Sitting of 20 July 1989

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

    ST. GEORGE'S HILL, WEYBRIDGE, ESTATE BILL INTERNATIONAL WESTMINSTER BANK BILL (By Order)
    Orders read for consideration of Lords amendments.
    To be considered on Thursday 27 July.

    ASSOCIATED BRITISH PORTS (No. 2) BILL (By Order)
    Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question—[23 May]—That the Bill be now read the Third time.
    Debate to be resumed on Thursday 27 July.

    BRITISH RAILWAYS (PENALTY FARES) BILL [Lords] (By Order)
    Order for further consideration, as amended, read.
    To be, further considered on Thursday 27 July.

    BROMLEY LONDON BOROUGH COUNCIL (CRYSTAL PALACE) BILL (By Order)
    Orders for consideration, as amended, read.
    To be considered on Thursday 27 July.

    VALE OF GLAMORGAN (BARRY HARBOUR) BILL [Lords] (By Order)
    Orders for Second Reading read.
    To be read a Second tune on Thursday 27 July.

Oral Answers to Questions
  NORTHERN IRELAND

    Security
    Mr. Duffy: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the security situation in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Bellingham: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the current security situation.
    The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Tom King): Since I last answered questions on 22 June there have been four deaths in Northern Ireland arising from the security situation. In addition, the Provisional IRA has claimed that it murdered the business man abducted in county Louth on 16 July.
    The security threat remains at a high level, but the resolute efforts of the security forces continue to yield results. So far this year, 161 people have been charged with serious offences, including 18 with murder and 31 with attempted murder. More than 200 weapons, almost 27,000 rounds of ammunition and approximately 600 lbs of explosives have been recovered in Northern Ireland. I understand that the Garda Siochana has recovered 60 weapons, approximately 15,000 rounds of ammunition and a substantial quantity of explosives.
    The House will be aware of recent arrests which flowed directly from the close international co-operation with the Irish, French and United States authorities, and for which we are most grateful.
    Mr. Duffy: The Secretary of State should be congratulated on his humanity and political courage in announcing the release of 19 paramilitaries on licence over the next nine months. Can he offer any hope to the families of those not included? Does he think that a similar move by the Republic in respect of Portlaoise might be helpful, and will he consider mentioning that to the new Irish Foreign Minister, Mr. Collins, when he next meets him?
    Mr. King: I think that that was a two-part question. In response to the first part, I hope that hope is offered to other families by the actions that we have proposed in respect of these prisoners. Those familiar with prison matters will know of the significant impact of the Christmas leave arrangements, and we are examining the matter carefully to see whether that approach can offer further possibilities. I should like to think that there has been a significant impact from that and from our announcements about releasing some people on licence. I take a very sympathetic view towards some of the young people who got caught up in such activities early in their lives and who are serving substantial sentences. I have a very unsympathetic view of those who re-offend and become re-involved. They cannot expect the same sort of sympathy.
    I shall not answer the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question, in which he invited me to advise the Irish Government on their prisons policy, although I note that there have been some comments in Irish newspapers.

    503
    Obviously, every case is different. I know how difficult the cases are and I know that the Irish Government are aware of our approach in these matters.
    Mr. Bellingham: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the recent arrests in America, France and Dublin may represent a fresh resolve in those countries to combat terrorism? Does he also agree that the recent murder of Mr. McAnulty—presumably because he refused to pay protection money—was particularly vile and evil? Is it not heartening that that incident was condemned by so many people in South Armagh, including Thomas O'Fiaich?
    Mr. King: That illustrates clearly our common interest in defeating the evil of terrorism. That gentleman was abducted in the Republic and almost certainly murdered in the Republic, and his body was then dumped north of the border, to cause maximum difficulties for the RUC and the Garda in the investigation of and prosecution of those responsible for the crime. I certainly join my hon. Friend in condemning that appalling crime. I welcome too, the very rapid condemnation that came from all concerned. The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon), Cardinal O'Fiaich and a whole range of other people were outspoken in their disgust at that murder.
    I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he said about the value of international co-operation. I have had to stand at the Dispatch Box for long enough being jeered at by people who said that no one would co-operate with us, especially the Irish Government. I had hoped that some of those people, who were so ready to criticise, would be prepared to stand up today and admit the value of that co-operation and the real contribution of the Irish Garda, not only in arrests, but in the speed of the transfer of information to the French authorities. We are also grateful for the speed of their reaction.
    Mr. Molyneaux: In view of the 50 per cent. increase in serious terrorist offences in the frontier zone covered by 3 brigade in the year since that brigade was formed, will the Secretary of State consider increasing the numerical strength of all arms of the security forces in that zone?
    Mr. King: I do not recognise the statistics that the right hon. Gentleman has chosen to quote. However, I would have hoped that, in response to what I have said, he would feel able to pay tribute to the valuable co-operation, which has undoubtedly contributed significantly to the saving of lives of his constituents and many others. One cannot over estimate the value of that co-operation, which is important if we are to defeat the evil of terrorism that is a threat to people north and south of the border.
    Rev. Ian Paisley: Will not the Secretary of State admit that it is the duty of every democratic Government to co-operate in the fight against terrorism? No democratic Government should think that they are going out of their way or should get laurels for so doing.
    Is the Secretary of State aware of the serious concern of ordinary individuals in the neighbourhood about the removal of the Army post at Lacky Bridge which was promised to widows who visited the Prime Minister some 11 years ago? Did the Royal Ulster Constabulary agree to the removal of that Army post? If so, is it the beginning of the removal of other posts in that border area?
    Mr. King: As the hon. Gentleman knows very well, I have made it clear that there are no proposals for any
    504
    further removals of vehicle border checkpoints of that kind. Those are operational matters; the decision was taken by the security forces and has been implemented. We are certainly keen to ensure the best possible protection for everyone in the Province against the danger of terrorism.
    On the value of international co-operation—I am not talking just about the Irish Government, but about the United States Government, too—it is no good saying, "Keep a checkpoint", and ensuring that we stay as we are. It is also important to find the terrorists and to discover their lines of supply. It is important to stop any technical developments that may be a direct threat to all the security forces in Northern Ireland, and to the hon. Gentleman's constituents, in the battle that we fight. I would have hoped to hear him, too, pay some tribute to the value of international co-operation.
    Mr. Mallon: Is the Secretary of State aware that senior officers of the Ulster Defence Regiment are using a public relations and information video which is explicitly critical of my party? Does he agree that no section of Government information services should be used in such an overtly party political way? Will he assure the House that that video will be removed from use?
    Mr. King: I have no knowledge of the video to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but in general I do not dissent from the proposition that he has put forward. I shall certainly have the matter looked into.

    Republic of Ireland
    Mr. Canavan: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what subjects he expects to discuss at his next meeting with representatives of the Government of the Republic of Ireland.
    Mr. Tom King: The agenda for the next meeting of the conference has not yet been finalised, but I expect it to include security matters; recent and forthcoming events; the scope for greater cross-border economic co-operation; the progress made on fair employment; and other matters.
    Mr. Canavan: What is the likely effect on the British-Irish talks and on Britain's reputation throughout the world when the British soldier who killed an innocent young man, Aidan McAnespie, is simply given a token fine and returned to normal duties, and when the British Government refuse reasonable demands from respectable organisations such as Amnesty International for a full judicial inquiry into that disputed killing and into the SAS killings of three unarmed people in Gibraltar?
    Mr. King: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman bothered to study the facts before seeking to make such outrageous allegations. He may not be aware that the matter was investigated, not only as the absolute requirement on which I insist and as the absolute practice, by the RUC in a full criminal investigation, but on this occasion by the deputy commissioner, now the commissioner, of the Garda on behalf of the Irish Government. On this exceptional occasion, they wished to investigate, too. As no evidence was forthcoming, on either side of the border, that the incident was anything other than an accident, I am appalled that the hon. Gentleman chooses to raise the matter in this way.
    Mr. William Ross: As Mr. Haughey has just made it plain that he is not very much in favour of summits of any sort, does the Secretary of State consider it advisable to follow his admirable advice and example?
    Mr. King: The Taoiseach said that he found meeting the Prime Minister twice a year, on the occasions of the normal European summits, to be a perfectly satisfactory arrangement. That is sensible because we now have a close working relationship. Here we go again. On the very day when any sensible person can see, before his or her eyes, the obvious benefits of co-operation in the fight against terrorism, there is a deliberate determination not to do anything except to frustrate co-operation. The backwoodsmen are coming out from the Opposition Back Benches with their reactionary views.
    Mr. Gow: What objections do Ministers in the Irish Government have to conferring modest additional powers on the 26 district councils, to setting up a regional council with widely devolved powers over local matters and to legislating in this House for Northern Ireland in the same way as we legislate for the rest of the kingdom?
    Mr. King: These are internal matters for the Republic. In the Dail yesterday, the Taoiseach made it clear that matters relating to the administration and government of Northern Ireland are primarily for the parties in Northern Ireland to determine. Although I have some sympathy with looking further at some of my hon. Friend's ideas on giving greater powers to local authorities, I must advise him that the behaviour of one or two councils—Belfast is one—does not encourage one down that route.
    Mr. McNamara: The Secretary of State sounds remarkably demob-happy this afternoon. We do not dissent from many of the opinions that he has expressed. Although I did not intervene on the previous question to comment on his important statement about international co-operation in the fight against terrorism, I am sure that hon. Members of all parties will warmly welcome it.
    I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman about the Anglo-Irish review. We do not know how many further intergovernmental conferences the right hon. Gentleman will be attending, but he mentioned a number of important items that are likely to be on the agenda, not least economic co-operation on both sides of the border. Does the Secretary of State think that both Governments might consider issuing position papers or Green Papers so that there can be a general informed debate on both sides of the border among people who might not otherwise want to be associated with the Anglo-Irish review, but who should at least know what is going on so that there can be input from all sides?
    Mr. King: In response to the hon. Gentleman's first point, I knew that, whatever my aspect at the Dispatch Box, somebody would read something into it. If I sound enthusiastic about the progress that we are making in international co-operation in the fight against terrorism, perhaps some hon. Members will understand just how important were the arrests made during the weekend. I cannot overstate that, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he said about it.
    I am ready to support sensible discussion on making political progress by means of background papers and so
    506
    on, but we have made it clear that the first stage must be discussion with elected people within Northern Ireland to establish the most promising areas for development.

