuary. I learnt too—this was even more satisfactory—of the delightful sense of humour of the noble Lord. Tonight the House should be grateful to him for the masterly presentation that he made of the proceedings and of our conclusions as a result of deliberations over several weeks.
The best I can say is that if ever again I am asked to serve under the noble Lord, Lord Elibank, nothing would give me greater pleasure.
The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, it may be helpful if I give your Lordships a brief indication of the

341
Government's position on this Bill and the amendment made by the committee. As I told your Lordships during the Bill's Second Reading, the Government have a substantial interest in the objectives of the Bill as it is the intention that the cost of building the barrage will be met by the development corporation with the assistance of a grant in aid provided by the Welsh Office. We, like the committee, are satisfied that the economic benefits that will flow from the barrage will outweigh the costs involved.
We are pleased that the committee having considered all the evidence, has recommended that the Bill should be allowed to proceed. The amendment simplifies the provision in the Bill to protect property that might be affected by rising groundwater. As such the amendment is perfectly acceptable to the Government and we believe that it should be kept to overcome the concern of the local residents.
We have studied the evidence on water quality put before the committee based on expert reports and the witness from the Welsh Water Authority. This is a subject in which the Government have the closest possible interest. We are reassured by the committee's conclusions that it considers that satisfactory measures will be undertaken to ensure that the quality of water in the inland bay will meet the standards specified in the Bill. We share this view and also the committee's conclusions that the sponsors must maintain the strict standards that have been set. The National Rivers Authority will also of course have a role to play in this in due course.
The Government believe that the Bill should be read for a third time and allowed to proceed.
On Question, Bill read a third time.
Lord Brooks of Tremorfa: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
I wish to thank all those noble Lords who have played their part this evening. In particular, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Elibank, for what I thought was a superbly concise summary of all the work that he and his committee did over many days. It listened to a great deal of evidence.
I am afraid that I come to different conclusions from the noble Lord, Lord Moran. I too read all the evidence. Indeed I read it almost as soon as it was printed, and I came to a different conclusion. I must point out that it was never envisaged that immersion sports would take place in the impounded water after the barrage was built.
When the scheme was first mooted, I had two concerns which have been expressed by some of the petitioners and indeed have been mentioned this evening. The first was the effect on the environment. But far more important to me was the concern expressed by many people in Cardiff, particularly in the Riverside and Canton areas, about the effects of possible flooding. I was born between the two rivers and I would not advocate any measure that would make the situation worse. I remember on many occasions the flooding of the rivers Taff and Ely and
342
all the distress that that caused. I am satisfied that the evidence that has been given to the Committee will resolve that problem.
Accordingly, I commend the Bill to your Lordships.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Brooks of Tremorfa.)
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
Viscount Long: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.15 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The sitting was suspended from 8.7 to 8.15 p.m.]

Social Security Bill
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed on Clause 14.
Baroness Faithfull Baroness Faithfull moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 13, line 28, at end insert—
("(3) In regulation 36(3) of the Income Support (General) Regulations after sub-paragraph (b) there shall be added—
'and
(c) any sum paid by the claimant, if he is a member of a family but has no partner, for the care of a child who is a member of his family—

(i) while he is engaged in or travelling to or from that employment, or

(ii) for the purpose of enabling him to engage in that employment." ").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment during the previous stage of the Bill, but I hope that my noble friend the Minister will forgive me if I speak to it again. Many of us in this country are deeply disturbed about single parents. That means the widows, the divorced, all single parents who are caring for children. Before April 1988, if these women wished to go out to work their work expenses were taken into account. By their "work expenses", I means their fares, the cost of putting the child with a carer, a foster parent or putting the child in a nursery.
The purpose of this amendment is to reduce the existing major disincentives to work for lone parents, thereby reducing their enforced dependence on means-tested benefits. As is well known to your Lordships' House, there is now a movement on the part of Her Majesty's Government to press single parents to go out to work. That is being done by a unit based on the Home Office because that office is responsible for equal opportunities for women. It is also an interest of the Department of Health and the Department of Education.
I believe that I am right in saying that the Minister's right honourable friend the Secretary of State is also pressing single women to go out to work. If they do so, whatever happens, the country must not disregard the children of those single women. Otherwise ultimately it will lose out because the

343
children of the single women will not be looked after properly, they will not be properly cared for.
If the woman is drawing a very low wage, then of course she receives income support. But if she is drawing a wage above income support and has to pay for her fares and the money for the nursery, having to deduct the child care expenses from her earnings will involve a very considerable sum. Therefore it is hoped that in order to achieve a situation where the lone parent works without the children suffering, child care expenses should not be taken into account when calculating income support and housing benefit.
This is a very important amendment; it concerns more than one Ministry. It concerns the whole policy of Her Majesty's Government to persuade lone women with children to go out to work. I think we must examine not only the position of the women but also that of the children. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I am pleased to support this amendment. As I have said before this evening, I am concerned about how much the whole system costs. Where costs can be kept down without causing undue pain to those concerned, I believe that we should try to do that.
The cost of single parents to the social security budget has now reached £3.4 billion. I know that the Secretary of State is concerned about that figure. I share his concern, although I do not necessarily share all his ideas about the solution. It seems to me that the cheapest solution as regards the cost of single parents to the social security budget is contraception. However, failing that, the second cheapest solution where possible is to enable the parents to return to work, to get off benefit and to support themselves and their children—a solution compatible with self-respect as well as humanity.
However, the children do not simply disappear when the mother goes back to work. It is not like the guide book I once relied on, which described a country walk at the end of which you would meet the car which has meanwhile gone round. The children do not "meanwhile go round" and they have to be looked after somewhere. They must have care. Inevitably, care costs money and those who cannot afford the care cannot work. People are quite rightly concerned about the quality of the care which they are receiving for their children. Children are not just to be dumped in a left luggage office but need to be looked after. Therefore, I believe that parents should be in a position to try to find child care of sufficient quality. That means a real risk of a classic poverty trap, and we all know the arguments against that. Therefore, I do not need to prove any further that this amendment is to the advantage of the claimant.
I believe that it is also to the advantage of the Government and even, believe it or not, to the advantage of the Treasury. I have not always expressed myself with great favour about the Treasury but it has a point of view and where it can be heard, it should be. I shall not develop any further the points about women returning to the labour market. I know that the Government are well aware of them. In the debate initiated by the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, on 21st June we developed
344
those points further. I believe that this is a very strong case and I am happy to support the amendment.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am the first to admit that lone parents, like other parents who wish to work, need to balance their work and family responsibilities. The Government believe that child care is something on which the parents should decide and arrange. However, there are also others who have a very important part to play. Employers are showing increasing interest in child care as a way of helping them to recruit and retain staff as labour markets become increasingly tight. Many voluntary bodies are very active in child care, and the Government provide financial support for a number of them. The Government see their role as to facilitate the development of child care facilities by employers, voluntary bodies and others, and to ensure proper standards.
My noble friend Lady Faithfull, in introducing this amendment, commented on the Ministerial Group on Women's Issues, which is chaired by my honourable friend the Minister of State at the Home Office. In April it announced a plan which included the promotion of partnerships between employers, the voluntary sector, local statutory authorities and others; the issuing of guidance to local education authorities and school governors about after-school and holiday schemes; and encouragement to employers to use tax reliefs available to them to provide, or help with the cost of, child care.
This aims to help lone parents and other parents who want to work. It is relevant to this debate because it demonstrates that the proposition put before the House in the amendment is far from being the only way to help lone parents who want to work. I should like to look now more closely at the change being proposed by the amendments, because it is not so straightforward as it might appear.
As the House knows, there used to be a disregard of child care costs for lone parents receiving supplementary benefit and working part-time. But the House should also know that when we commissioned a study of how it was working, it was found that most lone parents did not actually gain from the provision. Nearly 78 per cent. of the working lone parents in the survey incurred no child care costs and only just over 2 per cent. had costs of more than £10 per week.
Noble Lords earlier this afternoon talked about the social security arrangements and budget adapting to circumstances; that is exactly what the Government did. In April 1988, we replaced this disregard and a complicated general disregard of earnings by the simpler arrangement we have now. Lone parents who receive income support and work part-time receive an earnings disregard of £15 per week, which can in some instances be £5·50 more than they would have received under the previous arrangements. This helps all lone parents who work part-time and receive income support, not only those who have child care costs.
But there is a further point. We need to make sure that what we do help claimants without actually

345
encouraging reliance on income support and damaging their incentives to greater independence. Yet the change which is proposed would in fact do just that. This is because direct help with child care costs from the public purse is not available to people in full-time work. To provide help as the amendment would propose would create a disincentive to leave income support. It cannot be right to do that.
Noble Lords should also be aware that there is little evidence from the inquiries we have received that the absence of a disregard for child care costs is having a disincentive effect on lone parents taking up employment. But we have always said that we will monitor the various new disregards and consider what changes, if any, are necessary in the light of their operation. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, will be delighted that this is not an occasion to mention the OPCS report. However, to be serious as I must be, we are therefore commissioning an independent study to see how claimants generally are adapting to the new rules.
In conclusion, I would like to emphasise that I fully understand the reasons which have led my noble friend to put forward this amendment. But we have already announced plans for action to promote provision of child care, working with employers, voluntary bodies and others. To change the social security rules as this amendment proposes would weaken incentives to greater independence. But we are monitoring the way the new rules work and, in the light of that, will consider whether changes are needed. The House knows full well that we are not frightened of making changes to the 1986 Act arrangements. We have made several this year and I have no doubt that we shall be in the process of making several next year. I hope that that helps my noble friend.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I thank the Minister. When one changes from one system to another, there is always difficulty with the bridging process. At the moment there is no doubt that there is a big change of policy on the part of Her Majesty's Government; namely, that lone women should go out to work and that the market forces should take over and provide the nursery accommodation or accommodation for the care of their children. That is only the first step towards this new process. For example, I know that the banks have started crèches. I know, for example, that Marks and Spencer intends to buy in places. Nevertheless, while this new system is taking over there are difficulties for lone parents and their children.
My noble friend the Minister said that it is perfectly possible with a Social Security Bill every year to make changes. I should have thought that there might have been the possibility of accepting this amendment and then, when all the market forces begin to operate—whether they ever will is another matter—it will be possible to take this out in next year's Bill, in so far as we have a Bill every year.
I am therefore disappointed on behalf of all these women and their children and indeed the workforce in the way that Her Majesty's Government want
346
it to work. However, having made my point and underlined it, at this hour of the night I would not consider pressing the amendment. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Henderson of Brompton Lord Henderson of Brompton had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 13:
After Clause 14, insert the following new clause:
("Applicable amounts.
—(1) In paragraph 1 of Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Income Support (General) Regulations 1987, after the words "applicable amounts and polygamous marriages" there shall be inserted the words "except that, for this purpose, any person aged less than 25 to whom any paragraph in Part 11 of the Schedule l A applies or would apply if he were aged 16 and had not reached the relevant date determined under regulation 13A (3)(b) shall be treated as if he were aged 25."
(2) In paragraph 1 of Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Housing Benefit (General) Regulations 1987, after the words "17(a) and (b)" there shall be inserted the words "except that, for this purpose, any person aged less than 25 to whom paragraph in Part 11 of Schedule IA to the Income Support (General) Regulations 1987 applies, or would apply if he were aged 16, claiming income support and had not reacted the relevant date determined under regulation 13A(3)(b) of those regulations, shall be treated as he were aged 25.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, to use the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, at this hour of the night it would be inappropriate to move Amendment No. 13. I have the agreement of the co-signatories to this amendment not to move it. I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, likewise will not be moving Amendment No. 14.
[Amendment No. 13 not moved.]
Baroness Faithfull Baroness Faithfull had given notice of her intention to move Amendment No. 14:
After Clause 14, insert the following new clause:
("Income support for persons aged 16 or 17
In regulation 13A of the Income Support (General) Regulations 1987—
(a) for paragraph (3) there shall be substituted—
"(3) In case of a person to whom any paragraph in Schedule IA applies, the relevant date is the date on which he attains the age of 18.";
and
(b) in paragraph (7) the words "(3)(b) and" shall cease to have effect.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the same applies to this amendment. I do not move it.
[Amendment No. 14 not moved.]
Lord Henderson of Brompton Lord Henderson of Brompton moved Amendment No. 15:
After Clause 14, insert the following new clause:
("Employment rehabilitation.
. In paragraph 7(1) of Schedule 8 to the Income Support (General) Regulations 1987, after the word "derived" there shall be inserted the words "from employment in a work programme for the rehabilitation of persons who would otherwise be unlikely to obtain remunerative employment or".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, there is no reason why this amendment should take a great deal of time as I had a promising and sympathetic response to my amendment from the Minister in Committee. I therefore withdrew the amendment because I

347
thought it would have been churlish to have done otherwise.
I tabled the amendment again today because I very much hope that the Minister will be able to elaborate on his reply given in Committee and because I want to say one or two words myself. In his reply in Committee the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, referred to the employment training programme being open to those with disabilities and other problems, which is indeed the case. However, it does not follow that everyone seeking work rehabilitation is able to use those programmes.
The experience of the voluntary agencies which are specially expert and experienced in this field is that many people who have suffered or are suffering a psychiatric illness are simply not able to use the mainstream programmes. It is their experience and their belief that these mainstream programmes have great difficulty in adjusting to the needs of such people. They are needs which are not at all like those of people who have learning disabilities, such as the mentally handicapped. People with psychiatric illnesses are in a different category. What they need is a special stage before they can consider making use of government programmes. Therefore I ask the Minister kindly to take note of that special feature of those who suffer from psychiatric illnesses.
Secondly, people who have worked closely with the rehabilitation schemes were pleased, as I was and I am sure the rest of the House was, to learn during the Committee stage that the Government are commissioning—I believe these were the words used—"a comprehensive research programme to monitor the effects of the rules relating to earnings disregards". I think that that is a very acceptable expression of government policy. All I ask is that when this is put into effect the Government will take into their confidence the voluntary organisations which are experienced in this field, make use of their expertise and give them every opportunity to contribute to the Government's thinking.
Having made those two points, and hoping for a little further elaboration on the Minister's statement in Committee, I beg to move.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, we support this amendment. It is a modest and very necessary amendment. It comes before your Lordships with the support of some of the voluntary organisations which are carrying out this extremely difficult work of endeavouring to get people who are often written off as unemployable into a pattern of working.
I am sure that all noble Lords will want to pay tribute to organisations such as the Richmond Fellowship, the Peter Bedford Trust, St. Mungo, and others, because they put society in their debt. They are carrying out work that other people do not care about. They work hard to raise funds and they deal on a very personal basis with people who have a multitude of difficulties.
The trouble is that unless the people they are trying to help are on a disability premium, as referred to earlier, they are only allowed to have the earnings limit disregard of £5 per week. If they were on the disability premium they would have a disregard of
348
£15 per week. I am genuinely seeking information. I ask the noble Lord how the department sorts out the £5 people from the £15 per week disregard people? When were these limits set? Are they due for an up-rating? It seems to me that £15 per week is a little enough incentive and that £5 will not give the incentive that is important for some people who have not been in employment and who do not have an established work pattern to agree to go on these courses.
A great deal of very valuable work is being done and it would be a great encouragement to the people operating these schemes if the Government were to show some further understanding and give some assistance.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I give general support to this amendment. So far we have had mention of the mentally handicapped, the physically handicapped and those suffering from psychiatric illness. I draw attention to discharged prisoners who often need employment rehabilitation before they can have any hope of finding work in the normal way. That arises, or course, from the regrettable situation in many prisons where there is a great shortage of work and where, alas and unfortunately, prisoners are being locked up for 22 or 23 hours each day.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, mentioned the Peter Bedford Trust. That is one organisation that is active in employment rehabilitation. On those grounds, as well as all the others cited, I believe that this is an important amendment which, even though it deals with small amounts of cash per week, should be taken very seriously.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I add one comment from the point of view of those people who are running these centres. It is difficult to instil into the people—men and women—a desire to work if some are receiving one amount of money and the others receiving less. I have to say that it is difficult to inspire those who are receiving less to work harder when they see their colleagues at the next bench receiving much more. If we are to get them back onto the labour market and into the workforce they should be earning about the same amount instead of having this differentiation within a project.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, that again was a most illustrative comment from my noble friend that I shall come to. As the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, said, this amendment was discussed at some length during Committee stage and I am not sure how much I can add to the explanation that I gave then. I do recognise the strength of feeling which exists that something extra should be done to help people who have recurrent mental health problems to get into employment. But I cannot accept that because some of these people qualify for the higher £15 disregard while others the standard £5 disregard this is sufficient justification for raising the earnings disregard for all of them to £15 a week.
My noble friend Lady Faithfull, in essence, asked why they are getting less. The answer is because their disabilities are either greater or lesser. The whole point of the social security system is that people who