    Student Loans
    Mr. Barron: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the progress of the introduction of student loans.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Dr. Brian Mawhinney): Arrangements for the introduction of top-up loans for Northern Ireland students are proceeding in parallel to those in Great Britain.
    Mr. Barron: Does the Minister share the view of the Secretary of State for Education and Science that student loans are excellent and offer good value for money? If so, what does he think of the estimate of the Government's consultants, Price Waterhouse, that the scheme will cost £100 per debtor to administer, and the estimate made by Dr. Nick Barr of the London School of Economics that it will take 100 years before the cost of the scheme is recouped?
    Dr. Mawhinney: Of course, I agree with my right hon. Friend. As the hon. Gentleman takes an interest in these matters, he will know that those views are not shared by the Department of Education and Science.
    Mr. Harry Greenway: What proportion of the extra 200,000 students in higher education now, compared with in 1979, come from Northern Ireland, and how much does the average student in higher education in Northern Ireland borrow?
    Dr. Mawhinney: There has been an increase in university students in Northern Ireland and my hon. Friend will be pleased to know that the participation rate in Northern Ireland universities is 20 per cent., compared with 15 per cent. in Great Britain. That is a reflection of the high standing of Queens university and the university of Ulster.
    Mr. Beggs: I congratulate the Secretary of State on the confidence that he exhibited at the Dispatch Box today, which may be due to the recent success, but one swallow does not make a summer. Perhaps, there are promises of promotion in the wind. However, the right hon. Gentleman is to be congratulated on his performance so far.
    Is the Minister aware of the widespread concern in Northern Ireland that many able students may not benefit from higher education because of the freezing of the student grant and the introduction of the loans scheme? There is particular concern among medical students, who study for 45 weeks of the year for five or six years, with little time to work in the holidays to earn additional income. I hope that the Government will reconsider the scheme and encourage the thrifty use of grants rather than introduce students to the burden of debt and the further anxiety that that would entail.
    Dr. Mawhinney: We are the only developed country with no system of top-up loans alongside grants. The Government have a responsibility to find a balance between benefits to students and the cost to the taxpayer. In 1984, the latest year for which figures are available,

    507
    support for students in the United Kingdom cost about £750 per annum. In France it was £180; in West Germany, £70; and in Japan, £30. If that does not represent a disincentive in those countries, I fail to see why there should be any disincentive in the United Kingdom or in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. John Marshall: Does my hon. Friend agree that the loans scheme will be particularly welcome to students who do not receive the full assessed parental contribution? Does he also agree that since graduates can look forward to much larger incomes than the community at large, it is only right that they should repay to society part of the benefits that they are getting from their university education?
    Dr. Mawhinney: My hon. Friend is right on both points. About 120,000 university students receive no grant at all because they are means-tested out. About 50,000 receive no mandatory grant and about 160,000 receive only partial grants. All those students stand to benefit from the introduction of top-up loans. My hon. Friend will agree that the introduction of those loans at a nil real interest rate is a further incentive.
    Mr. Flannery: Does the Minister realise that the introduction of loans will be a disincentive to entering higher education? The last time that Britain had a loan system was before the war. We do not have to follow blindly countries such as West Germany, because we have about £100 billion from North sea oil. Will not many young people be detered from becoming students? If they become students will they not leave their studentship in debt? It took me four years to pay back my debt.
    Dr. Mawhinney: I know that the hon. Gentleman finds facts uncomfortable, but nevertheless the fact is that loan schemes do not act as disincentives in other countries. The hon. Gentleman fails to make an argument for why this country should be any different.
    Ms. Mowlam: Is it not difficult for the Minister to accept facts? Does he accept that the study by Dr. Barr mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) stated clearly that when students complete a three-year course they will have a minimum debt of £7,000? Does not the study by Price Waterhouse which was commissioned by the Government show that when half the students graduate by 1995 they will either default or defer on their debts? Is that opening up higher education and increasing access, or will it achieve the exact opposite?
    Dr. Mawhinney: Norway has a default rate of 1 per cent. and Sweden and Japan a default rate of 2 per cent. Although there is no loan system at present, the statistics show that the projected levels of borrowing outlined in the White Paper are less than the exact borrowing figures in countries that have loan schemes. The hon. Lady's information and facts simply do not impress me.

    Single European Market
    Mr. Ashdown: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what provisions the Government are making for the impact of 1992 on the economy of Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Peter Viggers): The Government have promoted and supported a wide range of measures intended to inform Northern Ireland business of the challenges and the opportunities which arise from the creation of the single European market.
    Mr. Ashdown: As the Secretary of State's ebullience at the Dispatch Box appears to be a feature of questions, may I say that if he were not to be at Northern Ireland questions in the future, I and many hon. Members would want to express our admiration for the way that he has done his job over the years?
    Does the Minister agree that there is widespread anxiety in Northern Ireland, and in Ireland as a whole, that closer integration following 1992 may cause problems for the Irish economies, as they are positioned on the peripheries of the European Community? That may be exacerbated by the Channel tunnel if there is no infrastructure to back it—[Interruption.] Would it be worth while—[HON. MEMBERS: "Question."]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the right hon. Gentleman is coming to his question.
    Mr. Ashdown: As the constitutional parties appear reluctant to discuss political matters, but keen to discuss economic matters, could the Government facilitate a round table discussion on how Northern Ireland might face the challenges and opportunities of Europe in 1992?
    Mr. Viggers: I do not share the right hon. Gentleman's gloom. Northern Ireland has many attributes, including the availability of a young, well-educated work force, the quality of its infrastructure and telecommunications and the quality of its environment, all of which have been recognised by a number of prospective inward investors. We have persuaded inward investors from inside and outside Europe to invest in Northern Ireland, and I think especially of Montupet of France and Daewoo from South Korea.
    We had useful discussions with the Republic of Ireland at a round table meeting during the Louvain conference in Belgium in September 1988. I was thinking of suggesting a further conference along those lines.
    Mr. Kilfedder: Although business progress and prosperity are important in Northern Ireland, is the Minister aware that the cost of living is higher there than in the rest of the United Kingdom, as exemplified by Northern Ireland's high cost of transport, food, bread and electricity? That makes life difficult for many people in Northern Ireland—particularly poor, old age pensioners. What improvements will be made before 1992?
    Mr. Viggers: The hon. Gentleman would want the record to be complete. Some items are much cheaper in Northern Ireland than elsewhere in the United Kingdom. I am thinking particularly of housing. The hon. Gentleman's point about bread is well taken. Recently, there was an in-depth study of that issue, and I believe that the hon. Gentleman has a question about it on the Order Paper, albeit to another Minister. I share his view that the high price of bread in Northern Ireland should cause us concern. We encourage the availability of competitive bakery products, to ensure that the consumer has the best choice.
    Mr. Hume: Does the Minister agree that the major economic impact of 1992 on Northern Ireland will be the five-year strategic plan funded by the EEC, which is already the subject of detailed discussions between the Government and the authorities in Brussels? When do the Government intend to let the Northern Ireland public and local interests know about the specific projects contained in that plan, so that there can be proper and thorough public discussion and consultation?
    Mr. Viggers: The Northern Ireland regional development plan was submitted in March to the European community and—bearing in mind that Northern Ireland is an objective I region in Europe, and therefore will be given a degree of priority—we have made further proposals. One area of priority is support for port, airport, rail and road facilities, to ensure that Northern Ireland does not miss out in 1992.
    Mr. Nicholas Baker: What substantial extra provision for hospitals, industry, schools and so on, will the Government need to make for the impact of 1992 on Northern Ireland's economy if Northern Ireland accepts its share of the 3·25 million Hong Kong Chinese that the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) wants the United Kingdom to admit under his misguided proposals?
    Mr. Viggers: If my answer were to go into great detail, I suspect that I would be out of order. A notable contribution to Northern Ireland's economy has been made by the immigrant community, particularly the Indians and Chinese. We make no secret of the fact that we welcome inward investment in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Clifford Forsythe: What action is the Minister taking to improve the marketing of Northern Ireland products in the EEC?
    Mr. Viggers: There has been a considerable switch of emphasis away from standard capital grants and the availability of standard grants to selective financial assistance, which takes the form not only of the aptly named selective financial aid within the Industrial Development Board but a range of marketing schemes—particularly the 40/30 and the 40/60 schemes available from the IDB and the Local Enterprise Development Unit. Northern Ireland's best companies are excellent at marketing, but others must be encouraged to sink more effort into marketing outside Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Hayes: Is my hon. Friend greatly encouraged that unemployment in the Province continues to fall? Will he continue to convey loud and clear the message to potential investors that, despite the troubles, the Province is still the most law-abiding part of the United Kingdom, that it is a great place in which to invest, and that it will offer great opportunities to all in 1992?
    Mr. Viggers: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks, and I endorse them all. We are delighted that unemployment has fallen so much. At 104,000, it is still far too high, but it is way below the headline figure of 134,998 in October 1986. We have persuaded inward investors that Northern Ireland is a good place to do business, and those already there like it very much.
    Mr. Jim Marshall: Does the Minister agree that there are obvious attractions in treating the island of Ireland as a single economic entity? When will he make a statement
    510
    on the Government's discussions with the Republic on co-operation in the sphere of tourism? Does he expect that the Government will encourage further co-operation between the Province and the Republic in agriculture?
    Mr. Viggers: I made a statement on tourism some two weeks ago in which I explained that there is indeed co-operation between the Government, the Northern Ireland Tourist Board and Bord Failté. It would be foolish of us not to co-operate, bearing in mind that only one in 15 of visitors to the Republic go up to Northern Ireland and it would be easy to encourage more to do so.
    I have no further announcement to make on tourism co-operation, nor am I in a position to comment on agriculture, which is outside the remit of this question.

    Short Brothers
    Mr. Cran: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a further statement on the privatisation of Short Brothers plc.
    Mr. Viggers: Since the announcement on 7 June of heads of agreement whereby Bombardier of Canada will acquire Shorts, good progress has been made on the necessary legal documentation. I am pleased to inform the House today that approval to the terms of the transaction has been given by the European Commission. It is our intention to complete the transaction in September.
    Mr. Cran: Does my hon. Friend agree that the public purse facilitated—quite rightly—the takeover of Shorts by Bombardier, in the form of sales worth £762 million, and that the quid pro quo is that the House and the taxpayer are entitled to know how much Bombardier will contribute towards investment in the company? Can my hon. Friend tell us the amount specified in the corporate plan? If he cannot be specific, why?
    Mr. Viggers: The details of the agreement between the Government, Shorts and Bombardier are matters of commercial confidentiality. I can, however, tell my hon. Friend that Bombardier will be making a substantial investment in Shorts—supported, of course, by Government assistance. The cost of the transaction, some £750 million, has been projected by some as the cost of privatisation, but I think that my hon. Friend will realise that the reverse is true. All but £115 million is the cost of the company in public ownership and the cost of outstanding contracts. That sum will go to support further investment in Shorts.
    Mr. A. Cecil Walker: Is the Minister aware of the deep public concern in Northern Ireland about job losses that have occurred at Harland and Wolff since privatisation? Can he give us any assurance that such job losses will not occur in the privatisation of Short Brothers, and can he give us any guarantee that jobs there will be secure?
    Mr. Viggers: The long-term future of employment at Shorts will depend on the profitability of the company and on its ability to deliver, on time, high-quality products that people wish to buy. I believe that the deal between Shorts and Bombardier is the best possible framework for that to happen.
    I can assure the hon. Gentleman that there are no plans for further redundancies at this point. Let me draw to his attention the fact that when Bombardier acquired

    511
    Canadair it acquired a loss-making company with 5,000 employees; it now owns a profitable company employing 6,500. We hope that the same will apply at Shorts.
    Mr. Peter Robinson: What share might Shorts expect of the Canadian company's regional debt programme?
    Mr. Viggers: I cannot answer that question precisely, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that, having visited Bombardier in Montreal last month, I am very impressed by the fit between Shorts and Bombardier. I will write to the hon. Gentleman on the details.
    Mr. McGrady: While all the communities in Northern Ireland welcome this vast investment in Shorts, it is important that both communities share in that prosperity. Is the Minister aware that the rate of recruitment from the Catholic population fell from 17 per cent. in the second monitoring period in 1983 to 14 per cent. in the third monitoring period of 1984? That trend is not welcomed by those whom we represent. Will the Minister ensure that the new company adopts proper recruitment procedures based on fair employment principles?
    Mr. Viggers: The new company will indeed respect the application of fair employment in Northern Ireland. I can update the hon. Gentleman's information by telling him that the latest available figures for 1988 show that 19 per cent. of Short's recruits were Catholics. [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask hon. Members to desist from private conversations in the middle of these important questions.

    Disabled Persons (Northern Ireland) Act
    Rev. Martin Smyth: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he has yet considered implementation dates for the Disabled Persons (Northern Ireland) Act 1989; and if he will make a statement.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Richard Needham): The Act will be implemented in stages as resources become available.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: In so far as we have combined health and social services boards has the Minister any plans to implement those stages faster in Northern Ireland than they have been implemented in the rest of Britian, especially in the light of recent changes?
    Mr. Needham: We start three years behind the Act here, and we shall implement it as quickly as we can. We look to implement sections 9, 10 and 11, except (4) and section 12 by the end of this year. We shall implement section 4, except (b), sections 5, 6, 8 (1) and section 11 (4) as soon into next year as we can. We shall have to consider with the Boards the cost implications of remaining sections.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Is my hon. Friend aware that in the rest of the United Kingdom disabled people are looked after substantially by local authorities? If Rangers can sign a Catholic football player, is it not about time that we gave Northern Ireland the same local government as the rest of the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Needham: We have for a long time had integrated social services and health boards. That system is working extremely well. We are spending considerable sums on
    512
    community care and we shall continue to operate an integrated system which works satisfactorily for the community in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Tom Clarke: While congratulate the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) on piloting such an important Act on to the statute book, will the Minister offer inspiration to the rest of the United Kingdom by ensuring that the Act is properly and fully implemented and in so doing that community care ceases to be community neglect?
    Mr. Needham: I always like to offer inspiration to everyone. We are implementing the Act in Northern Ireland as fast as we can. We started behind and we have to work out with the boards exactly what the costs are. At present I cannot go further than that.
    Mr. Alton: Given the Government's ability to publish figures about the denominational make-up of employees in Shorts, does the Minister think that it is reasonable to publish figures for the number of disabled people working in the Northern Ireland Office and in local government in the Province? Can he tell the House how many disabled people are employed by the NIO?
    Mr. Needham: I cannot, but I shall find out and write to the hon. Gentleman. Our policy on disablement in Northern Ireland bears cognisance and competition with any other part of the United Kingdom and we are extremely proud of it.

    Cohn Wallace
    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if in the light of allegations in the book "Who Framed Colin Wallace?", he will allow independent inspection on Privy Councillor terms of the records of his Office relating to contacts with Colin Wallace.
    The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Ian Stewart): No, Sir.
    Mr. Dalyell: What on earth is there to hide from Privy Councillors? Did the Minister notice that in the review by R. W. Johnson, a fellow of Magdalen college, Oxford, it was highlighted that Cohn Wallace offered to give evidence to the Hughes inquiry on condition of immunity from prosecution under the Official Secrets Act and, according to that fellow of Magdalen, it was turned down by the Prime Minister personally? Will the Minister ask the Prime Minister whether that is true? She is sitting next to him.
    Mr. Stewart: Mr. Wallace was given assurances that he would not be prosecuted under the Official Secrets Act if he gave evidence to the Terry and Hughes inquiries. No matter how many questions the hon. Gentleman asks, no evidence has been found in many thorough investigations of the case to substantiate the allegations which Mr. Wallace has made over many years.

    Republic of Ireland
    Mr. Latham: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will make a statement on his most recent discussions with Ministers of the Republic of Ireland.
    Mr. Tom King: I last met representatives of the Government of the Republic of Ireland at the meeting of the intergovernmental conference in Belfast on 24 May. At that meeting, we completed the review of the working of the conference. Copies of the joint statement issued afterwards and the communiqué were placed in the Library.
    Mr. Latham: Is it not significant—and may this not arise as a result of the better relations with the Government of the Repulic—that there was a sharp fall in the vote for Sinn Fein in recent elections in both north and southern Ireland?
    Mr. King: It is significant that the vote for Sinn Fein in the Republic fell from 1·9 to 1·2 per cent., and in the European elections in Northern Ireland, the vote of the Sinn Fein candidate almost halved. Those are significant developments. On the political and security fronts, as well in the economic sphere, we see the value of working together. The events of the last weekend show all too clearly the value of having the closest possible co-operation in the security sphere.
    Ms. Short: Does the Secretary of State believe that in the current situation in Ireland it might be possible to obtain a ceasefire? Does he agree that that would be the biggest gain for the people of Ireland, in the North and the South, and will he have serious discussions with the Irish Government about the possibility of achieving that?
    Mr. King: The ending of violence in the island of Ireland is the greatest ambition that anybody could possibly have. One side is perpetrating the violence. There is an easy way to achieve the hon. Lady's request, and that is to desist from the use of violence. There is one way by which the desire for it could be publicly tested. It is clear, as the elections in the Republic showed, that Left-wing parties can secure a substantial number of votes if they repudiate violence. Those who insist on perpetrating violence were repudiated by the electors, north and south of the border.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Health and Safety
    Mr. William Powell: To ask the Prime Minister if she has received recent representations regarding health and safety legislation.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): Our excellent legislation has provided a model for many European Community proposals. On the latest available figures, standards of enforcement in the United Kingdom are among the highest in Europe, and the level of accidents among the lowest.
    Mr. Powell: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that according to the latest figures available, the number of fatalities in industry in Britain is the second lowest after the Netherlands of EEC countries, that our record is four times better than that of France, six times better than that of West Germany and more than seven times better than that of Italy? Does that not suggest to my right hon. Friend that they may have something to learn from what is taking place in this area in this country?
    The Prime Minister: Yes. On the latest available figures, our record in health and safety is extremely good. So also is that of the Netherlands, Denmark and Belgium. Other countries are not quite so good as ours. We are proud of our record and when I took our social charter to Europe, I had some material information about our record on health and safety and it was very favourably received.
    Mr. Bell: Is the Prime Minister aware that during the current docks dispute, middle management on Teesside are driving cranes and in doing so may be in breach of health and safety regulations applying to the docks? Is she aware that representations have been made to the docks inspectorate about the matter? Does she agree that it would be wrong for people seeking to break a strike to break the health and safety regulations at the same time? Which comes first, safety or strike-breaking?
    The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman knows full well, health and safety always come first. If he has evidence, I am sure that he will give it to the inspectors so that they can take the necessary action.
    Mr. Marlow: What action is being taken by Her Majesty's Government to ensure that those decisions which should be taken on health and safety within the United Kingdom, and not at the European level, are in future taken within the United Kingdom? For example, what has it got to do with the European Commission as to the quality of water that comes out of the taps in Northampton, Sunderland and in other parts of the United Kingdom?
    The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend will know, under the Single European Act, certain directives and decisions can be taken by majority. It is in our interests that some decisions should be taken by majority because we have been able to ensure that other countries accept standards which they might not wish to have applied by outvoting them.
    As for the water measures, we are coming up to most of the standards, as my hon. Friend will be aware. Indeed, the Secretary of State for the Environment has done a superlative job of work on water legislation and standards.