349
are more disabled should get more money in various ways. The purpose of the existing structure of the earnings disregards is to recognise and encourage those people with very special difficulties caused, for example, by long-term sickness, lone parenthood or long-term unemployment in the case of couples. I am sure that is right. As the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, said in Committee, some of the group he wishes to help are already getting the £15 disregard because they are entitled to the disability premium.
The disability premium is available to people who, for example, have been incapacitated for 28 weeks or more, or who are receiving invalidity benefit, mobility allowance or attendance allowance or who are blind. People with recurrent mental health problems may well satisfy the qualifying condition for receiving the disability premium and therefore be entitled to the higher earnings disregard. However, I can assure the House that it is not necessary for any of these people to register as a disabled person in order to qualify for the higher disregard. I hope that this will dispel the fears than some might have therefore that entitlement to the disability premium could hamper their future prospects for obtaining employment.
But I must also make it clear that the Government do not believe that increasing the disregard level for young, fit, single people will necessarily encourage them to take up full-time employment. Indeed, I am sure that for some it will have quite the opposite effect by removing the financial incentive of doing so. It has been mentioned earlier that we are reviewing the whole matter of disregards. In answer to a question from the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, I can assure him that the views of those groups running rehabilitation schemes will be taken into account when monitoring the new earnings rules.
I believe that a way of helping the people at whom this amendment is aimed is by making them better informed about the nature and conditions for the existing disregards. In this respect I feel sure that organisations involved with them will wish to continue to play a part. The noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, asked me about up-rating the disregards. These were set on 11th April 1988, which I believe is very recent indeed. The Government make annual decisions on up-rating. Much to the fury of your Lordships the Government do not up-rate some benefits and much to the surprise of your Lordships, others they do up-rate. Therefore I cannot make any guesses as to which benefit and by how much up-rating will take place this autumn.
In the meantime, my officials continue to carry out an undertaking I gave regarding last year's Social Security Bill and remain in contact with St. Mungo Housing. They have met again with its representative only recently. Together they hope to work out how best to help this unfortunate group.
I do not believe it will be productive for me to say any more. I do not believe I can add to the two explanations that I have now given on this matter except to repeat to the noble Lord, Lord Henderson (because I am not sure that he was in the House at the time) what I said in Committee. I am absolutely determined—I have made it a personal
350
crusade—that the more people with disabilities who are able to work should be encouraged to do so, and I maintain that stance.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his reply, but not quite so grateful as I was for his reply to the amendment moved in Committee which I prefer to this one today. I was in my place when he expressed his own personal interest in helping those who are disabled to increase their determination to find work. I am very much conscious of the fact that he has this matter at heart. I very much welcome that.
Regarding his assurance, I thank the noble Lord for saying that when his officials come to consider the new earnings rules in detail they will take into account the views and consult with the experts in this field. As the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, rightly said, these experts have put us all in their debt for looking after these people and for encouraging them while trying to lift them out of their hopelessness and dependency before they are rehabilitated by these excellent institutions and devoted people. With that hope for the future and my thanks to the Minister, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 15 [Housing benefit to take the form of payments or reductions]:
Baroness Gardner of Parkes Baroness Gardner of Parkes moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 13, line 43, at end insert—
("(3) In section 28 of that Act, the following subsection is substituted for subsection (6)—
"(6)(a) For the purposes of assessing housing benefit an authority shall disregard in determining a person's income the first £10 (or such higher amount as may be prescribed) of any war disablement pension or war widow's pension payable to that person and may by resolution modify any part of its housing benefit scheme to disregard the whole or part of the remainder of any such pension;
(b) an authority may by resolution modify its housing benefit scheme in such other respects as may be prescribed," ").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment is fairly self-explanatory. I spoke in great detail at the Committee stage of the Bill. This amendment would increase the present disregard of £5 by 100 per cent. to £10. It would be of great benefit to all of the war disabled pensioners and war widow pensioners. At Committee stage I was concerned that if we asked for a statutory disregard increase it might disadvantage those whose local authorities are giving a much higher disregard.
I have had consultations with the Association of District Councils and it does not believe that will be the case. It believes that those authorities that are already being more generous will continue to be so. That would be of great benefit to everyone. There were other points raised at Committee stage. For example, there was the question of the difference in pension between that of a colonel's widow and a serviceman's widow. I was sent the figures on that matter and, interestingly enough, there was only a difference of about £3 a week between the sums received by the two widows. One received £56 a

351
week and the other £59. Therefore, there was not a difference there to be concerned about.
As I made clear at Committee stage, housing benefit helps only those who are in need and therefore are in need of housing benefit. This provision will be of great value. I believe that the Chamber generally agreed on the great merit of these people who had either made a personal sacrifice through the loss of a husband or who had suffered injury themselves, and that they are a particularly deserving group. I beg to move.
Lord Trafford: My Lords, at Committee stage I made some remarks concerning a similar amendment moved by my noble friend. I believe that I was mistaken both in the interpretation that I gave to the amendment at the time and in one or two of the remarks that I made. I support what she has to say now. I hope that my noble friend will be kindly disposed towards this amendment with which I agree.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, I wish to support my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes. I can remember—and I expect that most of your Lordships can, too—when a £5 note in your pocket would buy a whole trolley load of food in a supermarket. Not even a £10 note will now do that. I suppose it might if you filled a trolley with 22 loaves of bread. In this instance we are talking of women whose husbands and chief bread winners sacrificed their lives to their country. I do not say that the country owes those widows a living, but merely that we are a great country and are proud of our people. We owe it to those who died for us to care for the wives they loved.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, in Committee I briefly supported the noble Baroness and I should like to voice my support this evening. Sadly, the number of people involved is diminishing. It will eventually, in the absence of future hostilities, dwindle down to nothing. In those circumstances, the House should support the noble Baroness, and the Minister and the Government should generously accede to what she proposes.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am afraid that I am going to be inconsistent again. I hope that on this occasion the House can live with my inconsistency. My noble friend is seeking an extension of the present £5 statutory disregard in housing benefit of any war disablement or war widow's pension. She has proposed an increase to £10, which doubles the present disregard while retaining the discretion which local authorities have to increase the disregard—or indeed to disregard war pensions in full. The amendment—and hence the increase. — applies to housing benefit, and housing benefit only.
By this amendment my noble friend shows herself to be a staunch supporter of the war disabled and war widows. She has attracted support from almost all round the House. I gather that on the Benches opposite silence means consent. The Government
352
wish to be no less supportive. Indeed, as noble Lords will be well aware, this Government have done much for war pensioners. On taking office we completely freed all war pensions and allowances from income tax. We have fully maintained the value of the war pensions and allowances in line with the retail prices index—that is my answer to my noble friend Lady Strange—by means of no fewer than 11 upratings since taking office.
In 1983, we introduced a new mobility supplement for war disablement pensioners, set at a rate higher than the ordinary mobility allowance. From 1984, there have been significant improvements in the age allowances payable to war widows, with substantial extra help for those over 80. And in April 1987, the provision for paying funeral costs for war pensioners dying of their war disablement was significantly improved. There is no mistaking the force and strength of the current of sympathy that is flowing at present around the House in recognition of what the country owes in regard to the sacrifices made by individual war pensioners and war widows.
I am therefore happy to announce to the House that the Government accept the case for this very special and well defined group and will increase from £5 to £10 the statutory disregard of war disablement and war widows' pensions in housing benefit. Moreover, we see the case for extending the increase not just to community charge benefit but also to income support and indeed, in the rare cases where it will apply, to family credit.
There is, however, a technicality: the amount of the statutory disregard is contained in regulations, not in an Act of Parliament, and it follows that the present Bill would not be the right vehicle for conveying this change. The Government would therefore wish to effect the increase by means of an amendment to the appropriate regulations to become effective in April 1990, at the same time as the general up-rating of benefits. I hope that my noble friend will be able to accept this as being the appropriate way of giving effect to the improvement which she is seeking and which I, as Minister with special responsibility for war pensions, warmly endorse.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply, which delights me. However, I am still slightly puzzled. He said that the amount is not embodied in an Act but in regulations. It seems to me to be embodied in the Act. My amendment sought to amend the Act. Perhaps he can explain that point.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, with the leave of the House, the amount of money is not set out in the Act. It is a general power in the Act. The amount of money is set out in regulations made under the Act. That is what we need to change in order to accede to my noble friend's wishes.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that answer. I had not realised that the £5 was not specified in the previous Act. I knew that the words "statutory disregard" were used. I do not have that section of the Act with me. I am

353
only too pleased to express the thanks of war widows and war disablement pensioners. No doubt I shall be able to send them a copy of Hansard which will show exactly when this will come about.
They have asked me to express their gratitude to the present Minister, my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale, and to my noble friend Lady Trumpington, both of whom have been particularly helpful to them in upgrading their pensions in recent years. The chairman of the War Widows Association of Great Britain, Mrs.Hazel Murphy, wrote to me just to remind people that, while the war pensioners—the man—had always received their pensions free of tax, it was the present Prime Minister who brought in the same concession for the women, who had been disadvantaged before and had had to pay tax and have their money treated as unearned income during the years of bringing up their children. That was hardship for them. They were grateful for that. I know that they will be grateful for this announcement by the Government. I thank the Minister for what he has said and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 17:
After Clause 17, insert the following new clause:
("Income support for disabled people.
After section 22(4) of the 1986 Act (calculation) there shall be inserted the following subsections
"(4A) Without prejudice to the generality of the preceding subsection a person shall be treated as a severely disabled person if a medical practitioner certifies in respect of that person that he has a medical condition or other disability and that the extra weekly expenses directly attributable to his medical condition or other disability exceed such sum as shall be prescribed.
(4B) In relation to income support and housing benefit the applicable amount for a disabled person shall include an amount in respect of his being a disabled person.
(4C) Regulations may specify circumstances in which persons are to be treated as being or as not being disabled.
(4D) Without prejudice to the generality of the preceding subsection a person shall be treated as a disabled person if a medical practitioner certifies in respect of that person that he has a medical condition or other disability and that the extra weekly expenses directly attributable to his medical condition or other disability exceed such sum as shall be prescribed." ").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is an enabling amendment. It allows the Minister to do things by regulations, the normal means of introducing changes in matters relating to income support. It has been drafted mainly with the needs of AIDS sufferers in mind. It could also be of benefit to those suffering from cancer or other terminal illnesses. It allows the Minister to deal with cases where people suffer a disability which causes serious extra weekly expenses and to specify the circumstances in which the severe disability premium—SDP—may be paid to those who stand in need.
In many ways the expenses of those who suffer from AIDS are a good deal higher than those of other people. In answering a question in another place the Minister of State estimated that they need something of the order of 150 per cent. of normal protein. His estimate of the extra cost of that per week is £14·19. The Royal Victoria Infirmary at
354
Newcastle calculates it at £30. That discrepancy may not surprise the House, but even at the lower figure this is a quite significant addition to the extra expenses of people living on income support, which does not, I think, provide normally for real luxury in diet.
The amendment will also deal with the 28-week period normally needed to qualify for severe disability benefit. In a number of cases, as the noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk, and the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, have already reminded us, sufferers from AIDS may be dead before they have qualified for the premium. From the Treasury's point of view it may be a cheap way of solving a problem, but I do not think it is a good one.
The Minister, I suspect, will take the advice of the noble Lord, Lord Carter, and simply say "OPCS" and sit down. But this problem will not wait. A good many people to whom this amendment may apply would be dead well before the OPCS survey could be completed, considered and embodied in legislation after all the necessary procedures. This is genuinely a matter of life and death. I beg to move.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am pleased to support the amendment. As the noble Earl said, there is a real problem for those who suffer from AIDS and HIV infections. It is one of the problems we foresaw with the abolition of the additional payments under the old system of supplementary benefit for items such as heating, laundry and bathing. The Government replaced targeting with the relative inflexibility of the disability premium and the severe disability premium. With the AIDS condition there is severe sweating and incontinence. Pneumonia is almost invariably associated with AIDS with the extra heating costs that are required.
If the Minister mentions the OPCS, I am sure that he will be aware that the questionnaire which was used for the survey did not include any consideration of AIDS or HIV infections. Therefore it would be interesting to know how that survey is supposed to help with this problem.
The amendment moves us only slightly towards a comprehensive disability income which is the target of all of us involved in disability matters. I must say that those of us on this side of the House are very pleased to support the amendment.
9 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, if the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Lord, Lord Carter, were living in a world where there was no other disability benefit, I could immediately see the logic for this amendment. Of course, there is an OPCS factor in the matter, as the noble Lord, Lord Carter, knows full well. However, I think I should make the point that in the study of the OPCS data the considerations will obviously cover proposals of the kind introduced by this amendment. But I must stress that it would import into the income support scheme some of the worst features of the old supplementary benefit system which so bedevilled it and which led to the urgent need for its reform.

355
The whole object of those changes was to replace subjective judgments of the type which this amendment would require with much simpler objective ones. Moreover, those of us who are very questioning about a comprehensive disability pension would, I think, take that line as a matter of course. As I pointed out just now to the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, different levels of disability attract different levels of benefit. I, for one, believe that that policy is correct.
So far as concerns objective criteria, I believe that that has provided certainty for the claimant about his income support entitlement and has improved ease of administration. Flat-rate premiums for the sick and disabled, linked to the receipt of long-term incapacity and disablement benefits, and based on other objective criteria, were one of the major achievements of the reforms. I believe that it would be quite wrong to damage or reverse that situation now.
The rationale of those premiums remains sound, not least because most illnesses are short and do not involve extra cost. It is those which persist long term and which incapacitate for a long time which attract the premiums. Therefore I agree with the noble Earl and the noble Lord that this is a matter which needs to be looked at very seriously indeed. I should, however, point out to the noble Earl that the sum of £14·19 which he mentioned is not the extra cost; it is the cost of a diet as a whole based on 1986 rates. If the noble Earl is interested, the source of that information is McDonald and Forsythe at St. James's University Hospital.
However, I was talking about the amounts which are payable now. I think that it would be appropriate to remind the House that the disability premium currently stands at £13·70 for a single person and at £19·50 for a couple. Moreover, the severe disability premium—payable on top of those amounts—is £26·20 for a single person and double that where both people in a couple satisfy the criteria.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, in particular, will know that in addition the independent living fund exists to help severely disabled people who need personal care or domestic support to live independently in their own homes. If the noble Lord wanted to twit me he would say that the independent living fund is such a success that the Government are embarrassed by it. I must tell him that the Government are not in the least embarrassed by that fact; indeed, we are delighted at its success.
In view of my arguments, I hope that the noble Earl will see fit not to pursue the amendment at this time of night.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. It is not the first time tonight that we have heard the argument that the proposal in question reintroduces the worst features of the old supplementary benefit system. I am beginning to wonder whether, when the Minister speaks about the worst features of that system, he may occasionally be speaking about certain aspects of it which some of us on this side of the House may regard as the best features of the system.
356
The Minister spoke about objective measures. But there is a little difficulty here, as we may hear later tonight, about objective measures of pain and suffering. It is also an objective fact that not all disabilities are equal to all other disabilities. In fact, I tried to put forward an argument to show that there is here a case for arguing that some disabilities do not have equal expenses with other disabilities.
There is, I think, some force in the remark of Aristotle that justice does indeed involve equality, but equality for those who are equal, and not for all. This objective measure is losing sight of the very real differences between cases.
As regards the sum of 14·19 being the cost of a complete diet, I take the point. However, it makes me wonder whether the passage in my briefing paper which said that this was based on 1896 prices is perhaps not a misprint after all. Nevertheless, with the crumb of comfort that the Minister knows that this matter needs looking at again, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Lockwood): My Lords, I must point out that if Amendment No. 18 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 19.
Clause 23 [Recovery of sums equivalent to benefit from compensation payments in respect of accidents, injuries and diseases]:
Lord Campbell of Alloway Lord Campbell of Alloway moved Amendment No. 18:
Leave out Clause 23 and insert the following new clause:
("Recovery of sums equivalent to benefit from compensation payments in respect of accidents, injuries and diseases
23.—(1) No compensation payment may be made in respect of an accident, injury, or disease unless—

(a) the Secretary of State shall have furnished to the person proposing to make such payment a certificate showing the categories and amounts of benefits paid, or to be paid, by reason only of such accident, injury or disease for the relevant period;

(b) the Secretary of State shall have approved a statement of deductions of the amounts received under categories of benefit which fall within a like head of damage furnished by the person proposing to make such payment to the Secretary of State and to the intended recipient of compensation.