    Engagements
    Mr. Mallon: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 20 July.
    The Prime Minister: This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Mallon: I am sure that many right hon. and hon. Members will agree with me that the French Prime Minister, Michel Rocard, got it wrong when he accused the Prime Minister of social cruelty. When the right hon. Lady comes to assess the effects of chronic unemployment, the poll tax, the Government's butchery of the Health Service and the cuts in social security, which she has presided over like a latter day Marie Antoinette, will she be able to accept that the phrase "social cruelty" was a mild understatement which should have read "social butchery"?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is aware that the Health Service in Northern Ireland is far better than it has ever been under any Administration—far, far better. It

    515
    is a pity that hon. Members are not prepared to recognise the facts. For every £1 spent under Labour, £3 is spent on the Health Service under the Conservatives, and last year an extra £2 billion was allocated to it.
    The community charge is a far fairer way of paying for a proportion of local government expenditure than any rating revaluation since 1972 would have been, and it is far fairer than the Opposition's alternative of capital valuation accompanied by local income tax which would be infinitely worse for everyone.

    Civil Defence
    Mr. John Browne: To ask the Prime Minister if she has received recent representations regarding civil defence.
    The Prime Minister: The Government receive, representations about civil defence from time to time. Civil defence is a basic duty of any responsible Government. Since 1986, Government grant-aided civil defence expenditure by local authorities has risen from just over £15 million to £23 million, a significant real increase.
    Mr. Browne: Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that the recent Government announcement on planning for emergencies in peacetime will in no way change their attitude to civil defence in time of war?
    The Prime Minister: It will not, because of course, as I said in my original reply, we have a basic duty to provide civil defence. Although we hope that East-West relations will improve, it would be very wrong to retreat from that basic duty. I have seen, at first hand, the need for excellent services in emergencies and disasters, and what the civil defence people can do to help. We are anxious to do everything that we can, on a national basis, to take all practical steps to help our emergency services meet the demands upon them. The measures that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary recently announced about a civil emergencies adviser will lead to clear improvements in our capacity to respond to those tragedies.
    Mr. Spearing: Can the Prime Minister tell us why she has abandoned the long-established and successful means of raising local revenue to pay for civil defence? Why, as the high priestess of market forces, has she managed to persuade her right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, the high priest of market forces, to take on the ill-formed plans of the former Secretary of State for the Environment, the present Secretary of State for Education and Science? Surely a much better way of raising revenue for civil defence and all local services would be a tax on property, based on either rental or freehold value?
    Mr. Speaker: Briefly, please.
    Mr. Spearing: That would be much better than her present plan.
    The Prime Minister: The question was about civil defence, and I pointed out that since 1986 Government grant-aided civil defence expenditure by local authorities has risen from just over £15 million to £23 million. The hon. Gentleman asked about the community charge, which is by far the fairest way in England to raise 25 per cent. of local government expenditure, in Wales to raise
    516
    only 18 per cent. of local authority expenditure and in Scotland to raise only 14 per cent. of local authority expenditure.

    Engagements
    Mr. Bendall: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 20 July.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Bendall: In view of the continued rail strike, and the inconvenience being caused to commuters, will the Government consider bringing in legislation to outlaw one-day strikes, such as other European countries are considering? What encouragement will the Government give to trade unions and employers to rationalise affairs so that there is one union for one industry?
    The Prime Minister: I think that it is tragic that there has been no settlement in the rail dispute, especially as two unions accepted the award of the independent arbitration tribunal. Only one, the NUR, decided not to and prefers to put the public—the customers, who will retreat from using rail if they are treated like this—to great inconvenience once again.
    We are looking at the possibility of further legislation and examining European legislation which usually includes some protection against unions in the public sector going on strike. European legislation and history tend to be very different from ours, but we are looking at it all to see whether we can learn something from it. With due respect, I do not think that it would make much difference to have only one union. It is much more complicated than that, but I hope to bring forward in the future any proposals that we may have.
    Mr. Kinnock: May I congratulate the Prime Minister on the characteristic generosity that she showed yesterday by staying away from the poll tax statement so that her Secretary of State for the Environment——
    Hon. Members: Where is he?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. We have only three more minutes.
    Mr. Kinnock—sothat her Secretary of State could gain all the glory and the credit for himself? How does the Prime Minister think—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Kinnock.
    Mr. Kinnock: How does the Prime Minister think she can duly reward the memorable performance of the Secretary of State in the very near future?
    The Prime Minister: I note once again that the right hon. Gentleman resorts to personal criticism because he has neither the intellect nor the guts to ask a real question about the community charge which he knows will show up—when in operation—high-spending local authorities for what they are: extravagant expenders of taxpayers' money.
    Mr. Kinnock: Can the Prime Minister show the intellect or the guts to say whether she thinks that those of her hon. Friends who are calling for the Secretary of State's rightful dismissal are wrong?
    The Prime Minister: Once again the right hon. Gentleman resorts to personal abuse because he cannot do anything else. I have the greatest confidence in my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, and, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, the community charge is a way of asking people to pay for what they vote for, and when they do, they will vote against Labour authorities.
    Mr. Neil Hamilton: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 20 July.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Hamilton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that more and more dockers are sensibly defying the strike leaders and returning to work? Is she aware that many former registered dockers have entered into new and more flexible
    518
    practices with the port employers, which will ensure prosperity for those ports and jobs for those dockers and many others? Does not their forward-looking behaviour contrast markedly with the last twitchings of bonehead trade unionism, as on the railways?
    The Prime Minister: I agree that many dockers and most people are coming to realise that the end of the dock work labour scheme and that monopoly means a much more prosperous future for those ports and for the industries in the hinterland that they serve. Many dockers are steadily going back to work, and I hope that they will continue.
    We have yet to know whether the Opposition will support the NUR, which did not follow the established procedures, does not think of the customers, or support those unions that wisely follow the established procedures and think more of their customers and of travellers than of themselves.

Business of the House
3.30 pm
Mr. Frank Dobson: May I ask the Leader of the House to state the business for next week?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): The business for next week will be as follows:

MONDAY 24 JULY—Completion of Consideration of Lords amendments to the Electricity Bill.

Afterwards there will be a debate on parliamentary pensions on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.

TUESDAY 25 JULY—Opposition Day (18th Allotted Day). Until about seven o'clock, there will be a debate entitled "The Practical Implications of the Poll Tax for the People". Afterwards there will be a debate on a subject to be announced. Both debates will arise on Opposition motions.

Motion to take note of EC documents on road safety. Details will be given in the Official Report.

Motion to take note of EC document on freedom of movement for workers. Details will be given in the Official Report.

WEDNESDAY 26 JULY—Until about seven o'clock motions on Social Security regulations. Details will be given in the Official Report.

Consideration of Lords amendments to the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Bill

Proceedings on the Extradition Bill [Lords], which is a consolidation measure.

Remaining stages of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill [Lords].

Proceedings on the Continental Shelf Bill [Lords].

THURSDAY 27 JULY—Motion for the summer Adjournment.

Proceedings on the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill

FRIDAY 28 JULY—Debates on the motion for the Adjournment.

[Tuesday 25 July

(1) Relevant European Community Documents

(a) 4303/89 Road safety

(b) 9228/88 Compulsory use of seat belts in road vehicles

(c) 4252/89 Alcohol level for drivers

(d) 4305/89 Vehicle speed limits

(e) 4156/87 Road speed limits

Relevant Reports of European Legislation Committee

(a) HC 15-xv ( 1988–89) para 4.

(b) HC 15-vi ( 1988–89) para 2.

(c) HC 15-xiv (1988–89) para 3.

(d) HC 15-xiv (1988–89) para 4.

(e) HC 22-xii ( 1986–87) para 2.

The Minutes of Evidence taken before the Sub-Committee of the Select Committee on European Legislation HC 507-i and HC 15-xxxi (1988–89).

(2) Relevant European Community Document

5786/89

Freedom of movement and rights of residence

Relevant Report of European Legislation Committee HC 15-xxi ( 1988–89 ) para 4.
Wednesday 26 July
Affirmative Regulations made under the Social Security Act 1989:

Community Charge Benefits (General) Regulations.

Social Security (Unemployment, Sickness and Invalidity Benefit) Amendment No. 2 Regulations.

Income Support (General) Amendment No. 2 Regulations.]

Mr. Dobson: I thank the Leader of the House for his statement.
Do the Government propose changing the business for next week to give the House the opportunity to debate the general practitioners' overwhelming rejection, in a ballot, of the contract that the Government wanted them to accept? When deciding what to do, will the right hon. Gentleman recall that, after the Secretary of State for Health thought that he had reached an agreement, he rushed to the House on Friday 5 May like a dog with two tails? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman come back to the House now that the doctors have docked the tail? He said that the agreement that he thought that he had reached was
"a very significant step in the development of the family doctor service".—[Official Report, 5 May 1989; Vol. 152, c. 480.]
Clearly that step has been halted and the House is entitled to know what the right hon. and learned Gentleman intends doing next.
Moving from health generally to health in Wales, the Leader of the House will recall that my right hon. and hon. Friends from Wales have been pressing for a statement on the impact of the National Health Service review on Wales, or a debate in the House or the Welsh Grand Committee. Has any progress been made?
When are we likely to get the long-promised debate on the Government's proposal to substitute student loans for student grants?
Whether or not the Leader of the House is with us in this incarnation next Thursday, can he tell us whether he has made some progress towards establishing a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs, to which the people of Scotland are entitled both by right and by our Standing Orders? If the right hon. Gentleman will not be in that incarnation next Thursday, will he tell his successor that Scottish Members will not rest satisfied until they have such a Select Committee?
Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman asked me four questions about next week's business. First, he asked me whether my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health would be making a statement about the general practitioner contract ballot result. The answer is no. My right hon. and learned Friend regrets the GPs' decision not to support their own negotiators and to reject the contract agreed with the BMA on 4 May. Those negotiations were hard fought and concessions were made by both sides to ensure a fair deal which could bring forward further improvements to patient care. My right hon. and learned Friend is consulting the BMA's general medical services committee leaders on detailed regulations to implement the contract agreed on 4 May and will lay those before Parliament in the autumn. Good GPs have nothing to fear from the new contract which will reward doctors who provide the service that patients want and need.