(2) This section shall not apply to any compensation in payment for an amount not exceeding 10,000 (or such amount in excess of £10,000 as may be prescribed by regulation) as a single payment or in aggregate with any other compensation payment for the same accident, injury, or disease; or to any "exempt payments" as provided by subsections (4) and (5) of this section.
(3) The right of the recipient to receive compensation shall be satisfied by payment of such sum less deduction as appears in the statement of deductions as approved by the Secretary of State; and within 14 days of payment of compensation the person who has made such payment shall pay to the Secretary of State an amount equivalent to such deduction.
(4) For the purposes of this section the following are the "exempt payments"—

(a) any payment made to or for the victim under section 35 of the Powers of Criminal Courts Act 1973 or section 58 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980;

(b) any payment to the extent that it is made—

(i) in consequence of an action under the Fatal Accidents Act 1976; or

(ii) in circumstances where, had an action been brought, it would have been brought under that Act;

357

(c) any payment to the extent that it is made in respect of a liability arising by virtue of section I of the Damages (Scotland) Act 1976;

(d) without prejudice to section 6(4) of the Vaccine Damage Payments Act 1979 (which provides for the deduction of any such payment in the assessment of any award of damages), any payment made under that Act to or in respect of the victim;

(e) any award of compensation made to or in respect of the victim by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board under section 111 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988;

(f) any payment made in the exercise of a discretion out of property held subject to a trust in a case where no more than 50 per cent. by value of the capital contributed to the trust was directly or indirectly provided by persons who are, or are alleged to be, liable in respect of—

(i) the accident, injury of disease suffered by the victim in question; or

(ii) the same or any connected accident, injury of disease suffered by another;

(g) any payment made out of property held for the purposes of any prescribed trust (whether the payment also falls within paragraph (0 above or not);

(h) any payment made to the victim by an insurance company within the meaning of the Insurance Companies Act 1982 under the terms of any contract of insurance entered into between the victim and the company before—

(i) the date on which the victim first claims a relevant benefit in consequence of the disease in question; or

(ii) the occurrence of the accident or injury in question;

(j) any redundancy payment failing to be taken into account in the assessment of damages in respect of an accident, injury or disease.

(5) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide that any prescribed payment shall be an exempt payment for the purposes of this section.
(6) Except as provided by any other enactment, in the assessment of damages in respect of an accident, injury or disease the amount of any benefits paid or to be paid shall be disregarded.
(7) Schedule 4 to this Act shall have effect for the purpose of supplementing the provisions of this section; and this section shall have effect subject to the provisions of that Schedule.
(8) This section and that Schedule shall apply in relation to any compensation payment made after the coming into force of this section to the extent that it is made in respect of—

(a) an accident or injury occurring on or after 1st January 1989; or

(b) a disease, if the victim's first claim for a relevant benefit in consequence of the disease is made on or after that date.

(9) In this section "benefit" means such benefit under the Social Security Acts 1975 to 1988, or the Old Cases Act as may be prescribed for the purposes of this section by regulation.
"compensation payment" means any payment falling to be made (whether voluntarily, or in pursuance of a court order or an agreement, or otherwise)—

(a) to or in respect of the victim in consequence of the accident, injury or disease in question, and

(b) by or on behalf of a person who is, or is alleged to be, liable to any extent in respect of that accident, injury or disease,

and includes, in particular, so much of the payment as represents reimbursement for costs incurred in procuring it, but does not include benefit or an exempt payment;
"costs", in relation to proceedings in Scotland, means expenses;
"payment" means payment in money or money's worth, and cognate expressions shall be construed accordingly;
"relevant period" means—

(a) in the case of a disease, the period of 5 years beginning with the date on which the victim first claims a relevant benefit in consequence of the disease; or

(b) in any other case, the period of 5 years immediately following the day on which the accident or injury in question occurred;

358
but where before the end of that period the compensator makes a compensation payment in final discharge of any claim made by or in respect of the victim and arising out of the accident, injury or disease, the relevant period shall end on the date on which that payment is made whether or not any subsequent payment falls to be made in respect only of taxed costs.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg leave to move this amendment, which stands in my name, conscious of the fact that the view has been taken in certain quarters that it is too cumbersome and that that view, in fairness, may be well-founded. But, if the Government cannot accept like for like as a principle of deductions, and not only accept it but administer it, then it may be better that Clause 23 and Schedule 4 be excised altogether from the Bill.
It is understood that a simple alternative proposal to ensure like for like to limit the incidence of deductions to people in respect of loss of earnings and hospital and medical benefit is not acceptable to the Government. The amendment in that regard moved by the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, in Committee was not acceptable to the Government. In short, the Government do not accept the principle of like-for-like, and bring forward no amendment to implement that principle which is less cumbersome than the amendment I am moving. I accept that when I drafted it I had not assistance, and that inevitably it is defective. However, the question which will arise tonight is whether your Lordships will wish to divide on the amendment, albeit with the defects that I freely confess, in order to establish the principle so that, after consultation, the drafting of Clause 23(1)(a) and (b) may be pruned and amended before Third Reading; or, on the other hand, whether your Lordships will wish to excise Clause 23 and Schedule 4 from the Bill so that the Government may think again.
I have given due notice that should your Lordships wish to divide on the amendment to establish the principle, as was the intention in Committee, there will be a post-prandial Division, but that if your Lordships wish to divide only to excise Clause 24 and Schedule 4 then, I say it frankly, I shall go in to the Content Lobby because I cannot accept Clause 23 and Schedule 4 as they stand.
I have the most cordial relationships with my noble friend the Minister, and I thank him for the efforts that he has made in consultation. He understands my position. It is right that I should make the position wholly plain to your Lordships' House. I shall oppose the clause unless the Government give on the principle. Whether or not that succeeds is a matter of votes in a Division.
Let us start with the common ground. It is the best way to start in any analysis. It is common ground that the present practice under which all, half or none of the social benefits received, depending upon the type of benefit, are offset against the settlement or award should cease. Save as regards the CBI, for whom my noble friend Lord Mottistone speaks so eloquently, and the TUC, for whom the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, speaks, it is also common ground, or was in Committee, that irrespective of the type of benefit, all benefits should be set off to avoid double compensation.
Against that area of common ground, the question arising on the amendnment is whether that wider area of common ground should be qualified, first, by the like-for-like system of deduction; and, secondly, by the exclusion of settlements and awards of under £10,000. That is the essential question. The complexity of the drafting obscures the essence of the question. Because it is a complex subject, it inevitably requires complex drafting. In that regard, the terms of reference—I beg your Lordships to accept this if you have not read it; I have it with me—of the Touche Ross Report, commissioned by the Government, excluded consideration of a like-for-like system of deductions and all questions of administrative difficulty. It cannot be relied upon to defeat new Clause 23(1)(a) and (b) in the amendment: the essence was excluded.
As regards the second aspect of £10,000, there is a finding in paragraph 2.3 of this vast report. It is a magnificent document. I have read it twice, but I am not quite sure what it amounts to. It is a brilliant effort, but I am not sure what it means. I am totally certain that the Government do not have a clue because they have expressly excluded from the report all questions of administration.
In paragraph 2.3 one finds that if amounts of less than £1,500 were excluded in 1987, the Government would still recover 95 per cent. of benefit. So what? What on earth does that have to do with the problem with which your Lordships are concerned tonight? That paragraph was wholly related to a question of saving administrative costs. It was not concerned in any way with justice for the victim in the form of these relatively small awards, to which reference was made at the Committee stage and which I shall not repeat. That aspect of the Touche Ross Report may not therefore be relied upon by my noble friend the Minister to defeat Clause 23(2).
I am no draftsman and I have received no assistance. I acknowledge that this amendment must inevitably be wrong and defective, but nonetheless I shall move it if it is your Lordships' wish. Why? It is intended to force the Government to accept the principle of like-for-like. It would then be possible by consultation to work out how that principle should be fairly applied. However, it is a matter for your Lordships as to whether we excise the clause altogether.
I have removed total benefit and relevant benefit. I have removed benefit from the exempt payments and included it in Clause 23(9). I have simplified the definitions section and retained "relevant benefit". In other words, I have tried to simplify the complexity of the government draft.
In Clause 23(1)(a) I have dealt with categories of benefits and amounts. That is quite simple. The Secretary of State could do that at the drop of a hat.
I accept that Clause 23(1)(b) is a more difficult proposition. The person proposing to pay compensation sets out a statement of deductions and amounts received under categories of benefit against the like head of damage, but only against the like head of damage. No compensation may be paid until the Secretary of State has approved the proposed like-for-like deductions.
In a redraft of Schedule 4 there would be a simple appeal machinery in the event of disagreement, and, unless the Secretary of State had given approval within a reasonable time such as two or three months, then payment could be made in accordance with the statement of proposed deductions. The implementing machinery would be put in redraft of Schedule 4. With regard to Clause 23 and the body of the statute, I am concerned only with matters of fundamental principle. It is right to bring the exclusion figure onto the face of the statute in Clause 23(2). This is a matter for your Lordships to decide here and now because of the injustice that arises on the small payments.
Why should your Lordships leave it to the Minister? We must decide, on the basis of objective and fair discussion, what we should leave to the Minister. Why should we just leave everything to the Minister? That is something that I have never been able to understand, whichever government have been in power. I am not making a political point; it is a lawyer's point made by someone who believes in constitutional government. There are also consequential amendments.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I said in Committee that my main argument is against what is proposed in Clause 23 and the schedule. That is still my position. We debated this matter at length in Committee and I do not wish to repeat all the arguments which were so well made by other noble Lords. However, I repeat that my main objection is that we have here two systems in operation. There is the industrial injuries scheme introduced in 1948 which is a system of no fault benefit for which contributions are paid. To establish a right to weekly benefit, which by no means compensates for loss of salary let alone any cost for pain and suffering, an injured employee only has to demonstrate that the accident or injury arose out of or in the course of his employment to qualify for benefit under the scheme.
If there is negligence by some other person or his employer, he then has another and quite separate claim at common law. For many years employers have had to carry employers' liability insurance; in practice it is the insurers who pay compensation payments where there has been negligence or contributory negligence. Fifty per cent. of some benefits is already taken account of in the assessment of damages. What is now proposed and what I find so objectionable—this has already been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, in moving his amendment—is that all social benefit should be deducted from the compensation received in a negligence claim. I do not accept that at all. I think all kinds of problems will arise. We shall end up in situations where people simply do not receive compensation for pain and suffering. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, has attempted in his amendment to ameliorate that situation to some degree by setting a level of £10,000, below which there will be exemption from deductions.
However, I believe the most objectionable feature to this whole suggestion is not only that it will be extremely cumbersome to administer—a point

361
amply made in Committee and by the CBI and the Association of British Insurers in representations to the Government—but it will also result in a great deal of injustice and inequality. In effect it undermines yet again the industrial injuries scheme. People will end up being a great deal worse off than they are under the present system.
As I have said, I do not wish to repeat all the arguments that we heard in Committee. While I would much prefer not to have this clause in the Bill at all—that is why I put my name to the amendment which seeks to delete it—it seems to me that the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, ameliorates the position somewhat. As the noble Lord has said, the amendment attempts to deal with the whole issue on a like-for-like basis. As I see it, it attempts to endeavour to ensure that loss of wages will be counted as compensation in a compensation deduction. That is what is meant by comparing like with like.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: And hospital expenses likewise.
Baroness Turner of Camden: Hospital expenses would also be included in the provision, as the noble Lord says. There is the limit of £10,000. So there would be some amelioration. As I said earlier, I would prefer a situation where the clause simply did not exist at all because I see no justification for it whatsoever. I say that after a great deal of discussion and consultation outside the Chamber with the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, who has been good enough to send me some material, including the Touche Ross report to which much reference has been made. But in default of having a situation where the clause simply does not appear, I support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, because it provides some amelioration of a situation which I otherwise find quite unacceptable.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, like the noble Baroness, I would prefer the clause to be left out of the Bill altogether. If this amendment is not accepted I hope that when we come to discuss the next amendment I shall have an opportunity to explain my reasons.
The clause now proposed has the two great merits, as the noble Baroness has said, of attempting to deal with the like-for-like problem and introducing a small payment definition of 10,000 with provision for it to be increased as the years go by. To that extent the amendment is certainly an improvement on the clause in the Bill.
However, I see problems. I think that the administrative set-up of the department monitoring settlements between parties, coupled with a right of appeal, could prove very time-consuming and expensive. The proposals do not in any way meet the difficulty, on which I feel strongly, about contributory negligence. I think that there is the practical problem that the clause would have to be rewritten, as I think the noble Lord would be the first to agree, and Schedule 4 would have to be completely redrafted. And here we are at this very late stage of the Bill.
362
As I have said, my position is that this is a valiant attempt and if it were pressed to a Division I would support it. However, I venture to hope that the noble Lord will not press it to a Division in view of the problems that I have just outlined, particularly the problem of getting it licked into shape in the time available. I hope that, instead, we can proceed to the next amendment and discuss whether the clause should stay in the Bill.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I should very much like to support what the noble Lord, Lord Allen, has just said. As has already been pointed out by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway, I have no time for modification, and I would not support my noble friend's amendment because it seeks to retain what I consider to be a fundamental flaw in the existing Clause 23. I hope to reserve my ammunition for Amendment No. 19, which seeks to defeat the clause altogether.
Earl Russell: My Lords, before dealing with the amendment I should, first, like to offer thanks to the Minister, and through him to his officials, for the care and courtesy with which they dealt with the debate which took place on this clause in his office. There we all entered the discussion with real political good will. I believe that if there had been agreement to be reached we would have reached it.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, and the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, I have considerable doubts about the principle of the clause. I would be prepared to compromise on the principles of the amendment drafted with so much care and work by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, if I could be satisfied that that amendment is viable. Here I beg the Minister to do the best he can to satisfy me that compromise on these lines can be made to work, for there is the political will to make it work. The question is, can it? That is a question on which I hope the Minister will satisfy me.
We have here an immense complication caused by the Government, Becket-like, asserting the principle that not even Beveridge compensates twice for the same injury. Whether the principle of double compensation is entirely relevant to the matter of the clause is something on which some of us have a certain amount of doubt. The Government's case would be stronger if the Minister would agree, as a minimum concession, to omit contributory benefits from the scope of his clause. But even if he were to accept the principle of double compensation being wrong—and I do not believe that many of us are quite as worried about that as the Government think we ought to be—lift for the disabled is so difficult that if once in a blue moon they happen to get a windfall I do not necessarily regard that as the worst thing that can happen in the field of social security.
However, even if one accepts the double compensation principle, I do not think that it is easy to follow the Government in their Becket-like elevation of that principle to a lonely eminence whereby it overrides every other principle in the clause. It overrides any attempt to take account of contributory negligence. Between us we have failed

363
completely to find a way in which the clause can be amended to treat cases of contributory negligence in a different way from those involving no negligence at all. That does not satisfy me. It completely overrides the principle of like for like, so damages for pain and suffering may all be sent to pay social security benefits with the result that a person may perhaps end up repaying rather more than he receives in damages. I find that situation thoroughly unsatisfactory.
I see here an incentive to litigation because, if one feels that one needs £10,000 of damages to be satisfied and one must repay £5,000 in social security benefit, one will then ask for £15,000. I understand that the department sees the contrary argument here. As it sees the position, the longer one postpones the settlement to litigation, the more benefit one will receive and the more benefit one will repay. The department thinks that that is an incentive to avoid litigation and settle quickly.
The question between us is which of those incentives is more powerful. Anyone who has studied the odds of the football pools and the size of the prizes will appreciate that the jackpot is the greater attraction. The thought of large and satisfactory damages and the sense of injured innocence will draw people to press claims for damages in the courts. The clause will lead to a vast increase in litigation. I share the misgivings of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Griffiths, that there is a risk that it could swamp the courts.
There is also here an issue of costs. The Government speak throughout of costs to the taxpayer. That is important, but it is not the only form of cost. The question is: are we to have costs paid by the taxpayer or by insurance? Whichever way, we pay, so it is relevant to consider which way we end up paying more.
If we abandon the present system and rely on insurance, we shall end up paying more. We shall have a much more complicated system. Noble Lords need only look at Schedule 4 to appreciate that that must be the case. It is also the basic principle of insurance that one keeps down the cost by spreading the load. I do not see what can do that more fully than a scheme of national insurance. So, in abandoning that and relying on private employers' insurances, we shall put up the costs. To keep down the cost to the taxpayer while increasing the costs to the public by a greater proportion does not seem to me to be good sense.
We must also think here about our industrial costs. We on these Benches have many times drawn attention to the need to encourage manufacturing industry and the need for government to take a more sympathetic attitude to it. In terms of increased insurance premiums, the measure will certainly put up industrial costs. The latest estimate is 8 per cent. It is not the highest estimate and all those estimates are guesses. It might be higher than that.
I appreciate that, under the rules of GATT, we cannot subsidise our exports, but perhaps I may quote the normal accountants' rule: we need not so arrange our industrial affairs as unnecessarily to attract costs. If we do that, we put a handicap in the way of our attempts solve our economic problems.
364
I also see behind this a real move towards a notion of privatisation of liability. It has been suggested in another place that the Government could respond to the shifting of costs of industrial insurance by reducing national insurance contributions. I find that an ominous suggestion. I also find it ominous that the Government reject the view of the Pearson Committee that benefits should be used to reduce the liability of the compensator.
This attempt to privatise liability is, I think, in the Government's sense as well as mine, inefficient. If it has to be done at all I would rather have it done in the way argued by this amendment. However, unless the Minister can convince me that this amendment is viable, I do not think that it can be done at all.
This clause is opposed by the CBI, the TUC, the Association of British Insurers, the Law Society, the Faculty of Advocates and the Medical Protection Society. So is this perhaps a case of all out of step but—and I shall not go on for fear of offending standing orders.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, at Committee stage the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, said that he welcomed the provision in the Criminal Justice Bill which was more or less a parallel of this clause. He said that it gave effect—I see that the noble Lord wishes to intervene.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, I welcomed it because it did that in exactly the opposite way.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, as I read Hansard he said that it,
"gave statutory effect to the existing practice of deducting social security payments from compensation for criminal injury".
I thought that this clause concerned deducting payments for negligence and other injury. Perhaps I am wrong on that point.
I am concerned about whether this amendment changes the whole precedence of recoupment which seems to occur in all sorts of fields. I sit as a member of an industrial tribunal and recoupment is always something that is taken into account in all compensatory awards that are made. Also taken into account is the degree of contributory effect. It is most important that a contributory effect in a case of negligence should be taken into account. As I listened to the debate I understood that this amendment would remove the contributory element.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: No, not a bit, my Lords. If my noble friend would allow me to intervene, perhaps I may say that I tried to support this measure at Committee stage. I am attracted to the justice of it but cannot find the logical justification for it because benefits are not relevant to fault. I shall not take up more time but perhaps my noble friend will allow me to say she has got this one upside down.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord. I would like to be put right on this matter by the Minister when he replies. I thought there was quite a difference. I understood that under the Government's proposals the recoupment would

365
cease at the date of settlement; otherwise the recoupment could go on much longer. I thought that various considerations were involved such as that the Secretary of State had to agree the amount but there were no criteria given to him to do so. I appreciate that the sheer complexity of this amendment must have made it almost impossible to get right. However, I support the principle of recoupment and no duplication of payment. My support is therefore for whichever argument is heading that way.
Lord Trafford: My Lords, I am rather sorry that we are discussing Amendment No. 18 without considering Amendment No. 19. Amendment No. 19 to leave out the clause in a sense goes with the other amendment. It means that we are exchanging the clauses. I accept the fact that it makes acceptance extremely difficult.
This is a complicated issue and I was very impressed with the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Allen, on this very question at Committee stage. I do not wish to say any more about the wording of this amendment. I should however like to take up one point.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, put his finger directly on the point when, in pointing out that to a very large extent he accepted in broad terms the principle of no double compensation he asked—and this I think is the nub of the matter—this question. Is it therefore the taxpayer who should pay by means of social security in one way or another, in larger and smaller settlements where the social security system—that is the taxpayer essentially—subsidises the payment; or is it through insurance premiums?
If one strips away some of the references to Becket and other matters that came up, the noble Earl's major point was that in effect industrial costs would rise. It would be more damaging overall to finance negligence and injury compensation in this way than it would be by the total removal of social security payments from any compensation.
It seems to me that it is difficult to argue that, whether through contributory or non-contributory benefits, the taxpayer, or indeed the contributor, should necessarily subsidise the payment of compensation by those who should pay it, which is of course through insurance. One insures against a liability to such compensation.
I accept that such provision would be uncomfortable in the sense that it would raise many insurance contributions. I accept that it would be somewhat more complicated in bureaucratic terms. I accept that it may even lead to more litigation as the noble Earl and the noble Lord suggested. Nonetheless, the two fundamental principles that strike me are these. First, it would eliminate double compensation. The only objection that I can see in theory is the argument about the contributory element of payment. Secondly, it would mean that those who should have paid the compensation would be the people who paid the compensation either through premium, or directly if it was not through insurance. However, from that compensation should then be deducted that which has been the contribution of the taxpayer.
366
I cannot see that there is anything wrong or evil about either of those propositions. It is for this reason that I would have reservations about the question of changing Clause 23. I would also have reservations in view of the fact that about 80 per cent. of all these settlements are I believe within his lower figure of £10,000. Also, if I understand him correctly, only about 20 per cent. of such payments amount to benefit.
Nonetheless, leaving those specific figures aside for the smaller sums, those two principles to which I have referred do not seem to be ones which we should lightly discard.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Coleraine: My Lords, I listened to the debate in Committee in this Chamber a fortnight ago very much as a bystander. I felt that the debate, in particular that intiated by the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, on the like-for-like amendment went on and on. It took in all the amendments that had been put on the Marshalled List. I felt that that debate was singularly unelightening.
As in all amendments, the amendment called for debate. However, the noble Lord immediately tacked onto it another amendment in which he was interested. Therefore other noble Lords came into the debate and raised their own particular points.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, we are not doing it this time.
Lord Coleraine: My Lords, the result was that on that occasion some noble Lords argued one way, and some the other. But all seemed to agree that by so doing they had proved that Clause 23, as it now is, was a nonsense and should be taken away and consigned to the dustbin. To me it was all rather reminiscent in parliamentary terms of the riot scene at the end of the first act of "The Mastersingers". With respect it settled very little.
I find it surprising that tonight we do not have proper amendments to consider. I congratulate my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway that he has brought forward one; in fact two tied up into one.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, it is only one amendment—
Lord Coleraine: My Lords, he has brought forward the like-for-like amendment and the £10,000 limit amendment and put them together into one. I wish only to talk about the like-for-like amendment. It is well known that a number of authorities have said that the like-for-like principle is correct and is justified. I understand that the Pearson Royal Commission said that as well. So far as I can see, this is not in your Lordships' debates.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I welcome any criticism that my noble friend can give of my amendment.
Lord Coleraine: My Lords, let me put the point simply in this way. If a social security benefit is for £5,000 loss of earnings and it has, as we are to

367
assume for the purposes of the amendment, to be paid back to the Secretary of State out of the £5,000 pain and suffering award made by a court, then the reason for that is that the court has decided that the pain and suffering is all that has been sustained and there is no loss of earnings. That is putting it at its most simple.
I find it perfectly fair that the injured person will have received an amount which was the actual loss as decided by a court, even if he received it via his benefit and not by a judgment, because in this way he will have received his loss but once and not twice. It is the taxpayer or the national insurance contributor who will benefit.
I have been discussing my noble friend's amendment, but in the way that these amendments have to be treated the debate has moved on to a debate on whether Clause 23 should remain in the Bill. I should perhaps take up once again the question of contributory negligence. I have not understood that there is any problem here. The noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, postulated in Committee that £5,000 of benefit—
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, we are not taking these together.
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Coleraine: My Lords, it has all along been the case that the whole thing has been taken as one because—
Lord Mottistone: No.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, to save time, contributory negligence is not before the House in my amendment and is no longer before the House. Nobody has an amendment which raises the amendment introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, on contributory negligence. Therefore, to speak on it, with the greatest respect to my noble friend, is to waste the valuable time of your Lordships' House.
Lord Coleraine: My Lords, I do not propose to speak on contributory negligence then, but when my noble friend reads Hansard in the morning he will see that other noble Lords who have supported his amendment have also widened the argument to the whole question.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, if I might intervene, last time we did that in Committee. That was a mistake. It was my fault. This time, at the request of my noble friend the Minister, we have grouped amendments so that this amendment is separate and the amendments on deleting the clause will be dealt with under Amendments Nos. 19 and 20. This will be a separate debate when this one has been completed.
Lord Coleraine: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for making that point. The answer I was giving to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway still stands and I shall not repeat it now. I hope that, if and when this amendment comes to a Division, your Lordships will reject it.
Viscount Dilhorne: My Lords, it is with very considerable modesty and a remarkable amount of temerity that, having read everything that was said by very eminent and learned Members of the House, I now rise to make a very small contribution. I realise that complexity begets complexity. Social security measures were always an element of tax that I carefully avoided studying in the detail in which I studied other areas of tax. I feel that I am in a large minority of one—I cannot make myself smaller. It seems to me that it is a very simple matter that is put forward by the Government. It is as simple as this when it is put into words: where the compensation to be paid is £100 (that is an easy figure for my limited mathematical capability) and where the social security payment which, I understand is made fairly promptly, for the sake of this example, is £20, there is a claim. The claim comes from a person who is called the compensator. The compensator pays out £100 but only £80 goes to the person who is being compensated, the injured person.
As I understand it, the measure proposed by the Government—and I am probably wrong—is that £20 then goes back to social security. It seems to me that for an additional reason this is a good measure. As I understand it, at present the benefit paid is offset only against special damages. The proposal is to set it against all damages, to put it into one pot. As I understand it, special damages—
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt. Am I not right in thinking that the noble Viscount is talking about the merits of the clause and not about the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell? That is what we are supposed to be discussing.
Viscount Dilhorne: My Lords, if the noble Lord will allow me to finish what I am saying, perhaps he will understand what I am suggesting. I started my speech with some deference to him and to what he had contributed. However, I do not agree with his amendment which was moved in the previous debate. I support the Government's proposal; I do not support the amendment of my noble and, if I may say so, nearly learned friend Lord Campbell of Alloway, who is far senior to me at the Bar and is learned in these matters.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: But not learned in this House, my Lords.
Viscount Dilhorne: My Lords, I said "nearly learned". I understand the position to be that the main cause of complaint is that the benefit paid from the total compensation is recouped, whereas the present offsetting is applied only to special damages. That is a term I understand to mean earnings and expenses. But it is not applied to the general damages. Those are the things which one cannot exactly specify.
As I understand it, the amendment of my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway will involve the courts or someone dividing out each element of
370
cost. That seems to me to involve very considerable difficulties because when one settle; a case with another barrister or with the other side, at that stage one takes into account an immense compendium of different factors. One of those factors has already been mentioned—the factor of costs, the costs of continuing to fight.
I am sure that that is a mistake, considering the work that will be done in putting in these different heads. It will complicate matters enormously, it will put—
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, the noble Viscount mentioned my name. I am not contemplating the intervention of the courts. That is a total misapprehension. It will probably go to a social commissioner. There is already an appellate machinery in operation. There is n3 question of involving the courts in this. The concept that this will be overlaid by legal complexities is wholly misconceived.
Viscount Dilhorne: My Lords, I am obliged to my noble friend for his help on that matter. For the reasons I outlined at the outset, I support the Government's proposal to recover the benefit paid where that benefit is going to exceed, on the final compensation, the total amount which the person compensated is entitled to receive. On that basis, I support the Government.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, clearly after that debate the one trap into which I must not fall is to stray into a debate on clause stand part. My noble friend Lord Campbell has asked that Clause 23 be adapted in two important respects. In my estimation my noble friend Lord Coleraine is absolutely right about that because my noble friend Lord Campbell, like other noble Lords who came to my meeting, which has been so generously praised round the House, characterised our proposals as unfair to the victim.
My noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway, the noble Lord, Lord Allen, the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, characterised our proposals as unfair in that way. The main cause of complaint is directed at our proposal to recoup the benefit paid from the total compensation payment whereas the present offsetting is applied to special damages, the technical term for loss of earnings and expenses, but not to general damages for things like future earnings losses, pain and suffering, and many other things. But one of the major difficulties is that the 99 per cent. of awards not determined by a court are not broken down into heads of damages.
It would be counter-productive if we had insisted, as recommended by the Faculty of Advocates in Scotland, that all such claims must go to court rather than continue with the sort of informality which goes on now. I appreciate that that is not what my noble friend Lord Campbell wants. Those who have sought to amend the Bill in this respect have acknowledged that the proposals they have made will indubitably complicate matters, involve the

371
courts and slow everything down. I am quite sure that no one wants that.
If we were to take the path urged on us of recouping only from a loss of earnings element, we would face the immediate problem that settlements do not actually express how much of the payment represents loss of earnings. It would be natural, and to both parties' financial advantage, to minimise the amount of benefit which could be recouped. This would be avoidance not evasion but, having looked closely at the matter, we do not wish to leave such a tempting loophole.
When equivalent measures were passed into law in Holland, that was the exact result. There was a transfer from one head of damages to another. It would certainly be counter-productive, knowing of the Dutch example, for the United Kingdom to go down that route. My noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway has sought to get round this problem in his amendment by putting the onus on compensators to tell the Secretary of State how the payments break down and for the Secretary of State to approve that breakdown.
The noble Lord, Lord Allen, described this approach at the meeting as an administrative nightmare. He accused me of being rather more muted today and perhaps I may now return the compliment to the noble Lord. However, I must say that I agree wholeheartedly with him. My noble friend has amended his wording since our meeting but the main objections remain. How is the Secretary of State to decide what is fair? What criteria is he to use? Has he the final say or will there be an umpire? I must tell my noble friend that I foresee at the very least a delay in compensation getting to the victim, and at most a total muddle.
My answer to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, is that the scheme that my noble friend Lord Campbell suggests in this amendment is simply not workable. It was suggested earlier that I use the term "wrecking" but that has a particular meaning in this House so I do not intend to level that charge at my noble friend.
We know that the average claim takes between two and two-and-a-half years to settle. One of the objectives of Clause 23 is that the earlier the claim is settled, the fewer benefits will be recouped. Under my noble friend's proposal, the greater the delay the more benefits will have to be recouped. That cannot be right. Nevertheless, my noble friend has a point. Neither he nor we wish our very simple system of total damages, to be offset by total state benefits, to work unfairly.
We have the only information about settlements, of which I am aware, in the report which Touche Ross made last year when we were considering this whole matter. It found that where special damages were assessed they formed about 40 per cent. of the payment whereas benefits formed only 22 per cent. of payments. That figure was taken from a statistically viable sample of actual payments made by a number of insurance companies. Since the benefits are less than the special damages, according
372
to the actual examples in the report, my noble friend's worries are unfounded. That is precisely why we are recouping from the whole compensation payments.
My noble friend mentioned paragraph 2.3 of the Touche Ross report. I would reply that the terms of reference on which it was commissioned included,
"to assess the administrative difficulties for insurance companies …inherent in a recovery scheme of this nature".
From what I have said the House will appreciate that the report has clearly done that.
10 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I am obliged to my noble friend for giving way. I quote from page I of the report:
"We were subsequently instructed by the DHSS not to consider the administrative difficulties which may be faced by the DHSS".
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I do not have a copy of the report with me.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I have.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, clearly that is so because my noble friend has just quoted from it. However, paragraph 2.3, as my noble friend might be kind enough to confirm, recommended that contributory negligence should be ignored but there is no specific mention of like for like.
If we go along my noble friend's route we have, as I said, the example of what happens in the Netherlands where we understand very few payments are now said to be made under the heading of "special damages" and the revenue from recoupment has suffered. So, not only is my noble friend's amendment unworkable in the way it is set up, but the evidence is that it is unnecessary even if one takes the view that benefits should be recouped only from that part of a compensation payment made for loss of earnings. For this reason alone I urge my noble friend not to press his amendment.
I must stress that this clause is not anti-victim; it is designed simply to provide that compensation payments complement each other and do not overlap. I do not think that the fear that repayment claims will affect awards for pain and suffering are justified. However, I recognise from the debate that there are real anxieties in this respect and I undertake to monitor very closely what happens in court awards once the scheme begins to operate. Those awards are the visible tip of this iceberg—only 1 per cent. of claims are actually settled in court—and are the yardstick by which settlements are made. If we find that there is the unfairness for which we have found no evidence at the moment, we will look at the legislation again to see if there is any way in which we can change it without creating a loophole or swamping the courts. That is as far as I can go tonight, but my words are on the record and we will honour the undertaking to monitor the situation.
The second change that my noble friend has made in his new clause is to put a figure on the lower limit for recoupment. I think that there is some confusion about our intentions. We accepted a