521
A number of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen have asked questions about the National Health Service in Wales. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales and officials in his Department have had extensive discussions with a wide range of interests on the White Paper "Working for Patients" and in particular on the Welsh chapter. My right hon. Friend will be writing soon to health interests in Wales reporting on the outcome of the discussions and the next steps. He will make that publicly available. That is the procedure adopted by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health.
On top-up loans for students, we made it clear that we would be happy for the House to debate the Government's plans and the Opposition's pledge to deprive students of the opportunity to add to their resources. The timing of such a debate is a matter for discussion through the usual channels.
The hon. Gentleman knows that the question of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs is difficult. I have nothing further to add to what I said a little while ago.
Sir Bernard Braine: Does my right hon. Friend recollect that it is some years since the Warnock committee reported in favour of embryo experimentation although, of course, a substantial minority reported against it? That experimentation is continuing without the proper protection of the law passed by the House. The Government have promised that there will be legislation in the next Session. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that, and, at the same time, ensure that such legislation comes first to this House?
Mr. Wakeham: I know that my right hon. Friend has taken a deep interest in these matters over many years. It was probably a slip of the tongue when he said that the Government have promised to legislate in the next Session. The Government promised to legislate in the course of this Parliament. I cannot, of course, discuss at the moment what is in next Session's legislative programme.
Mr. James Wallace: Does the Leader of the House accept that people north of the border and Scottish Members have been incredulous about the squeals of protest coming from his right hon. and hon. Friends about the impact of the poll tax, as for the past two years, his hon. Friends have unthinkingly walked into the Lobbies to impose both primary and secondary poll tax legislation on the Scottish people? Given that such hon. Members are so out of touch with what the people want, can we expect a statement from the Secretary of State for Scotland next week announcing the Government's participation in the Scottish convention with a view to setting up a Scottish parliament within the United Kingdom?
Mr. Wakeham: No, the hon. Gentleman cannot expect that next week. I agree with him in part that some of us are a bit incredulous about some of the exclamations over the introduction of the community charge, because any reasonable person who examines the alternatives proposed by his party or the Labour party will recognise that the community charge, with all its transitional difficulties, is an infinitely better alternative than anything proposed by Opposition parties.
Sir Dudley Smith: I ask my right hon. Friend to look at yesterday's Hansard, where he will see some interesting exchanges about the Monopolies
522
and Mergers Commission. In view of the great deal of controversy about the efficacy of that organisation, does he not think that it is time we had a debate on the whole subject, especially bearing in mind the developments taking place in 1992?
Mr. Wakeham: I agree that this is an important subject. I cannot promise my hon. Friend a debate on it next week, but, as he will be aware, there are many opportunities for him to seek to raise the matter during next week. There are at least three separate occasions on which he might try his luck.
Mr. Bob Cryer: Could we have a debate next week on community care, which has been the subject of recent statements allowing only limited opportunity for debate? A debate is important because of the need to retain hospitals for mentally handicapped people, such as the Westwood hospital in my constituency. As it is set in attractive surroundings, it is feared that moves could be made to sell the land to private development speculators. In such a debate we could emphasise the concept of a village community and how the facilities for mentally handicapped people can be retained and developed.
Mr. Wakeham: I do not accept the premise of the hon. Gentleman's question, although he raises an important issue. As I said last week, the Government will publish a White Paper early in the autumn, and it would be most appropriate to have a debate on the subject then.
Mr. Greg Knight: Are we likely to have a debate in the foreseeable future on the working practices of the House? If so, has my right hon. Friend seen the Labour party's policy review report which recommends that the House sits for three days a week and has 15 weeks holiday a year? Does he agree that the document is nothing more than a slackers' charter and will he confirm that he has no intention of implementing its recommendations?
Mr. Wakeham: I thought that the document showed that the Labour party might have to work harder in future than it has in the past. I have no time for a debate on the subject next week.
Mr. Michael Foot: Will the Leader of the House reconsider the announcement that he apparently made a few minutes ago that the Secretary of State for Health intends to impose the doctors' contract without the House having a chance to comment on it? As the doctors have voted by about three to one against accepting the contract, is that not an appalling way to treat a great profession? Will he seriously consider allowing the House to debate the matter before the Government proceed?
Mr. Wakeham: The negotiators have been rejected by their members. The Government have negotiated with the BMA on this and the right course of action is to get on with it.
Mr. Bob Dunn: Will my right hon. Friend give an undertaking that on our return in the autumn he will announce an early debate on the opportunities for private enterprise to take over transport activities? Is he aware that the strikes by British Rail employees have thrown into focus a tremendous weakness in the south-east in people's opportunities and options to gain access to