373
recommendation by Touche Ross that if we were to refrain from making a claim from awards which were below £1,500 over one-third of all claims would continue to be treated as under the present system and we would forgo some £2 million. This would result in both insurers and the department reducing their administrative costs. The figure of £ 1,500 is of course based on 1987 awards and would mean a total recoupment of £55 million made up of £38 million from the National Insurance Fund—the figure given in the financial memorandum to the Bill—and £17 million from non-contributory benefits. Any figure above this on a more or less real-term basis would not find favour either with the National Audit Office or with the Public Accounts Committee.
This was a sensible measure which we accept. The amount is not in the Bill because by September 1990 the figure will need to be higher to achieve the same sort of result. We therefore left it to regulations which will be made at the same time as the normal up-rating to which I referred earlier this evening. It will be affirmative and so debated fully by the end of the year.
It surely cannot be right to put a figure on the face of the Bill at this stage. Certainly a figure of £10,000 would remove far more cases from recoupment (over 90 per cent. in fact) although they will still be subject to at least 50 per cent. offset over five years in every case. It would also substantially reduce the amount recouped. I appreciate my noble friend's later amendment which provides the power to vary the figure by regulation, but only if it is above £10,000.
There is an unwarranted assumption on the part of some of those who have attacked the Government's proposals that the present rules are somehow invariably better for the victim. My right honourable friend the Minister of State gave an example in Committee in another place on 2nd March which showed quite graphically that this is not so. I must remind the House that under the present rules either 50 per cent. or 100 per cent. of benefits is deducted from a compensation payment from the date of the injury for a full five years after that date, no matter when the settlement takes place, by making assumptions about what benefits will remain in payment. By contrast, recoupment under the Government's proposals will cease at the date of settlement. I venture to suggest that the effect of this major difference has not been universally grasped. It means that if a settlement is made after a year, under our proposals only that year's benefits will be deducted. Under the current rules at least 50 per cent could be deducted for the next four years as well.
At whatever level the lower limit is set, the current offsetting provisions, rationalised to 50 per cent. of all the benefits, will continue to apply. I would also suggest that in general the lower settlements must be among the 80 per cent. which are settled within two-and-a-half years. We have been quite unjustly accused of being unfair to victims. From what I have just said, it will be clear that, however well-intentioned the aim of ensuring that most claims escape recoupment, the actual effect in a
374
number of cases will mean a greater deduction for the victim and will reduce the liability of the compensator to pay the victim at the expense of the benefit system. I hope the House, and in particular noble Lords opposite, will ponder that very carefully. If they support this amendment, they will doubtless be the heroes of the insurance industry. Victims may be less than enthusiastic when they realise the possible implications for their settlements.
I can go on, but it is quite clear that many noble Lords would rather kick out this whole operation from the Bill than pursue the new clause that my noble friend Lord Campbell has taken enormous care to draft very clearly. Therefore, at this stage I leave the matter in the hands of noble Lords.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I wish to thank quite sincerely my noble friend the Minister for his courtesy and good humour and to congratulate him on the manner of his presentation according to his departmental brief. But that is the end of the congratulations. The question is whether we divide on this matter in order to establish a point of principle. The questions are like for like and the £10,000. Both are fundamental. If the figure is £7,500, who is going to argue? Let us not talk about £1,500 in 1987. Are we going to let this matter go? Are we going to give the Government a blank cheque? Would your Lordships prefer that this amendment is divided on to force the Government to accept the principle and then to sit down and work it out? Or would your Lordships chuck out the whole clause? I shall be perfectly frank, if I may. I could not care more or less. I put down this amendment as a constructive way of trying to induce the Government to bend. They will not bend. There is no bend. They will not accept the principle. So what are we to do?
Am I to divide the House on this amendment to establish the principle so that the Government can settle down and try to work it out, or are we to chuck out the whole clause and Schedule 4? I really do not know. As regards the Dutch experiment and the problems of what was called the "fiddle", at one stage the Dutch changed the categories of benefit to suit their purpose. That is taken care of in the way that I have drafted the amendment, I have had regard to this in paragraph (b). It has been conceded to be appropriate that in the schedule there would be an appellate procedure. At this hour of the night I do not want to indulge or condescend to detail. I have not ignored some of the questions that my noble friend the Minister appears to imagine I have ignored. I have not, but let us not get on to that score.
Do we want to chuck out the whole clause, or do we want to divide on this amendment? I am in the hands of the House.
Noble Lords: No!
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I shall take the opinion of the House.
10.12 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 18) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 28; Not-Contents, 50.

DIVISION NO. 4

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Lockwood, B.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

McNair, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Manchester, D.

Campbell of Alloway, L. [Teller.]

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Rochester, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Russell, E.

David, B.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Seear, B.

Feversham, L.

Swann, L.

Halsbury, E.

Tordoff, L.

Hanworth, V.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Willis, L.

Jeger, B.

Winstanley, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Alexander of Weedon, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L

Arran, E.

Henley, L.

Belstead, L.

Hesketh, L.

Blatch, B.

Hives, L.

Borthwick, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Hylton, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Ingrow, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Butterfield, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Butterworth, L.

Joseph, L.

Caithness, E.

Long, V.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Coleraine, L.

Lyell, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Morris, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Mottistone, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Savile, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Skelmersdale, L.

Dundee, E.

Strange, B.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Strathclyde, L.

Faithfull, B.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Trafford, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Trumpington, B.

Harvington, L.

Wynford, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
10.19 p.m.
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 19:
Leave out Clause 23.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, after that dramatic occasion, I now seek by moving Amendment No. 19, and speaking to Amendment No. 20, to leave out Clause 23 and Schedule 4 completely, and not to amend them. I do so because, for reasons I shall explain, I think that the best thing the Government can do is not to proceed with having these provisions as part of the Bill.
However, before I continue with my argument, I should like to thank my noble friend the Minister for attending a very long meeting with all the people who are interested in this matter at which he gave everyone the chance to have a say. He managed to control the meeting so that we could get away for lunch. He did a first-class job, but I left that meeting no more convinced that that was the fair or proper way to deal with the problem than I had been previously.
On Second Reading and in Committee I suggested that the simplest way to tackle the problem was for Clause 23 and Schedule 4 to be omitted from the Bill with a view to the Government considering carefully many of your Lordships' detailed criticisms of the clause and schedule. My noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway said that that might be the answer to the problem; but he went on to suggest an amendment. I do not believe that the matter is basically right for amendment. If they wish to proceed further, the Government could introduce a modified form of legislation in the Social Security Bill which I understand will be introduced in the next Session.
The potential loss to the Exchequer of a delay of one year is small by modern standards, and in any case is uncertain. Touche Ross, who advised the Government, said that the value of recoverable benefits probably lay between £37 million and £84 million. The CBI has shown that they might be even less.
I have identified three failings in the Bill. I listened to the debate on the earlier amendment. We need, first, to examine what the authority is for what the Government call double compensation. I quote from the Touche Ross report—and I am sorry that my noble friend does not have a copy of it. It states:
"In 1942, Lord Beveridge, in his report on Social Insurance and Allied Services, found that the existence of an alternative remedy should not prevent an injured person from receiving social security benefits. However, the report stated that this person should not have the same needs met twice".
Later it states:
"The Monckton Committee report in 1946 recommended that an injured person should receive social security benefits in full with no obligation to repay them in the event of an award. However, in arriving at the amount of this award, the court should make a deduction for the benefits paid".
That is the present situation, broadly speaking.
We are talking about 47 and 43 years ago. In 1942, I was a relatively junior officer on a ship escorting convoys in the Atlantic. I do not know what some of your Lordships were doing. In 1946 I was contemplating leaving the Navy and becoming a medical missionary in India. Life was so different then. Therefore, I think that your Lordships should review this matter.
Beveridge based his recommendations on the statistics contained in the Rowntree reports. They went back early into the century. Beveridge said that the alternative remedy should not prevent an injured person from receiving his social security benefits—period! His report went on, but who put other things into his report is anybody's guess.
One of the failings is that the Government's proposals deprive companies and employees of double insurance benefits to which they have contributed. They have contributed to national health insurance and industrial injury. Companies will pay twice and effectively receive one benefit. That is basically wrong.
One observes that the National Audit Office in 1986 and the Committee of Public Accounts in 1987 thought that the original theory should be adhered to. However, they did not consult industry at all; they only consulted the Treasury. The Treasury would do

377
anything if it thought that it could grab money back. That is in its nature. We pay it to do that. However, that is not necessarily fair or right.
The second point is that the insurance company will incur extra administration costs and payments to the DSS, which will be passed on to the customer.
The third failing is that all of this adds up to an extra cost. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, said that 8 per cent. or more will be passed on to companies. It will hit them in 1992 when, we are told by the Government—the same government that is trying to impose this clause—that British industry needs to be at its most competitive. Here, another cost is thrust upon them in order to change something which will satisfy some little theory involving a relatively few millions of pounds in terms of general Exchequer expenditure and receipts. It is all about a kind of principle which seems to be falsely based and which is being pursued for bureaucratic reasons. It has been done without an understanding that it would be a good thing to say to companies: "We are not going to impose this clause and the meaning of it upon you; we might go the other way; we want to encourage you to be as competitive as you possibly can in 1992." That is not the situation at all. It is just another little thing.
I expect that during the coming years there will be other little things of this nature passing through your Lordships' House which will impose yet another little financial burden—not much for this company, not much for that; they will get some of it back in tax. They will not all get some of it back in tax because not all of them will have to pay full tax. These little arguments will continue, but this goes against the main thrust of what we want to do in 1992. I am sure that this is the reverse of what the Government want to do.
I hope that my noble friend and noble Lords who have been listening will agree that this is something which needs to be considered in the wider sense rather than in technical detail. My noble friend ought to agree to go back and try again. I understand that there will be another Bill next year. He can improve on it or even forget it and come back to it in a year's time. I beg to move.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, I should like to speak in support of the proposal that this clause should be left out. After our rather extraordinary debate on the previous amendment, I am glad to have the opportunity of explaining briefly why I have formed that conclusion. I accept the desirability in principle of avoiding double payments. So I arrive at the same conclusion as the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, but by a rather different route. I wish to add my appreciation of all the trouble the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, took in writing to us and talking to us. I am sorry that, like the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, I remain unpersuaded that the solution proposed in this clause is fair and just.
Like others I have received a copy of the Touche Ross report. I note with some interest that the report is quite frank in explaining that everyone consulted, including other government departments and
378
insurance companies, saw serious objections to the scheme for one reason or another. It seems to me that the clause is unfair for the two main reasons that it fails to deal with the principle of like for like, which we have discussed at some length, and with contributory negligence.
On the first point, I shall certainly not attempt to repeat what I said in Committee to explain why I think that social security payments in general should be set against that element of the compensation award which relates to pecuniary loss, and that element only, and not against that part which relates to pain and suffering and loss of quality of life. I recognise that a most formidable problem is to deal with out of court settlements—that is the vast majority—when sometimes the parties may agree on a compromise total but may not agree on how that total is made up and where there could be a temptation, as the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, said, to inflate the proportion allocated to loss of quality of life.
I fear that Clause 23, like the amendment we discussed last time, is silent on contributory negligence, unlike the 1948 Act which holds the field at the moment. It must surely be right in all fairness to achieve the result that an individual whose compensation award is cut by, say, 25 per cent. because of contributory negligence, should receive more in total—that is, social security payments plus a reduced compensation award—than someone who is 50 per cent. negligent. The Government evidently think not. I cannot for the life of me understand why.
The solution I proposed in Committee was to reduce the calculation of the deductible social security payments by the same percentage as the reduction of the tort award, although I was well aware that the two awards are made on different principles and that this could be only rough justice. It seemed to me that rough justice was better than the total injustice of the Government's clause. However, I recognise that here again we are up against the overriding problem of out of court settlements.
For reasons I can well understand, the Government themselves cannot be certain of what the savings to the Exchequer would be if this clause came into operation. But it would clearly be a sum far far less than the Public Accounts Committee was led to believe. I just do not think that the effort is worth it. At a time when the civil justice review calls for justice to be cheaper, quicker and simpler, the clause goes in exactly the opposite direction. At a time when the Government are economising on staff, the clause will mean, we are told, 100 more civil servants, as well as extra demands on resources for the insurance companies, the lawyers and the rest. At a time when our courts are already overworked, the best legal advice I get is in no doubt that the clause will mean more cases coming to court. Above all, the clause fails the test of fairness. It is fatally flawed, both on the like for like principle and on contributory negligence.
We are from time to time reminded that there is a social security Bill every Session. Like the noble

379
Lord, Lord Mottistone, I think that the Government should take this clause away, along with its twelve pages of schedule, and have another think before putting a revised proposal in some future Bill.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I rise to support the amendment, to which I have put my name. As I indicated earlier when I spoke on the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, it has always been my intention to oppose the clause altogether. My only reason for supporting the previous amendment was that it seemed slightly to ameliorate the clause in two major respects.
I support everything that has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, about the clause. My opposition stems from my feeling that it is grossly unfair to victims. I do not accept what the Minister had to say in that regard. It is grossly unfair, particularly, as the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, has said, in relation to contributory negligence.
The Minister referred earlier to examples. I am indebted to the Law Society for an example which concerns contributory negligence in the case of somebody whose damages were assessed at £5,000 for pain and suffering and £10,000 for loss of earnings, but who was found to have been two-thirds to blame for the accident. He received £6,000 under the 1948 Act benefits. Under the present law he would eventually receive £4,000 from the defendant, calculated as follows: £5,000 for pain and suffering; £10,000 for loss of earnings, making a total of £15,000; less half the 1948 Act benefits (£3,000), making a total of £12,000; less two-thirds for contributory negligence (£8,000). He would therefore eventually receive £4,000 under the present set-up.
Under the clause, if it were in operation, he would receive £5,000 for pain and suffering; £10,000 for loss of earnings, making £15,000; less two-thirds for contributory negligence (£10,000), making £5,000; less all the benefits under the clause (£6,000), and he would end up owing £1,000 to the DHSS. Of course he would not receive any benefit at all for the pain and suffering that he had sustained. It seems to me that for somebody to be injured in an accident and receive no compensation at all for pain and suffering is quite unacceptable. That is the basis for my opposition to this clause.
As other noble Lords have indicated, there are other reasons for objecting. The mechanism suggested in the schedule is cumbersome. It has already been pointed out by those who will have to administer it—the Association of British Insurers, insurance companies, the CBI and so on—that the mechanism for putting it into operation would be very cumbersome.
In my view, and in the view of solicitors who have been involved in this field professionally, it is bound to lead to more cases going to the courts because people will be less willing to settle out of court if they believe that they will lose a large part of the amount on offer. That means that instead of settling out of court they will go into court to try to get as
380
much as they can for their injury. As we know, a great many cases are settled on a compromise basis. Compromises will become much more difficult if the claimant realises that he or she has to lose a large part of the total amount of compensation in repaid benefits.
Noble Lords will already be aware that I take the view that the industrial injury scheme is a quite separate scheme from the situation which applies where there is employer's liability insurance, which all employers have to carry. So the courts will be clogged and it will be much more difficult to settle out of court.
Furthermore, I believe that the amount of money which the Exchequer aims to recoup as a result of this clause will not be worth the effort. I agree with everything that the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, said in that regard.
The Touche Ross Report, for which I am grateful to the Minister for sending me a copy, makes it clear that an apparatus will have to be constructed—probably a co-ordinating centre—in order to recover that money. According to our information, it is likely to raise £38 million a year for the Exchequer. Is it worth all the hassle that it will cause, the injustices that will occur and the delays in courts that will arise when, at the end of the day, a relatively small amount of money will go to the Exchequer? And all for some ideological concept that I do not accept and which, when it is explained to many other people outside the House, they will not accept either.
I do not see any great public demand for what has been proposed in the clause. When it gets across to people working in industry and commerce precisely what that means in terms of industrial injury compensation, the Government will not be very popular either. I therefore support the amendment.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I support the amendment. I shall be brief. I am much relieved in many ways that my amendment was defeated because my heart and my whole sense go with this amendment. In so saying, I am not much moved by what the CBI says or does not say by courtesy of my noble friend Lord Mottistone. I assure noble Lords that it is not that matter that concerns me.
I am much more concerned with the analysis of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Griffiths, who has spent his lifetime in that sphere and knows at first hand—not from some brief—what he is talking about, and with that of the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, who was a member of the Pearson Committee. I also, in a small way, have practical experience in that sphere, although not on the same scale as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Griffiths.
I support the amendment because of the reasons given at Committee stage by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Griffiths, and the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale. I take note of the fact that, on this occasion, the CBI and the TUC both want the same thing. I am not a CBI man and I do not pay much attention to what it says. I do not think that it is particularly important, but noble Lords should take note when the CBI and the TUC agree.

381
I support the amendment and I hope that the clause will be taken away. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Griffiths, said, it should be taken away and the Government should think again.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I hasten to assure noble Lords that I shall not make the same speech twice. However, I agree with every word of the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone. I should also like to try to clear a little of the confusion that the business has created.
The trouble is that those of us who attended the meeting that the Minister so kindly called have moved on to a further stage of the argument since the Committee stage. That meeting was held with a real will to improve the clause. Bit by bit, most of us have been persuaded that the clause cannot be improved in any of the ways that we wish. That explains the absence of detailed amendments to which the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, drew attention. We are convinced that they would not work, so we must decide to have either the principle of double compensation or everything else to which noble Lords have drawn attention, such as like for like, contributory negligence and all the rest. We are therefore faced with a straight choice. We either have the clause as it stands or we have no clause.
The nearest that there has been to dissent from that view is the gallant attempt of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, to play Michael Drayton and see whether from death to life, he might it yet recover. The noble Lord has discovered that he cannot; and since we cannot recover the clause, then I think that a great many of us are agreed that we should delete it.
The noble Lord, Lord Trafford (in a speech to which I listened with a great deal of interest) if I understood him aright, put up two arguments which deserve answer. He dealt with the argument of cost to the taxpayer. We are concerned about the cost to the taxpayer; but my position on this issue is that if I save £1 as a taxpayer but have to pay £2 extra on insurance premiums, I do not feel that I have made a good exchange.
The noble Lord also drew attention to the proposition that costs ought to rest on those who have incurred blame. But that point was answered in great detail by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Griffiths, in Committee. He said that we should not suppose that industrial damages are in fact paid by an identified tortfeasor. That is not the way it works. It falls on insurance companies. So once again we have a case in which either we pay or we pay. Therefore I think that it is reasonable to consider in which capacity we pay the less.
I am convinced by the Minister that the amendment was unworkable; but if it was unworkable then so also is the clause unworkable. I am very much impressed by the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, about imposing extra costs on industry in 1992. If this Government do not withdraw this clause, they will once again convince a good many of us that they are not a pro-industrial government. They are a government who favour commerce. I am not convinced that they favour industry.
10.45 p.m.
Lord Trafford: My Lords, I do not wish to detain the House by intervening again in this debate; but I think that the noble Earl has slightly misquoted the point in the argument that I put forward. When I referred to the taxpayer, I was referring to the social security payments not claimed back. I did not at that point deal with the question of contributory and non-contributory benefits in social security payments. I was referring to the taxpayer in general.
When I referred to the insurance payment, it was not from the point of view of any blame regarding any accident that had occurred or any claim for negligence. It was simply a reference to the fact that companies and others carry insurance liability, and I argued that it would be more appropriate that those who had to pay or should pay the compensation should be the people upon whom this charge lay rather than the general taxpayer. With due respect to the noble Earl, that is slightly different from the argument that he said I produced. But I do not dispute that point greatly with him.
Regarding the basic principle, I have nothing to add to what I said earlier. I still believe that the principle on double compensation, despite the original half-quote from Beveridge in 1942, is correct. Although I accept what the noble Lord, Lord Allen, said about the increased bureaucracy—and I think that that is quite likely, and I also believe that there would be a tendency to greater litigation—I do not believe that there would necessarily be greater unfairness, as he suggested.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: My Lords, I find it difficult to understand why in a Bill by which the state seeks to withdraw any contribution to the insurance fund, at the same time the state should be seeking to recoup compensation from people who have been injured and are receiving benefit as a consequence.
It seems to me that as a consequence of Clause 3 we are now in a position in which the benefits that people receive from social security are no different from the benefits that I would receive if I were injured and was paid under the insurances that I hold. Noble Lords will remember that I asked the noble and learned Lord, Lord Griffiths, about this point. He said that in fact the court does not take into account payments that have been made from private insurance. I cannot myself see the difference.
What is happening is this. People have paid for an insurance from which they receive a benefit if they have had an accident or injury. They are not paid in a lump sum, but weekly. Many of the insurances that people carry are like that. They are private insurances. Therefore they are no different. What is more, the contributions are being made by the person and their employer. Again, there are quite a few insurances of that kind, where employers contribute to the insurances of their workmen. Therefore I cannot for the life of me see the difference between those private insurances and the benefit that is being paid through the National Insurance Fund to workmen or anybody else as a result of injuries.

383
From the beginning I found this clause objectionable. I have found it particularly objectionable because it comes in the same Bill in which the state no longer contributes to the National Insurance Fund. I hope that the Minister will be able to convince me that there is a real difference between the contributions that are being made through the National Insurance Fund and those which would have been made through an ordinary insurance to cover accidents and injury. I should like to have the difference explained to me. Unless there is a real difference, then I do not think that the Government are on solid ground.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, without repeating in detail what I said in Committee, the basic principle behind Clause 23 is simple. The point has already been made by my noble friend Lord Trafford. It is that no one should receive more money in compensation for an accident from two sources added together than they would from one. This principle has a respectable history starting with Beveridge and more recently backed up, as we have heard, by the Pearson Commission, the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee of another place and, most importantly, by the courts.
In 1948 a compromise was reached whereby 50 per cent. of all social security benefits were rebated, or offset as it came to be known. With the advent of new social security benefits the question arose as to how much this offset should be. The courts have ruled that there should be a full 100 per cent. offset for these so that the very least the Government need to do is to clear up the mess that the law is in in this area.
I am not sure that it helps the debate, but my noble friend commented on 47 and 42 years ago. Forty-seven years ago, I was not even a twinkle in my father's eye. In 1948 I had just become eligible for a tenant's allowance, except that it did not then exist. Knowing all this, your Lordships will wish to know two things. First, what happens to benefits and what happens to the money that has been offset?
Nothing at all happens to benefits, either now or under this clause. That is a point which I made on Second Reading, at col. 566. They will continue to be paid as now, immediately an individual need arises and the qualifications are fulfilled. This is an important point which has been misrepresented in some cases—not, I hasten to add, in your Lordships' House.
Secondly, what happens to the money that has been offset? It goes, surprisingly, to the insurance company to reduce insurance premiums. Under this clause, however, the money will go where it properly belongs; that is, to the state to pay for the social security benefits in question.
That is why my noble friend Lord Mottistone—who, as he has said, has been briefed by the CBI—has led a vigorous campaign to strike out this clause from the Bill. He and it fear that insurance premiums will rise, which, to an extent they will, but—
Baroness Turner of Camden: Of course they will have to, my Lords.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, of course they will. I am glad that the noble Baroness agrees, but both the CBI and my noble friend have forgotten the maxim of this House—something else that was referred to by one of my noble friends behind me—namely, that we all believe in the polluter pays principle. In this connection, it means that someone responsible for an accident will pay for the effects of that accident in full. This maxim is, however, complicated by the fact that by law motorists and employers have to insure themselves against accidents. The effect of this is that the premium payer has to meet the costs of the compensation rather than the individual who causes the accident. The clause does nothing to change that. It happens at the moment and it will continue in the future, whether or not your Lordships approve the clause. Thus insurance premiums will rise.
For employers, Touche Ross originally estimated that they would rise by 16 per cent. But the Association of British Insurers now believes that the figure should have been 8 per cent., a rise to 1–6 per cent. of the total labour bill and an increase of only 0.1 per cent. in total expenditure. This is the amount of money that my noble friend Lord Mottistone is talking about. For motorists the rise will be well under I per cent. I gave these figures on Second Reading and explained then how they would work, so I shall not repeat them.
Before I pursue this case I want to comment on a supposed unfairness exposed by the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale. He believes that there should be an allowance in the offset for contributory negligence. My noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway does not agree any longer. However, as I said, the noble Lord, Lord Allen, believes that the offset should increase according to a percentage of contributory factors to an accident, or, put another way, the greater the proportion of contributory negligence the smaller the proportion of his benefits which would be deducted. He therefore receives proportionately more than the person who in no way contributed to his own injuries. The interesting effect of this would be that, depending on the percentage whereby a person is judged to have contributed to his own accident, he would get more in total benefit. This cannot be right or fair. Indeed, it is not an amendment currently before the House, so I shall not dwell on it now, except to comment on the case put to us by the noble Baroness, Lady Turner.
I note that in the case cited the total amount was £15,000, of which £10,000 was for loss of earnings. The degree of negligence was 66 per cent. so that the person gets £4,000 from the compensator at present, plus £6,000 benefit which we are told the person received. Thus the total is £10,000 when they are added together. But the £15,000 award was compromised by two-thirds, the noble Baroness told us. The person actually receives £10,000 and so loses only one-third. That really does not seem to me to be right.
If we can agree on nothing else this evening, I am confident that we can agree about one thing—that

385
the subject of compensation for injury is a very complex matter. Much of the complication arises from the fact that only about 1 per cent. of all awards are made by the courts. The remainder are informal settlements between the parties. In theory, settlements are based on what the courts would do, but in practice a number of factors are involved and the outcome of the claim is often a compromise by both parties. This has been apparent in the discussions I have had with some of my noble friends and noble Lords opposite.
We have, however, been able to clear up some misconceptions which have arisen about our proposals. Indeed, it would seem that some of those who have sent briefing to noble Lords on this clause have themselves been under some misapprehension. For example, some of your Lordships will have received briefing from a firm of solicitors recently with case histories purporting to show how a claim might be settled under our proposals. One such example gave a settlement figure of £27,500 and benefits of £21,646. It did not say at what point the settlement was made, so we are left to assume it was after five years since that puts our proposals in the worst possible light. We also assume that the £27,500 was net of the offset for benefits—although your Lordships would be forgiven for overlooking this since it was not stated.
The example concluded that all the £21,646 benefits would be deducted from the net figure of £27,500, leaving only £5,853. That is plainly wrong. The clear implication of the example is that compensators will not assume full liability for compensation as the legislation intends but will first apply the present offset and pay the Secretary of State from what is properly due to the victim. Of course, I am sure that this was unintentional. In the example the victim would get only £27,500 in benefit and compensation. In fact, using the assumptions about timing of the settlement and the value of the settlement before offset had been made, assuming that a 50 per cent. offset of benefits had been made, the victim should end up under our proposals with £16,677 compensation which, when added to the benefit, gives £38,323 in all.
Your Lordships may also note that since the Bill was published and it was clear that recoupment would apply only up to the date of settlement, no example has been put forward where a settlement has been made in under five years. And yet in mid-1988 the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council, which the noble Baroness opposite will know well, produced what I believe was an actual case as an example in a paper it sent to the Secretary of State and others. The case was settled after two years, and in Committee in another place on 2nd March at col. 909 of Hansard, my right honourable friend the Minister of State was able to show that while £20,000 would be deducted under the present rules, only £9,500 would be recouped under the proposals.
It has been suggested that our proposals would mean extra costs for compensators because employees will seek higher awards to make up for the reduced sums they receive. However, the present system deducts from their compensation not only
386
benefits already received but what it is estimated that they might get for the five years after the injury or even longer in some cases. There is no reason to believe that these proposals will encourage people to seek higher awards. It is also suggested that more cases than the present 1 per cent. would end up in court. That usually means a delay. Court proceedings, as we all know, tend to take a long time. I agree that this would be to nobody's advantage. But as recoupment ceases at the date of settlement or award, there is a greater incentive to settle as quickly as possible, rather than delay. There may indeed be a bedding down period at the start of the scheme, but we do not believe that our proposals materially affect whether people choose to pursue their claim to a court award.
I should remind your Lordships that 80 per cent. of claims are settled within two-and-a-half years and so most people should receive no less under our proposals than under the present arrangements unless they were to a great extent themselves to blame for their own injuries, which, as I said earlier, I believe to be fair. At present 50 per cent. or 100 per cent. of benefits are offset over a full five years or more in some cases. Roughly speaking, at about two-and-a-half years there is no difference between the net compensation payable, whether the benefits are offset as at present or recouped up to the date of settlement. Indeed, if settlement is made quite speedily, the amount recouped could actually be less than is currently offset.
This is a reform which is long overdue and returns to basic principles. I understand that those closely concerned do not relish a change from the system which they have been used to for 40 years, even though they recognise that change is needed. We are working with those who would have to operate the scheme to ensure that any procedure:3 are as far as possible compatible with what they do now and we do not impose unnecessary burdens on the private sector. The total amount which is likely to be recouped is £55 million in a full year.
The noble Lord, Lord Allen, complained about this and asked why the Touche Ross estimate of £55 million was so different from the National Audit Office's £150 million. The National Audit Office estimate of £150 million, which was seen by the Public Accounts Committee, was based on the only data which was available at the time its report was made. I understand that it was originally produced for the 1978 Pearson Commission Report and increased by the NAO to take account of the passage of time. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, would be able to confirm that that was the figure in the report of the commission of which he was a distinguished member.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, I believe that is how the figure came about, but the painful fact is that the PAC was given totally false information as to what would be achieved.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, if the noble Lord will do me the courtesy of waiting until I have finished the point, he may be able to attack in an even stronger fashion.