523
their place of work in the capital city? Does he agree that we need an injection of cash from the private sector to provide alternative forms of transport into London?
Mr. Wakeham: My hon. Friend is right to raise those important issues. It would be helpful to have a debate, but it is difficult for me to promise one in the immediate future.
Mr. Merlyn Rees: The Leader of the House will remember that this time last week I complained that there were to be 15 statutory instruments before the House, all relating to development corporations, which remove powers from local authorities and make it difficult for people to raise locally issues which previously they could deal with at town halls. I am grateful to him for removing the Leeds orders which will be debated next Tuesday. Does he accept that we can raise issues relating to development corporations only in the House and that they cannot be dealt with locally? Should we not have a Committee of the House on the development corporations similar to the Committee on Northern Ireland legislation, following the removal of local authority powers there, so that we can raise issues with Ministers regularly? We cannot do so locally because local authority powers have been removed.
Mr. Wakeham: I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's comments about the changes that I made, after I had agreed with him that the arrangements that had been made were not satisfactory. With regard to his wider suggestion, of course I take seriously any suggestion from someone with the experience of the right hon. Gentleman. Perhaps the best plan is for us to have a discussion to see whether we can come up with any ideas to put to other people.
Mr. Alistair Burt: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the rather desperate situation affecting local government in my constituency? Last night, a full scheduled meeting of the local council was cancelled on the mere say-so of the local NALGO representative, who asked the council leader to abandon it, which he agreed to do. Is it not important to have a debate so that hon. Members' views on such anti-democratic practices, which are damaging local authority services, can be tested in public?
Mr. Wakeham: I agree that it would be helpful to have such a debate, but I cannot promise one. It would be helpful if the unions involved could reach agreement with employers and cease putting the public to such inconvenience.
Mr. Pat Wall: No doubt the Leader of the House has seen reports in the press about the return of a Chinese dissident, Mr. Xu Hai Ning. He is a Chinese journalist with the New China Press Agency in Hong Kong. He came to Britain after making statements condemning the assassinations in Beijing and was granted leave to stay until 30 June 1990. According to statements, he returned to Hong Kong voluntarily. This case raises disturbing aspects: first, the appearance of threatening advertisements in the Chinese business newspaper that is published in Soho; secondly, the disclosure of escape routes of Hong Kong dissidents that will result from his return to Hong Kong; and thirdly, the fear that it will
524
create among the Chinese community in Britain. I interviewed this gentleman last week, and he was nervous and distraught about his status in this country and his lack of a travel document. In those circumstances, does the Leader of the House agree that the Minister of State, Home Office should make a statement about his return and its consequences for the Chinese community in Britain and other dissidents?
Mr. Wakeham: I recognise that the hon. Gentleman raises an important matter. The gentleman concerned, who is a Chinese national, was granted leave to enter the United Kingdom on 30 June. On 17 July, he contacted his embassy in London and asked to return to China. On his departure from the United Kingdom he was interviewed in private by an immigration officer, when he confirmed that he was returning to China of his own free will. He appeared calm and well and expressed himself clearly. There was, therefore, neither power nor reason to prevent this gentleman's departure.
Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: Will my right hon. Friend consider, together with the usual channels, the sending of an official British parliamentary team of observers to the independence elections in Namibia? The need to ensure that its elections are fair and free is just as great as when we similarly sent an official team of observers to represent Parliament in Rhodesia—Zimbabwe in 1980.
Mr. Wakeham: I recognise the importance of the issue that my hon. Friend raises. I am not in a position to give him a full answer, but I shall refer the matter to those who will be able to give him a better answer.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: The Leader of the House will no doubt remember that in response to an earlier question he said that Scotland was experiencing transitional difficulties as a result of the implementation of the poll tax. While experimentation might be a better description of what is happening in Scotland, has he had an opportunity to study early-day motion 1177, in the name of the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing)?
[That this House calls upon the Secretary of State for Scotland to introduce an amendment to the Abolition of Domestic Rates (Scotland) Act in order to ensure that the practice of the next of kin of a deceased person receiving an account for the outstanding amount of poll tax payable to the date of death is ended forthwith; and urges the Secretary of State to recognise that at a time of such family trauma the receipt of such an account causes great distress and to further recognise that this is not a matter for regional and islands councils but is a legislative matter for Her Majesty's Government.]
May we expect an early statement from the Secretary of State for Scotland about stopping the obscene practice of levying the poll tax on the relatives of the recently deceased?
Mr. Wakeham: The position on the transitional arrangements for the community charge is this. When the Government end a system that has for years been unfair in certain areas, and there is a transitional arrangement, there are always difficulties because those who have been unfairly treated for a long time do not feel that they are getting the benefits to which they are entitled as quickly as they should. That is the essence of the problem of the safety net.
Sir Philip Goodhart: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many thousands of my constituents are without piped water and face a weekend without piped water as a result of the incredible ineffeciency of Thames Water? As many hundreds of thousands of people in south London are faced with a serious water shortage this weekend, may we have an urgent ministerial statement, as a considerable health hazard is involved?
Mr. Wakeham: Thames Water very much regrets the considerable inconvenience caused to consumers and assures us that it is doing all that it can to restore normal supplies as quickly as possible. I understand that the reasons for the lack of mains water supply in my hon. Friend's constituency and in other parts of London are the exceptionally high demand for water resulting from the hot weather and a substantial reduction in capacity from the Hampton water treatment works. Consumers are being informed and alternative water supplies are being provided. Essential users such as hospitals are being given priority.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Is the Leader of the House aware that I am one of the two objectors to the accounts of Westminster city council, tabling as I did last year some 83 objections? Is he not outraged by the allegations last night on "Panorama" that personal files are being kept on councillors and their friends, wards are being gerrymandered for electoral benefit, and that officials of the council are being intimidated? What will the Government do about this? Is pressure being exerted on Lady Porter to resign, because what she is doing is nothing less than municipal fascism and the British people do not want it?
Mr. Wakeham: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman should ask his question in such an intemperate fashion. There are proper ways to investigate any allegations of irregularities, and trial by television or accusations in the House by the hon. Gentleman under privilege are not a proper way to deal with them. Any allegations of misuse or improper use of ratepayers' money will be examined in the first instance by the auditor as part of his normal duties. That is the proper way to investigate this matter.
Mr. James Hill: Has my right hon. Friend read the debate on foreign affairs last Friday? If he did so, he would see that there is terrific lack of knowledge of the workings not only of the international side of the Council of Europe, but of the Western European Union. Some unnecessary things were said in that debate, trying to denigrate the 23-nation Council of Europe, while at the same time casting doubt on the valuable work that that body does. I wish to bring to the attention of my right hon. Friend that it contains the Court of Human Rights and has brought documents——
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should be asking for a debate.
Mr. Hill: It contains much informative documentation. Now that Mr. Gorbachev has spoken to the Council of Europe, and that we have many guest advisers from the USSR, Hungary, Yugoslavia and Poland, should not the House, once and for all, have a debate of some international significance on these two important institutions?
Mr. Wakeham: In spite of the very busy time of year I arranged debates on China and Hong Kong last Thursday and on foreign affairs last Friday. I cannot be held responsible for everything that is said in such debates, although I am sorry if the very valuable work in which I know my hon. Friend has played a large part for a good many years was not properly recognised. I remind my hon. Friend that there are a number of occasions next week on which he might wish to raise the subject and put the record straight.
Mr. David Winnick: Further to what my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) said, does the Leader of the House realise that the serious malpractices of Westminster city council are scandalous and that Lady Porter has undoubtedly shown herself to be totally unfit to hold any kind of public office whatever?
Mr. Speaker: Order. The same rules must apply to the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick). These are business questions and we are dealing with the business for next week.
Mr. Winnick: I did ask for a debate, Mr. Speaker.
In case this is the last appearance by the present Leader of the House, may I thank him for the courteous way in which he has tried to answer our questions, but wonder why under this Government everyone who has held his position has ended up being sacked?
Mr. Wakeham: It was a member of the hon. Gentleman's own party who said that he was the stupidest man in the House. That was many years ago and the hon. Gentleman is even more stupid now than he was then. None the less, I thank him for his expressions of goodwill.
Mr. Robert Adley: I have a slight cold, so I may not have heard properly at Question Time today. I heard the Leader of the Opposition accuse my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister of not having been here for yesterday's statement, but I did not hear the Leader of the Opposition or the shadow Leader of the House mention the rail strike. Perhaps my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House can tell me whether my hearing is defective. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this is a matter of great concern and that if we had a statement next week, it might quietly enable leading members of the Labour party to seek to use their influence to get the National Union of Railwaymen to see sense? Will my right hon. Friend use his best offices somehow through the usual channels to provide a forum for an exchange at the Dispatch Box next week so that all of us can send a message to the NUR saying, "Please go back to work"?
Mr. Wakeham: I understand the Opposition's difficulty, because they do not know whether to support the unions that have accepted the agreement through the proper negotiating machinery or the union that has not. The sooner they make up their minds, the better it will be for all of us. The strike and the inconvenience to the travelling public must be brought to an end soon.
Mr. Dave Nellist: May I back up the request made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Wall) for a debate, or preferably a statement, later today about the case of Mr. Xti Hai Ning, about which I, too, made several telephone calls to the Home Office and the Foreign Office on Tuesday?

527
Should not the House and the people of Britain be concerned that the visit on July, which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned, was the fourth visit that Mr. Xu Hai Ning had made to the embassy? On three occasions he had changed his mind about returning to China. It was the pressure of advertisements in the Chinese business press and the harassment and threats to his family that finally forced him to return.
Should not the Home Office be concerned that the safe houses provided by the Chinese Solidarity Campaign—which I thought the Government would have contacted on this case—have not only been broken into, but have been visited by Chinese secret service personnel? What hope can people of Chinese extraction have that this country will act as a place of refuge if someone can be forced to return under duress by the tactics used on Mr. Xu Hai Ning? Should not we have a statement on this matter?
Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that I came to the House with a prepared Home Office brief and, therefore, I think that I speak with some authority on the matter. The information given to me does not coincide with the information that the hon. Gentleman has given the House. This gentleman, a Chinese national, was interviewed in private by an immigration officer and he confirmed that he was returning to China of his own free will. As is reported, he appeared calm and well and expressed himself clearly. There was, therefore, no power or reason to prevent his departure.
Mr. Michael Marshall: My right hon. Friend knows my interest in this matter. When does he hope there may be time for a debate on the report on telecommunications of the Services Committee, which affects the provision of services in the House, particularly in view of the decision to extend for a further 12 months the opportunity for competitive services in telecommunications in Parliament, as opposed to Whitehall?
Mr. Wakeham: I agree that it is a suitable subject for debate, but, as my hon. Friend knows, the report has only just been published. It would probably be more valuable if we considered the report before having a debate.
Mr. Roy Hughes: May we have a debate next week on the Government's proposal, which was announced some months ago, to double tolls on the Severn bridge? Does he appreciate that there were many objections to the proposal and that an inquiry was held? The commissioner's report has been in the hands of the Secretary of State for Transport for some weeks, but he is sitting on it. Presumably his intention is to announce his findings a day or so before Parliament adjourns for the summer recess. Does not the Leader of the House think that that is sharp practice?
Mr. Wakeham: I do not think that it is sharp practice. One man sitting on it is another man considering it. My right hon. Friend has the report and, as the hon. Gentleman said, he is considering the matter.
Mr. Andrews Rowe (Mid-Kent): I believe that my right hon. Friend is aware that many people in Kent are interested in railways. Given that British Rail is trying hard to get a private Bill ready by mid-November and that the consultation period with the public will end during the
528
summer recess, does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be appropriate to have a debate in October on that important subject before the Bill is brought to the House, because that would exclude a debate until about April?
Mr. Wakeham: I recognise the strength of feeling of my hon. Friend and a number of my hon. Friends from Kent and of their constituents. I understand, however, that British Rail is considering promoting a private Bill to seek to do what it needs to do. There will be plenty of opportunity for that matter to be debated when it comes before the House. I do not, therefore, feel able to offer my hon. Friend a special debate on the subject.
Mr. John Hughes: May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to early-day 1172, motion which requests the Secretary of State for Health to make a statement on the Birmingham children's hospital?
[That this House is seriously concerned at the irresponsible statement which the Minister of State for Health made to the National Association of Health Authorities, that a 900,000 hospital waiting list could be attributed to surgeons not doing as much work as they should; considers that sweeping statement an affront to the young surgeons at the Birmingham Children's Hospital whose revolutionary techniques have reduced the time babies spend in intensive care from days to hours, giving the surgical team the capability of carrying out 380 operations annually; and in the light of the Minister's categorical assurance that, regardless of cost, patients would get the treatment they required, believes he should make a statement to the House countermanding the Central Health Authority's restriction, which is putting at risk the lives of 140 babies waiting for open heart surgery, thereby allowing the surgeons to work to their maximum capacity of 380 operations and disband the special committee set up illogically to investigate why a surgeon in the process of saving babies lives exceeded the Central Health Authority's restriction quota.]
I ask the right hon. Gentleman to include in that statement an investigation into the Central Birmingham health authority's threat to dismiss surgeons who exceed the restriction of 320 patients which has been placed on them by that authority.
Mr. Wakeham: On the position of the Birmingham children's hospital, my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State referred to a waiting list total of 691,000 in September 1988 and not 900,000. He referred to the findings of a study into 22 districts with problem waiting lists, which showed, among other factors, that some surgeons' workloads were below the level of most surgeons and those recommended by their professional bodies. My hon. and learned Friend drew attention to those other factors, too. The motion's criticism of his speech, which was well received and extensively reported, is entirely unfounded. The vast majority of surgeons work hard and conscientiously. For example, the planned level of 320 open heart operations at Birmingham children's hospital this year is more than double that of the year 1987–88.
Mr. David Sumberg: I support the plea of my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Burt) for an early debate on the abject surrender by the Labour leader of Bury council to the demand of the National Association of Local Government Officers that the council

529
meeting last night be cancelled. Would a debate not show that it is an absolute sham for the Labour party to come here and talk about local government accountability, while at the same time denying local democracy to my constituents?
Mr. Wakeham: My hon. Friend is right. I suggest that, if he wants to raise the matter, he will have the opportunity next week.
Mr. Bob Clay: Does the Leader of the House accept that there is a strong case for a debate next week on a major constitutional issue? The Prime Minister should come to the House and explain why, in spite of all the rhetoric of the Bruges speech and subsequent postures, she is allowing the European Commission to prevent the reopening of the most modern shipyards in Europe, which are situated in my constituency, which have buyers who require no public funds or ongoing subsidy and who have immediate ships to build there. Is the Prime Minister to continue to allow that massacre of jobs in a great British industry, and may we have an urgent debate next week?
Mr. Wakeham: I disagree with the premise of the hon. Gentleman's question. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has spoken and written to the hon. Gentleman about this and has discussed the matter in the House. I repeat that I do not accept the premise of the question.
Mr. Roger King: Can my right hon. Friend help me? During his enunciation of next week's business, I thought I heard that the Opposition had run out of things to debate for the second debate to be launched by them, yet we have had a torrent of suggestions from Opposition Members about what they should debate in Government time. Can my right hon. Friend help the Leader of the Opposition in arriving at a subject for debate next Tuesday? If the Opposition cannot come forward with ideas, should we not impose a subject for debate on them, such as the rail strike?
Mr. Wakeham: I have enough responsibilities without having to choose subjects for Opposition Supply days. My hon. Friend is not necessarily right in saying that the Opposition have not thought of a subject for debate. It is possible that they are having a little quarrel among themselves about which one to choose.
Mr. Doug Hoyle: May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to early-day motion 1176?
[That this House condemns the extravagant and obscene pay increases awarded to the chairmen of former publicly owned assets since their privatisation by the present Government; notes that the percentage pay increases of the chairmen of the following companies since privatisation have been for British Aerospace 440·4 per cent. since 1980, British Airports Authority 111·7. per cent. since 1986, British Airways 631 per cent. since 1987, British Gas 91·8. per cent. since 1987, British Steel 28·7 per cent. since 1988, British Telecom 154 per cent. since 1985, Cable and Wireless 113·3 per cent. since 1985, and Rolls Royce 29·6 per cent. since 1987; and believes that these increases are an insult to the public and the low paid and show that privatisation results in private profit rather than public service.]
530
The motion relates to the pay rises of the chairmen of privatised companies and has been signed by 74 hon. Members. It describes the rises as "extravagant and obscene". Will the Leader of the House condemn those pay increases and arrange for a statement to be made next week on this important matter?
Mr. Wakeham: The Government do not support unjustified pay increases at any level. Pay is for the parties directly concerned to determine, taking into account performance and labour market conditions. It is not for me to comment on any individual case.
Mr. Spencer Batiste: My right hon. Friend will be aware that the publication yesterday of the White Paper on the reform of the legal profession has been greeted with fairly broadly based and widespread support on the basis of the balanced compromise that has been reached. Nevertheless, the House has not yet had an opportunity to debate the important issues involved. Is it my right lion. Friend's intention to give the House the chance for a debate before legislation is brought before us?
Mr. Wakeham: I recognise that it would have been much better if I had found time for a debate. I am still looking to see whether I can find the time for a debate. However, I assure my hon. Friend that we shall have plenty of opportunity to discuss these important issues.
Mr. Dennis Turner: May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to early-day motion 1187?
[That this House expresses concern that the answer given by the Prime Minister to the honourable Member for Wolverhampton South East on 18th July, Official Report, column 218, was in complete contradiction to the advice received by the honourable Member for Wolverhampton South East from a senior Training Agency Manager in Wolverhampton, which indicated that information on Employment Training filled places statistics should not be given to the Member of Parliament, and therefore demands that an investigation be made in order to ascertain on whose authority the instruction was given.]
The motion brings into question the answer that the Prime Minister gave to me on Tuesday at Prime Minister's Question Time about the availability of information on employment training. In the light of the answer that the Prime Minister gave me and the evidence that I was flatly refused that information at local level, will the Leader of the House ask his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment to come to the House to make a statement, because the rights and responsibilities of Members of Parliament are at stake? We need some clarification about whether that information can be made available to Members of Parliament.
Mr. Wakeham: I thought for one minute that the hon. Gentleman was about to announce the second subject for debate on the Opposition day next week, but apparently not.
On the subect of early-day motion 1187, it is very definitely not the Government's policy to withhold from Members of Parliament information about how ET is performing. Evidence for that is the enormous amount of information that is being given in answer to written questions. I am delighted to announce that there are now

531
virtually 200,000 trainees on employment training. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will wish to join me in congratulating the programme on its outstanding success.
Mr. James Cran: Will my right hon. Friend find time for the House to discuss the vexed problem of child cancer clusters in the United Kingdom, which is a matter of concern not only to the parents and certainly to the children involved, but to every Member of the House of Commons? Such a debate would allow those of us who are interested to assess what the Government are doing—which is not inconsiderable—to assess what other agencies are doing and perhaps also to discuss the fact that there are far too many reports of child cancer clusters in this country, but not enough research into the epidemiology of leukaemia.
Mr Wakeham: I recognise the concern and interest that my hon. Friend has taken in that subject. I understand that Dr. Cartwright's report has been referred for independent medical assessment, the results of which are expected shortly. I cannot comment on Dr. Cartwright's report until I have seen the results. The Government are funding several other studies on the incidence of childhood leukaemia and the Department of Health will continue to monitor closely the results of those studies and of other national and international work.
Mr. Ray Powell: Will the Leader of the House reconsider his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) on the business for next week? Next week will be the last week of business before the summer recess. In the past consecutive four weeks we have made temperate requests for a debate in the Welsh Grand Committee on the Health Service in Wales. The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that some of us are becoming as intemperate as my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), who asked a question earlier. We are sick and tired of asking the Secretary of State to come to the House or to the Welsh Grand Committee to debate the emotive subject of the Health Service in Wales. It is no good his having consultations with others in Wales if he is not prepared to answer questions from elected Members of Parliament. I am sure that you, Mr. Speaker, will agree that the Leader of the House—I have always thought of him as a temperate person and I do not share the views expressed by some of his colleagues, and even the Prime Minister, who might be getting the knife out—should give time for such a debate and put pressure on the Secretary of State for Wales, who is sitting round the corner, to come to the House before the end of the Session for that purpose.
Mr. Wakeham: I shall resist repeating that when there was an opportunity for a debate on the Health Service the Opposition did not want it and they did not have it.
Mr. Allan Rogers: That is a lie.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw that. Yesterday that word was bandied about the Chamber. We have strict standards and we do not accuse each other of lying. Will the hon. Gentleman, who is a Front-Bench spokesman, withdraw that?
Mr. Rogers: I withdraw the fact that I called the Leader of the House a liar. When you, Mr. Speaker, chastised me
532
some weeks ago on the same issue, I said that the Leader of the House was misleading the House in saying that the matter had not been brought before the Welsh Grand Committee because of the Opposition's objection to it, and you allowed that. It really is shabby for the Leader of the House to come here——
Mr. Speaker: Order. As the hon. Gentleman has said, this is an emotive subject, but we must keep up our standards in the House.
Mr. Wakeham: The subject for debate in the Welsh Grand Committee in June was chosen by the Government's supporters and they properly chose the valleys initiative, an important subject. I hope that the next meeting of the Welsh Grand Committee will take place in October when the Opposition will be able to choose the subject. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales would very much welcome a debate on the Health Service in Wales on that occasion.
Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Health Service in Wales has been considerably disrupted in the past few weeks by the rail strikes which have meant that our constituents have not been able to get to hospital, but there has not been one word of condemnation from Opposition Members to reflect the views that I have heard from the elderly and the infirm? Will my right hon. Friend use his offices to persuade the Opposition to use their second debate on Tuesday to consider the rail strike so that we can get them off the fence and on to the side of the public, not the strikers?
Mr. Wakeham: My hon. Friend must be fair. Some Opposition Members are looking tired and it is time that they were at the seaside with their buckets and spades.
Mr. Greville Janner: Will the Leader of the House arrange an early debate on the unsatisfactory nature of the law relating to the camping of itinerants in public parks and on public land? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I have a petition signed by more than 370 people living on the Braunstone estate in my constituency? Is he further aware that I have also received complaints from constituents in Western Park, Beaumont Leys and other areas about gipsy encampments in parks, which are a danger to the environment and to public health and order at any time, but especially during hot weather and school holidays?
Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that such a debate covers the question of how permanent sites might be provided so that those people can have the privacy to which they are entitled, well away from others who are also entitled to privacy and peace? In the meantime, will he please refer the matter to the Law Officers and the Home Secretary so that the law may be recognised and the police and local authorities given the powers necessary to deal with this growing and very serious problem?
Mr. Wakeham: I recognise the difficulty of the problem especially as, from time to time, my constituency suffers from it. The Department of the Environment also has an interest in the matter. I know of no proposals for changes in the law. However, it is a perfectly sensible subject for the hon. and learned Gentleman to raise and to which a Minister can respond. I shall refer his concern to the appropriate Ministers.
Mr. Harry Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend think again about his answers to my many hon. Friends who asked for a debate or statement on the rail strike? Is he aware that it is causing enormous inconvenience throughout the country, but especially to commuter constituencies such as mine? Is not the National Union of Railwaymen, apparently supported by the Opposition, depriving many people of their living on strike days? They cannot get to work and so have to stay at home and get no pay. That is a very serious matter because individuals and families are suffering greatly. Is it not time that the House debated the matter and flushed out the whole question?
Mr. Wakeham: Refusing, or simply being unable, to provide time for a debate in the near future does not in any way lessen the concern that I share with my hon. Friend about this matter. Strikes are always damaging. They do harm to businesses and services and are bound to put jobs at risk, as well as causing great inconvenience to commuters. There is no need for a debate on this matter because the issue is quite clear. The NUR should take the same line as the other unions. accept the generous offer made to it and return to work.
Mr. John McAllion: The Leader of the House said that he had nothing to add about the difficult question of the setting up of a Scottish Select Committee. Is he aware that the Scottish people have a great deal more to say, as was shown in the recent European elections when Scotland was made a Tory-free zone? If the right hon. Gentleman is genuinely concerned to tackle undemocratic practices, when will he change the Government's undemocratic stance and announce that Scotland is to have the Select Committee that it not only demands, but which is its right under the Standing Orders of this House?
Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman has a weird idea of democratic arrangements. The House determined that that Committee should not be set up and there was a majority for the line that I am taking. The hon. Gentleman is in the minority. Nevertheless, I am seeking a way to set up a Scottish Affairs Select Committee, and I shall continue to do so although, as the hon. Gentleman is well aware, certain difficulties are involved.
Mr. Alan W. Williams: Will the Leader of the House arrange a debate on the Welsh Development Agency, a matter raised by several Members during Welsh questions on Monday, and to which there was an unsatisfactory response from the Secretary of State for Wales?
Has the right hon. Gentleman seen early-day motion 1194, which draws attention to our concern about this matter?
[That this House expresses its deep concern on the future of the Welsh Development Agency; notes that legal, press and information services have already been contracted-out; seeks clarification as to whether the growth of private sector funding will infringe the statutory obligation of the Welsh Development Agency; expresses its deep concern that discussions have taken place between the Finance Director of the Welsh Development Agency and the privatised National Freight Corporation; calls on the Secretary of State to clarify the reasons for the week-long meeting which he did not when asked by honourable Members during Welsh
534
Questions on 17th July; expresses serious concern at the detailed discussions between a leading merchant bank and officers of the Welsh Development Agency; can only conclude that the Government is undertaking a policy of privatisation by stealth; further, expresses its deep concern that the Secretary of State for Wales claims not to have known that such important and detailed discussions on the future of the Welsh Development Agency were taking place; asks why, if a number of Welsh Office officials knew of the proposals as the Secretary of State admitted during Welsh Questions, they did not come to the attention of the Secretary of State; and also asks how many other radical alterations to bodies under his reponsibility are being planned, which he currently does not know about.]
We are aware that the WDA is contracting out legal services, publicity and information. It has had talks with the National Freight Corporation about privatisation and about how that company was privatised. There have been long discussions with Barclays de Zoete Wedd, the merchant bank, and the WDA in Cardiff. During the past six months there have been many comings and goings that make us suspect that there is a policy of privatisation by stealth. May we please have a debate on these matters?
Mr. Wakeham: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales has already answered a large number of parliamentary questions on that subject, and I have nothing to add. There are no plans to privatise the Welsh Development Agency, but, as my right hon. Friend told the House, the agency is perfectly free to explore any ways of bringing more private sector funding into its activities. If it does so, the Government would expect the agency to hold whatever discussions are appropriate with outside interests and advisers.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Will the Leader of the House reconsider his decision on a debate about the activities of Lady Porter and Westminster city council.? Is he aware that as a result of last night's "Panorama" programme on BBC television, the public are demanding that the matter be raised in Parliament? If Parliament is not for debating matters of extreme public interest, what is it for? I have a special interest in the matter, because of the way in which the Government and the Tories of the time treated my brothers and their colleagues on Clay Cross council, who did nothing other than refuse to raise rents. The Government were also prepared to surcharge Lambeth and Liverpool councillors. Why is it that there is one law for Tory councillors and for friends of the Prime Minister such as Lady Porter, and another law for Labour councillors? The only redeeming feature is that there is a strike at Westminster city council and that the men and women on strike there are, thank God, stopping Lady Porter getting rid of more taxpayers' and ratepayers' money today.
Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman may wax indignant, but whatever may or may not have happened to his brothers and to others in the past, it was the result of the due process of law and not of trial by television, which the hon. Gentleman seems to support. If anything needs to be investigated, it will be investigated by the proper authorities—not in the manner that the hon. Gentleman seems to think is appropriate.
Mr. Frank Haynes: I do not mind you, Mr. Speaker, leaving me until last. You know that I am the most patient of all right hon. and hon. Members.
Is the Leader of the House aware that 15 years ago troops from the Turkish mainland invaded the beautiful island of Cyprus? Is he further aware that my hon. Friends the Members for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) and for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) have a particular interest in that event? Is he aware that in the past few hours there has been a serious incident in which more than 100 people were arrested by the Turkish authorities at the green line—females, on the Greek Cypriot side? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware also that I tried and tried, on behalf of my friends, to obtain information about the 1,600 people who disappeared during the 1974 invasion? Will the Leader of the House, in the last week before the recess, get a Foreign Office Minister to the Dispatch Box, to see whether he can help the Greek Cypriots, who are in desperate need?
Mr. Wakeham: I cannot promise that, but I can tell the hon. Gentleman—quite exceptionally, because such a matter is not usually noted from this Dispatch Box—that the all-party Cyprus group is currently meeting in the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association room and that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office is addressing it on that very subject. If the hon. Gentleman nips round there quickly, he might be in time to hear her.