387
The £55 million estimate made by Touche Ross derived from an examination at the beginning of 1988 of a sample of cases provided by the insurance companies. Therefore it is the most up-to-date estimate available and is most likely to be reliable. After this passage of time, I cannot estimate whether the Pearson Commission figure was reliable, but I am quite convinced that, on the most up-to-date figures available, the Touche Ross investigation is certainly the most reliable as to figures available at present. The figure of £55 million includes statutory sick pay of £17 million in addition to the £38 million for other benefits set out in the financial memorandum to the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Pitt, spoke of everybody paying insurance, by which I suppose he meant state insurance—the National Insurance Fund. I believe that I can best answer that by pointing out that unemployment benefit, which is probably the largest of these, together with sickness benefit, is already offset. Because they are offset, money goes to the insurance companies and not back into the National Insurance Fund where it properly belongs.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: My Lords, that still does not explain the point I am making. I am saying that if you are involved in an accident, compensation is paid to you. If you have a private insurance, it will not be deducted from that money. That is the difference.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord because the point is that you are not being compensated out of private insurance which you yourself have paid for. In the vast majority of cases you are being compensated out of the compulsory insurance scheme which your employer has taken out to pay for any injury which occurs on his property or because of the job for which he employs you. Therefore, the situation is quite different.
As I said in answer to a Question for Written Answer tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, the department's administrative costs are estimated at about an extra 100 staff at a cost of about £1 million per year.
Perhaps I may now take up the point raised by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway on the last amendment. I shall quote from the introduction of the Touche Ross Report. It states:
"The terms of reference for our review were:
—to establish how much would be recoverable from damage settlements and awards if 100 per cent. of all social security benefits paid in consequence of an injury were to be recoverable by the DHSS;
—to assess the administrative difficulties for insurance companies and DHSS inherent in a recovery scheme of this nature".
My noble friend went on to read the next part:
"We were subsequently instructed by the DHSS not to consider the administrative difficulties which may be faced by the DHSS".
But those carrying out the review were not instructed not to consider the administrative difficulties to be faced by the compensators. Therefore the situation is quite different.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, it can be seen on reading the report that it did not deal with any other administrative difficulties.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, in another place on 26th April, the Opposition spokesman offered what he called a "grudging word of congratulation" because the Government have tackled an extremely difficult problem. We do not find it acceptable that state benefits should subsidise the liability of those responsible for causing injuries simply because the benefit system has already had to pay as a result of those injuries. The present situation is ripe for reform.
We firmly believe that this clause does that in a way which recognises how compensation is dealt with in this country. It is a system which builds on what already happens rather than a radical change. There are incentives for earlier settlements than at present and we have no reason to suppose that this clause will increase the number of cases which are decided by the courts or will deter people from seeking compensation, as they do now.
I have undertaken to ensure that we monitor what happens in court awards to see whether there is any substance in the fears that recoupment would bite into payments for pain and suffering. At present, what evidence we have does not support this contention.
My final point is that whatever happens to this clause will be reflected in Schedule 4—in other words, if this clause continues to stand part of the Bill then Schedule 4 will remain. If the clause disappears, then clearly Schedule 4 will have to disappear with it. I commend the clause to the House.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: My Lords, I have listened to the Minister but I am still disturbed. He has not answered my point. If I carry a private insurance and then I am compensated by the court, there is no clawback in regard to my private insurance.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord would like me to answer that point.
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, my noble friend is intervening in the Minister's speech.
Lord Mottistone: Yes, my Lords, but he has now sat down.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, this is the Report stage of the Bill. The only noble Lord who can speak more than once with the leave of the House is the Minister.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I thought that my noble friend was replying to this amendment as he moved it, which rather absolves me from returning to the charge.
I have tried to do my best to deal with the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Pitt. If one is voluntarily paying insurance to cover one's own

389
potential injuries—for example, if you insure yourself against injury in an aeroplane or a train—it would be anomalous for anyone to seek to take away any money paid to you. But when dealing, as we are here, with premiums for national insurance purposes, employers' liability purposes or motor insurance, which are payable by law, I suggest that the position is different.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: My Lords, in what way is it different?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, of course it is different, because one pays it voluntarily. That is the quick answer to the noble Lord. Perhaps I should now hand back to my noble friend Lord Mottistone.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, the crux of this matter, to which my noble friend has not addressed himself, is the fact that he assumes, in the words of the Beveridge Report, that double compensation is bad. The noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, has gone along with the Pearson Commission. But why is double compensation bad? I give an example at the risk of my noble friend introducing legislation to change the position. I receive two pensions, to both of which I have indirectly contributed. One is paid by the Government—my naval pension, to which I contributed by not receiving as much pay as I should have done for many years. The other is my civil pension which I received afterwards. Nobody has suggested that, having contributed to the two pensions, I am receiving double compensation by having two pensions. Why should they? What is wrong with double compensation if you make two sets of contributions?
I take the case of the companies. They contribute their share of national health insurance. They would expect to be compensated in the way of insurance for anything that comes back to them. They contribute to industrial injury insurance which they would expect to come back to them. When I say "them", I mean companies as a whole. In fact the company pays a share of the national health contribution and so does the individual.
When there is an industrial injury the individual gets the compensation from the national health insurance part of the scheme, but all the other people in the company do not get anything at all. Likewise, as regards industrial injury compensation, the company pays the premium. A company is not simply something nasty with a board of directors, but is made up of a great many people including all the employees.
The employee who has been injured gets a part of the compensation. What is wrong with double compensation? That is where my noble friend, the Government and Sir William Beveridge, in 1942, were sidetracked by some official who wrote into his report that double compensation was a bad thing. It is as simple as that. If you pay two premiums, why should you not be able to recover from both of them?
That is basically what I object to about this clause, and why I should like the Government to take it back and think again. It is not because of all the
390
technicalities and who gets £5,000 and who gets it repaid; it is because double compensation is perfectly all right if you have a double contribution. I tried to say this at Second Reading, and at Committee stage, and I tried to say it earlier in my introduction to this amendment.
I should like my noble friend to say that he is going to take it away and think again because it is based on a wrong premise.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down—
Lord Belstead: My Lords, no. We have received some wise advice from the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton (who knows this House well) which is that the only person who may speak after the Minister is the mover of the amendment. That is my noble friend Lord Mottistone. When he has finished, the matter should be decided by your Lordships.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: My Lords, is the noble Lord, the Leader of the House, suggesting I am out of order? I wish to ask a question.
11.17 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 19) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 26; Not-Contents, 36.

DIVISION NO. 5

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Jeger, B.

Allen of Abbeydale, L. [Teller]

Lockwood, B.

McNair, L.

Butterfield, L.

Mottistone, L. [Teller]

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Carter, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Rochester, L.

David, B.

Russell, E.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Faithfull, B.

Seear, B.

Feversham, L.

Swann, L.

Halsbury, E.

Tordoff, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hylton, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Arran, E.

Hesketh, L.

Belstead, L.

Hives, L.

Blatch, B.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Joseph, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Long, V.

Caithness, E.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Coleraine, L.

Lyell, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller]

Morris, L.

Denham, L. [Teller]

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Dilhorne, V.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Dundee, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Strange, B.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Gardner of Parices, B.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Trafford, L.

Harvington, L.

Trumpington, B.

Henley, L.

Wynford, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
11.25 p.m.
Schedule 4 [Recovery of Sums Equivalent to Benefit from Compensation Payments in respect of Accidents etc: Supplementary Provision]:
[Amendment No. 20 not moved.]
Schedule 5 [Employment-related Schemes for Pensions or Other Benefits: Equal Treatment for Men and Women]:
Baroness Seear Baroness Seear moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 54, leave out lines 37 to 41 and insert—
("( ) any provision for the preservation of rights accrued before the operative date of this paragraph;").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, with the leave of the House in moving Amendment No. 21, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 22, 23, 24, 25 and 27. I am truly reluctant to embark upon what is a new and important subject at this time of night. Nevertheless, these amendments are an attempt to begin to deal with what is in fact an anomaly in our legislation which goes back to the 1970 equal pay legislation. When that legislation was passed, it was agreed that discrimination on the grounds of sex could be continued in relation to both retirement ages and pensions. That principle has been embodied in our legislation ever since.
The purpose of these amendments is to take a small step in the direction of correcting that anomaly. I should point out to your Lordships that sooner or later we shall have to correct this. There is no doubt that with directives coming out of the EC, and with the general thrust of opinion today, the continuation of this anomaly in retirement ages and in pension provision is something which will soon have to go.
These amendments attempt to bring forward a first stage in that development. What is proposed deals, as your Lordships will be aware, with occupational pensions only; it does not attempt to do anything about the state pension scheme which is another issue. Modestly, it does not attempt—as in many ways I should have preferred—to modify existing schemes. All that is requested, in line with the way that developments are plainly going, is that in all occupational schemes which come into force after 1st April 1990, the permission to have different retirement ages and different pension conditions for men and women will be removed. That is the purpose of the amendment.
As I said, it is a step in the direction in which undoubtedly we not only should, but will, be travelling before long. I beg to move.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, at this hour I intend to be very brief. I simply say that I agree with what the noble Baroness said in regard to this series of amendments. Of course, as long ago as 1976 the Occupational Pensions Board, of which I am a member, was recommending that there ought to be equal pension ages in the state retirement scheme because many occupational schemes are geared to what happens in the state scheme.
We still have not reached the point where we have equal retirement ages in the state scheme; but I am
392
quite certain that the day when we reach that stage is not so very far off. There will be directives emerging which will compel us to move along those lines. Moreover, it will not be very long before the Government have to seize this nettle and deal with it. I therefore have pleasure in supporting this series of amendments.
11.30 p.m.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, for moving the amendment so briefly. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, for speaking. I hope that I can be equally brief.
I can, first, meet the noble Baroness half way in respect of the words which she wishes to insert under Amendment No. 21. Her amendment would provide that any provision in a pension scheme which applied to the preservation of rights accruing before the operative date of 1st January 1993 would remain outside the scope of the equal treatment requirements. The schedule already makes such provision in paragraph 3(3). I can assure the noble Baroness, therefore, that the Government accept her intention on this particular aspect of the amendment but I have to advise your Lordships that the wording of the amendment is unnecessary.
I must however, immediately advise your Lordships that I cannot be so forthcoming in respect of the other provisions in the noble Baroness's group of amendments. Amendment No. 21, together with the consequential Amendment No. 27, would also, by the lines which it repeals, require schemes to equalise pension ages, to provide survivors' benefits on equal terms, and to remove any distinction on the basis of sex in the treatment of optional provisions in scheme rules. Those give members the choice to purchase added benefits, to draw their scheme pension from a date earlier or later than normal or to choose which of more than one benefit available they wish to receive.
Amendments Nos. 22 to 24 would continue to permit diferences in pension age, survivors' benefits and optional provisions, but only for those who were already scheme members before 1st April 1990 and for schemes already established before that date. Amendment No. 25 provides similar restrictions to pension schemes established before April 1990 in respect of special provisions for particular individuals.
The House will be aware that Schedule 5 is intended to implement the requirements of the 1986 EC equal treatment directive. When adopting that directive the Council of Ministers accepted that member states were not yet ready to introduce equal treatment in all aspects of occupational social security schemes. It therefore made certain specific derogations, particularly under Article 9 in respect of pension age and survivors' benefits and under Article 2 of the optional provisions. The pension age and survivors' benefit exceptions were allowed until, but only until, the state scheme had equalised treatment in those areas. The Bill takes account of those permitted derogations. The noble Baroness's amendments would either abolish them altogether

393
or restrict them to members of schemes at 31st March 1990. The Government do not think it right to require occupational schemes to equalise their requirement in the state scheme. Indeed, as occupational schemes are set up voluntarily, to do so without considering the full implications could discourage employers from setting up schemes at all.
At this late hour I do not consider it appropriate to have a full debate on the issue of pension age or survivors' benefits. Your Lordships will have the opportunity to discuss those issues when the House considers the report of the Select Committee under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, which looked at those issues in the context of the draft third social security equal treatment directive. Your Lordships will at that stage have had time to ponder in depth the Select Committee's recommendations.
Finally, I should like to refer to Amendment No. 25. This relates to single, one-off arrangements for particular individuals. The noble Baroness would wish to remove that exception from the principle of equal treatment. The problem is that as those arrangements apply only to a particular person, there is no one against whom the treatment of that individual may be compared. If, for instance, a scheme makes special provision for the managing director of a company, irrespective of the person's sex, there is no one else in the scheme with that status against whom a comparison can be made. The amendment therefore, if adopted, would be inoperative.
I hope that I have not spoken at too great length in response to the noble Baroness, who nevertheless I hope will recognise that I have not attempted to go in great depth into the issues which she has raised. As there will be a further opportunity for your Lordships to discuss these issues at greater length, I hope that she will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, the reply from the noble Lord is very much what I had expected. The whole purpose of these amendments was to try to stop the Government from taking advantage of the derogations. It provides an opportunity to seize the nettle that will have to be seized sooner or later, while we are making changes in this social security legislation, which is the appropriate place for doing so, and to make a modest advance in relation to occupational pension schemes. I should like to test the opinion of the House to see how much support there is for moving in the direction of greater equality of opportunity in relation to pensions.
11.36 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 21) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 18; Not-Contents, 33.

DIVISION NO. 6

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Carter, L.

David, B.

394

Feversham, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Halsbury, E.

Rochester, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L

Russell, E.

Jeger, B.

Seear, B. [Teller.]

Lockwood, B.

Swann, L.

McNair, L. [Teller.]

Tordoff, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Arran, E.

Hesketh, L.

Belstead, L.

Hives, L.

Blatch, B.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Long, V.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Caithness, E.

Lyell, L.

Coleraine, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Morris, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Mottistone, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Skelmersdale, L.

Dundee, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Faithfull, B.

Trafford, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Trumpington, B.

Harvington, L.

Wynford, L.

Henley, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
11.42 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 22 to 25 not moved.]
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 54, line 43, at end insert—
("(h) any additional pension payable under a scheme to a man at any time between the ages of 60 and 65 for as long as—

(i) equality of pensionable age for males and females is not achieved under the State scheme and

(ii) the additional pension is not more than—

(a) in the case of a scheme which is a contracted-out scheme an amount equal to the basic component of the Category A retirement pension under the Pensions Act, or

(b) in the case of a scheme which is not a contracted-out scheme an amount equal to the basic component and the additional component of the Category A retirement pension under the Pensions Act

which would have been payable to him at that time under the Pensions Act had his pensionable age under the State scheme been 60 (but disregarding any increase for deferred retirement under section 12 of that Act) and

(iii) payment of the additional pension is discontinued immediately he reaches pensionable age under the State scheme.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall try to be even more brief, particularly when I see the Government Chief Whip sitting on the Opposition Front Bench.
This amendment raises again the matter of an anomaly in the Bill, as worded, in creating an inequality of total pensions for those companies which have specially arranged adjustments to occupational pensions for men and women between the ages of 60 and 65 to match the different state pensions for them, and thereby to create equality.
I do not want to go over the ground again which I spelt out on Second Reading and in Committee. Suffice it to say that I am most grateful to my noble friend the Minister for arranging last Friday afternoon, at a relatively late hour, the meeting

395
between himself and his legal advisers and myself and the CBI's legal adviser, who on an earlier occasion gave counsel's opinion on the matter. I also wish to thank my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth who kindly attended the meeting on my behalf because I had duties in the Isle of Wight at that time. I am also grateful to my noble friend Lord Lucas for helping to ensure that the matter was dealt with expeditiously.
At that meeting it was established that both sets of legal advisers agreed that the legal position on the relevant Community directive was not clear, and that there is no authoritative decision of the European Court of Justice on derogation. In consequence, it was agreed that the Government should consider certain actions to clarify these points and to work towards correcting the anomaly.
The purpose of the amendment is therefore to give my noble friend the Minister the opportunity to tell the House what the Government propose to do as a result of that meeting. I beg to move.
11.45 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, my name is also attached to the amendment, which I rise to support. I supported a similar amendment in Committee. I did so because I believe that the EC directive on which the present clause in the Bill is said to be based is capable of a different interpretation from that which appears to have been placed upon it by the Government's lawyers. I believe that the counsel who has advised the CBI—and I have seen a copy of the advice—has a very strong point.
The position in the UK is different from that in many other countries. It is not only that there is a difference between the ages at which men and women retire, which seems to be set in concrete in this country—there are also different retirement ages in, I think, three other EC countries—but we have a different system of pension provisions in this country. We have a rather unique system which involves a partnership between the state pension provision and occupational pension provision. Then we have the system of contracting out.
Some very good occupational schemes are integrated with the state scheme. That means that by the time pension ages of 60 for women and 65 for men are reached there is a gap of five years during which men would not receive equal benefits in the form of the occupational benefit and the state benefit until they reach the age of 65. If employers and such pension schemes had not been willing to provide bridging pensions for the period between the ages of 60 and 65 for men it would not have been possible to introduce a common retirement age of 60 for both men and women.
It seems absurd that a provision which was intended to result in equal treatment of recipients should now be regarded as being illegal under the directive. I cannot believe that that was the intention of the directive. I think that there are grounds for looking at the whole matter again. For those reasons I support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone.
Lord Swann: My Lords, I shall make only the briefest of comments on the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone. I am very much in favour of it. It aims to get rid of a manifest anomaly and injustice, and I am persuaded by the arguments that the noble Lord deployed at earlier stages.
We have the extraordinary situation of an amendment designed to achieve equality of treatment of the sexes in danger of being bowled out because some element of identical totals is different. It sounds to me like the situation in which a man goes to the post office to get his pension and a woman goes to the post office for an identical pension, and if the postmaster hands the man his pension in £10 notes and the woman hers in £5 notes that would be out of order because it is a clear discrimination in the treatment of the two sexes. Can there be anything sillier than that?
Baroness Seear: My Lords, we on these Benches strongly support the amendment.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, during our previous debate on this issue, I agreed to my noble friend's request for a meeting and was pleased to have the opportunity to meet with my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth and his advisers to look again at the question of bridging pensions. Unfortunately my noble friend Lord Mottistone was unable to be present, as he has explained.
At that meeting I was able to inform my noble friend that we are drafting a letter to be sent to the Commission in Brussels formally requesting its opinion on the application of the directive to schemes which pay bridging pensions. In the light of previous discussions which my officials have had, I have little doubt what the Commission's view will be. If its considered view were other than our own, we should of course reconsider our obligations under the directive and whether an amendment to the current Bill would need to be made between now and 1993.
At that meeting, my noble friend's adviser raised the possibility of the Government accepting my noble friend's amendment pending a decision of the European Court. This is not a Government who pass legislation knowing full well that they will be taken to the European Court. Nonetheless, he suggested that only if the court ruled bridging pensions to be a breach of the directive should we take powers to outlaw them. It was his view that there would be time between any judgment by the court and December 1992 to pass amending legislation. I do not believe that to be the case. It is likely to take almost two years from a case being referred to the European Court to its final judgment. It is simply not possible to obtain a judgment of the European Court in time for amending legislation to be passed in time for operation from January 1993. To await the court's judgment is not a viable alternative.
The other option that has been suggested to us is to follow the recommendation of the Select Committee. We shall respond in due course to its report. In the meantime, I cannot hold out much hope that we shall be able to persuade our European partners to

397
agree to a course that would have the effect of nullifying, albeit temporarily, a provision in the equal treatment field which has already been adopted. Nevertheless, I am now able to go considerably further than I did in Committee and say that, should the opportunity arise to negotiate a stay of execution for bridging pensions, we would most certainly take it up.
The issue of bridging pensions has been considered at length by your Lordships. My department has also looked into the issue in great detail. Our conclusion that the directive does not permit schemes to calculate and pay pensions to men on a more favourable basis than to women, or vice versa, has not altered in the light of the representations which we have considered with great care.
I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Swann, that this is not a case of paying £10 notes with one hand and £5 notes with the other to the same amount. The amounts paid by the pension scheme are different. I accept that the issue is not clear beyond peradventure, but the judgment to which we have come is in our view beyond reasonable doubt. That judgment is backed up by your Lordships' Select Committee.
As to why we need to legislate in this Bill, not only do we need to give pensions schemes time to prepare, but, perhaps even more importantly, we are bound by Article 12 of the directive which says:
"Member States shall bring into force such laws, regulations and administrative provisions as are necessary in order to comply with this Directive at the latest three years after notification thereof."
This means that, having identified our obligations, we must legislate by 30th July 1989. I have been asked privately why I made a remark in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, earlier today, and that was the reason.
The Government have learnt a lesson, and I hope that the pensions industry has too. It is that we must be doubly sure what our obligations are before we approve European directives. No one, neither the industry nor the Government, had full cognisance of the directive when it was approved, despite full consultation and despite advice by learned counsel; nor could either have been expected to anticipate the judgments in this field which the European Court would come to following the adoption of the directive but before its implementation. If we had, we would certainly have delayed the measure in order to pursue a solution with the industry. With the greatest respect, I must say that the time for this is past.
I am, therefore, grateful for the courtesy with which my noble friend has moved his amendment, but for the reasons which I stated at an earlier stage and which I do not wish to reiterate tonight, I respectfully request him to withdraw it.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his answer. As I understand it, there will be communication with the Commission. It may be that some amendment will be made to the measure in next year's social security Bill, if the communications with the Commission come through fast enough.
398
However, I shall not pursue the matter with my noble friend. It is asking him to speculate too much too close to midnight. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 27 not moved.]
Lord Henderson of Brompton Lord Henderson of Brompton moved Amendment No. 28:
Before Clause 27, insert the following new Clause—
("Jurisdiction of the Parliamentary Commissioner. In Schedule 2 to the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967, social fund officers and social fund inspectors shall be added to the list of departments and authorities subject to investigation.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am reluctant to move this amendment at this late hour but I have to do so in view of what I consider to be the unsatisfactory reply of the Minister when I moved the amendment in Committee. The amendment is designed to bring the social fund officers and social fund inspectors within the jurisdiction of the Parliamentary Commissioner.
When we discussed this matter during the passage of the Social Security Bill in 1988 I asked how it was that everyone who was present naturally assumed that these officers and inspectors were subject to the jurisdiction of the Parliamentary Commissioner. That included the Minister himself. He made that assumption, as did his noble friends Lord Boyd-Carpenter and Lord Trafford as well as the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, who was moving the amendment and, I believe, everybody else in the House.
Surely the arguments against such a strong assumption by so many experienced people must be immensely powerful to rebut it. I would say that the assumption is made again today if one considers the signatories to this amendment which come from all round the House.
I shall not go into details because at the Committee stage I clearly demonstrated that the social fund officers, by reference to the statute, ought to be within the jurisdiction of the ombudsman. They are officers of the DSS, appointed by the Secretary of State and subject to his directions and guidance. What could be clearer than that? There is no right of appeal against their decisions. Indeed, Members of the House tried to introduce such an appeal and the Government would not allow it. So they are not in any way equivalent to the judiciary.
The ombudsman of course would not interfere if their decisions were taken without maladministration, but he certainly ought to be able to interfere if there is maladministration. In that respect these officials are no different from any other government officials.
So far as concerns the inspectors, the matter may be very slightly different because they are formally appointed by the commissioner. Nonetheless they are certainly not part of the judiciary and are, like social fund officers, obliged to comply with the Secretary of State's directions. Although the department and the Minister were at pains to stress the independence of the inspectors, nevertheless they

399
are not truly independent. Judging from the ombudsman's 1988 report, I would say that he clearly thinks that they are not independent and ought to come within his jurisdiction.
Where a matter is in dispute in such an important area it would seem, as I said in Committee, entirely inappropriate that the department should be the judge in its own cause. The noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, rather indignantly and rightly said that in fact it was not the department that was judge in its own cause but the Civil Service Department that was the judge. In my view that does not make it any better, because it is not just the department which is judge in its own cause but the Government are judge in their own cause, and that cannot be right.
I believe that this is a matter of such importance that it ought to be resolved by an independent judge. After all, it concerns the interpretation of a statute and it can only be done by the independent judiciary. So I press the Minister most urgently and seriously to take steps to ensure that this issue is resolved by an independent judge. We cannot accept the partisan view of the Civil Service Department. For that reason I bring this matter before the House on Report. I beg to move.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, moved this amendment with his usual clarity and erudition. It is not only an important amendment in respect of social fund inspectors and officers; it deals with the basic principles of the Government's right to withstand decisions which in other departments would be under the jurisdiction of the Parliamentary Commissioner. It is a very important amendment. I hope that the Minister will have something helpful to say. It has very wide ramifications and is a matter of considerable principle.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I rise briefly to support this amendment. As an ex-director of social services whose clients are very much involved with the social fund I think the provision would be a great safeguard for those clients, for the officers administering the social fund, and the local authorities whose clients are the ones to be involved in this matter. I therefore support the amendment.
12 Midnight
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I shall try to be brief because I do not wish to repeat what has been said previously in Committee, or indeed in a certain amount of correspondence between myself and the noble Lord, Lord Henderson. It is perfectly true that having taken advice, I changed my mind in the early stages; but since I changed my mind I have not wavered. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, would accept that.
I am not sure that the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, and other noble Lords, appreciate that in addition to deciding whether to make an award, or the amount to be awarded, social funds officers have a number of other functions conferred on them expressly by Section 33 of the Social Security Act 1986. These are: deciding whether an award is
400
payable by instalments; deciding whether an award is repayable; and deciding whether payment should be made to a third party. In other words, in these respects they act as sort of adjudication officers. As the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, will know, when adjudicators are adjudicating, they are not subject to the Parliamentary Commissioner. Social fund officers are also required by statute to review determinations where an application for review is made in the prescribed time, form and manner, and may review a determination in such other circumstances as they think fit. This is in Section 34 of the Act.
The plain fact is that the social fund officers are acting independently when performing the statutory functions. Neither the Secretary of State nor any other Minister can intervene in the decisions they make under the statutory functions. The comparison that I have drawn with the position of adjudication officers is, I believe, a fair one.
I accept that the position of social fund inspectors is different from that of social fund officers. However, the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, still seems to be under the misapprehension that aggrieved applicants to the social fund have no recourse to having the decision examined by an independent body. This completely overlooks the function of the social fund inspector. He is independent of the department and answers to an independent social fund commissioner. Thus applicants do have access to an independent and impartial review of the decision.
If it would help to convince the noble Lord, and indeed any other Members of your Lordships' House, that the social fund commissioner and her inspectors are independent and acting independently, I invite them to take up the general invitation that the commissioner issued some time ago that anyone who doubts the commission's independence is welcome to visit the Birmingham headquarters to watch what is going on.
I believe that the final question to be addressed—and possibly the key question on this amendment—is whether an applicant is disadvantaged by having decisions made by officers in performance of the statutory functions of social fund officers subject not to the Parliamentary Commissioner but to review by an independent social fund inspector. The Parliamentary Commissioner can only be approached by a Member of Parliament with all the delay implicit in that procedure. An aggrieved person has no direct access to the Parliamentary Commissioner, but he has access to the social fund inspector or the social fund commissioner in the case of maladministration by the social fund inspector.
I really believe that he is far better and more appropriately treated under the existing legislation than he would be under the Parliamentary Commissioner Act. Accordingly, I have no hesitation in asking the noble Lord once again to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, he has not answered my question. It was whether he would submit this

401
matter—which was a question of the interpretation of a statute—to an independent judiciary, an independent judge. It is totally inappropriate that this issue should be decided by the Civil Service Department. In addition to that, what is the authority for saying—I accept that it is the case so far—that adjudication officers are not subject to the parliamentary commissioner? I know that that is accepted. But who made the decision? In what circumstances? Was it made by an independent judicial authority. Or was it too made by the Civil Service Department?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am afraid that the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, has caught me rather on the hop. Nevertheless I must answer him by leave of the House. As I understand it, it is a decision of Parliament as expressed in the Parliamentary Commissioner Act. If I am wrong I shall write to the noble Lord.
The other matter that he cross-questioned me on I am afraid I am unable to deal with at the moment. I shall have to write to him.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, I regret to say that I find that as unsatisfactory as the reply given me in Committee. As the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, said, this is not confined solely to the fund officers. It is a matter of much wider importance, and this is a particular example that I am drawing to the attention of the House. Generally speaking, the interpretation of the Bill when enacted cannot be left in the hands of the Government. It must be decided by an independent judge.
I believe that those who have supported my amendment feel as strongly as I do that this is something that should be pursued. I asked those questions in Committee. I have not had a reply on Report. I can only say that I hope that by Third Reading replies will be forthcoming. Meanwhile I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 8 [Minor and Consequential Amendments]:
[Amendment No. 29 not moved.]
Lord Pitt of Hampstead Lord Pitt of Hampstead moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 78, line 16, at end insert—
("Income Support: Pregnant women aged 16 or 17
18. In Part 1 of Schedule 1A to the Income Support (General) Regulations 1987, after paragraph 4 there shall be inserted the following paragraph—
"4A. A person who is pregnant."").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 31. I shall not repeat what I said on Second Reading. The purpose of both amendments is to help pregnant women. The first is to help the pregnant 16 to 17 year-old who does not receive any benefit until the last 11 weeks. I do not think that it is in the interests of the child that that should go on. I hope that the Minister, in the period between the Committee stage and now, has given some thought to that and can bring me some better
402
answer than I was given then. I do not think that this is a right thing for us to be doing.
My second amendment seeks to give the family premium to mothers bearing their first child. Again it is because of the cost of pregnancy and the consequences again for the child of the mother being in financial straits during that period that I feel we ought to try to help by giving the person carrying her first child the family premium. The mother expecting a second child receives family premium anyway.
By doing it this way, all pregnant mothers will receive the family premium. That will help them to meet the costs that go with being pregnant. I beg to move the amendment; I hope that the Minister will be able to say something nice and helpful.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I hope that the House will forgive me at this time of night for supporting the amendment.
Baroness Jeger: No.
Earl Russell: I can only beg the pardon of the noble Baroness. This is a point of some importance. Some of the cases in the briefing papers are really quite harrowing. I do not want to quote them at length at this time, but the reduced rate of income support for teenagers is particularly illogical in the case of pregnant women. I cannot believe that it is doing anything other than giving severe hardship. Although I know that the sins of the fathers are visited on the children, I do not think that the state needs to be an accomplice in the process.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am not sure that I can help the House very much, especially in relation to Amendment No. 31. As the amendment is drafted, the only people who would get the family premium under this amendment who do not already qualify for it would be couples expecting their first child. I am not at present persuaded that pregnancy of itself gives rise to special needs over and above those already catered for by the issue of free milk and vitamins and the social fund maternity payment, which would justify a special premium. But even if I were, I could not see any justification in giving such a premium for a minority of pregnant women only.
Furthermore the amendment would mean that the premium would be payable from the very beginning of pregnancy—presumably from the moment of conception. I am not certain that it is possible to establish the precise date of this event; but even if the marvels of modern medicine could do so, it could only be done once preganacy had been confirmed some weeks later. This would be very cumbersome to operate. It would inevitably result in retrospective payment in every case, including those where, sadly, the woman loses a child which she was unaware she was carrying. I am afraid that this is just not practical.
Amendment No. 30, which is grouped with Amendment No. 31, seeks to extend entitlement to income support to young women aged 16 or 17 who are pregnant whatever the stage of their pregnancy.

403
I have already mentioned that while most 16 and 17 year-olds are not entitled to income support, we have ensured that the most vulnerable groups are. One of these groups is those who are pregnant and within eleven weeks of the expected date of confinement or who, at a time before this date, are incapable of work because of illness. Noble Lords should note that these are not rules which were made up last year specially for 16 and 17 year-olds who are pregnant. They are the same rules that apply to all pregnant women who claim income support. They too are normally required to be available for work up to the 11th week before the expected date of confinement.
We have guaranteed the offer of a YTS place to all young people who want one. The guarantee is being honoured. It includes young women who are pregnant. Those who are on YTS of course get more each week than they would get on income support. I remind noble Lords that if any pregnant young woman were to meet any problems in getting a YTS place, the training agency would make arrangements for suitable training to be provided for so long as she or her doctor considered appropriate. There is therefore no justification for giving entitlement to pregnant girls before the point at which they are no longer required to be available for work.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: My Lords, I do not suppose that there is any point in pursuing the matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 31 not moved.]
House adjourned at twelve minutes past midnight.

  NATURE CONSERVANCY COUNCIL AND COUNTRYSIDE COMMISSION: REORGANISATION
  NATURE CONSERVANCY COUNCIL AND COUNTRYSIDE COMMISSION: REORGANISATION
  ABINGDON STREET GARDENS, WESTMINSTER
  ABINGDON STREET GARDENS, WESTMINSTER
  WESSEX WATER AUTHORITY: RIVER FROME DISCHARGE PROPOSAL
  WESSEX WATER AUTHORITY: RIVER FROME DISCHARGE PROPOSAL
  REGENT'S PARK: LONDON ZOO EXPANSION
  REGENT'S PARK: LONDON ZOO EXPANSION
  LONDON ZOO: CAR PARK
  LONDON ZOO: CAR PARK
  LONDON ZOO: REGENT'S CANAL
  LONDON ZOO: REGENT'S CANAL
  HEVENINGHAM HALL
  HEVENINGHAM HALL
  MAY DAY BANK HOLIDAY
  MAY DAY BANK HOLIDAY
  FIREARMS CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE: MEMBERSHIP
  FIREARMS CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE: MEMBERSHIP
  NORTHERN IRELAND: UK SUBVENTION
  NORTHERN IRELAND: UK SUBVENTION
  NORTHERN IRELAND VOLUNTARY BODIES' GRANTS
  NORTHERN IRELAND VOLUNTARY BODIES' GRANTS