Debates on Adjournment Motions
Mr. Speaker: I have a short statement to make about arrangements for the debates on the motion for the Adjournment that will follow the passing of the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill on Thursday 27 July. Right hon. and hon. Members should submit their subjects to my office not later than 9 am on Wednesday 26 July. A list showing the subjects and the times of the debates will be published later that day.
Normally, the time allotted to each debate will not exceed one and one half hours, but I propose to exercise discretion, to allow one or two debates to continue for rather longer—up to a maximum of three hours. Where identical or similar subjects have been entered for debate by different right hon. and hon. Members whose names are drawn in the ballot, only the first name will be shown on the list. As some debates may not last the full time allotted to them, it will be the responsibility of right hon. and hon. Members, if they are not to miss their turn, to keep in touch with developments.
I remind right hon. and hon. Members that on the motion for the Adjournment of the House on Friday 28 July, up to eight right hon. and hon. Members may raise with Ministers subjects of their own choosing. Applications should reach my office by 10 pm on Monday next. A ballot will be held on Tuesday morning, and the result will be made known as soon as possible thereafter.

Local Government Finance (Wales)
4.24 pm
The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Peter Walker): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about local government finance in Wales for 1990–91.
From April 1990, as the House will know, the new local government finance system will be in operation. Domestic rates will have been replaced by the community charge; there will be a national non-domestic rate with a uniform rate poundage throughout the Principality, and there will be a new grant system. In order to assist local authorities in making their plans for the first year of the new system, I am today announcing my proposals for the overall level of support towards local authority revenue expenditure in Wales from grants and non-domestic rates.
My proposals must be seen in the context of local authority spending in 1989–90. For the current year Welsh councils have budgeted to spend £1,850 million—some £42 million, or 2·3 per cent., above the Government's plans. This year-on-year increase in spending of 8 per cent., although closer to plans than that of their English counterparts, is nevertheless too high.
I have taken account of the local authority associations' representations on the pressures for spending in 1990–91—I discussed their views with them in the forum of the Welsh consultative council on local government finance on 12 July—but I have also had regard to the need for authorities to seek and achieve efficiency savings, taking steps to control staffing costs and restricting budget increases to affordable levels.
In the light of all those considerations, I propose that for 1990–91 the total of standard spending—under the new system, this is the amount that I consider appropriate for local authorities to spend in order to deliver a standard level of services—should be set at £2,109 million. That is an increase of £182 million on the comparable figure for 1989–90, and represents an increase of £140 million on authorities' budgeted expenditure for the current year.
I propose to set the level of aggregate external finance—which comprises three component parts: revenue support grant, the distributable amount of national non-domestic rates and certain specific grants towards current expenditure—at £1,733 million. That is an increase of 8·6 per cent. on the equivalent figure for 1989–90, adjusted for changes in functions. In the autumn I shall announce details of the division of aggregate external finance into its three component parts.
Let me now deal with the consequences of the proposals for the individual community charge payer in Wales. The components of aggregate external finance, taken together, will represent some 82 per cent. of total standard spending. After account is taken of community charge benefits, only 15 per cent. of local government spending will be financed by community charges. That broadly maintains the relative shares in the present financial year.
The community charge for standard spending in Wales will be £175, only £4 more than the average rate bill per adult in 1989–90. That reflects my commitment that no resources would be lost to Wales as a result of the change to the new system. Charge payers will quickly understand the reasons for variations from this figure, which—subject to the transitional arrangements that I shall describe in a
538
moment—is achievable by each and every authority that spends in line with the Government's standard spending assessment.
I have considered again the extent to which the effects on charge payers of the change to the new system should be phased in through an appropriate "safety net". In the light of the favourable settlement that I am proposing, I have decided that it would not be right to freeze the position as it was in 1989–90 by using a full safety net: that would delay the benefits of the greater accountability which the new system brings. Instead I propose to introduce a safety net which will move us substantially towards the new system in the first year.
That means that—on the basis of present estimates—in 1990–91 in the Rhondda, for example, charge payers would contribute some £50 less than the Welsh average of £175 towards their council's services. The arrangement will also benefit charge payers in areas such as Newport and Cardiff, who should contribute only around £20 to the cost of the safety net. The proposals strike the right balance between protection for those who, in moving to the new system, face the largest increases, and reasonable contributions from those who stand to gain.
I will inform the House about the position of individual authorities following further consultation with the local authority associations about grant distribution arrangements, including the precise details of the safety net. I agree with the associations that it would be misleading to produce illustrative figures for 1990–91 in advance of that.
Mr. Allan Rogers: Speak more slowly.
Mr. Walker: I will speak very slowly, as the next passage is of great importance. It concerns the arrangements we have made to assist those on low incomes. Those on the lowest incomes in Wales who qualify for income support will be better off with the community charge than they were under the old rating system, because income support payments will include an amount—which will be the same throughout Great Britain—to help pay the community charge. Owing to the low levels of community charges in Wales, people would actually be better off than they would if they received a 100 per cent. rebate.
A couple on income support paying the community charge for standard spending of £175 each would get the maximum rebate of 80 per cent. leaving them with a combined liability of £70. To help them meet this their income support will have been uprated by an annual amount equivalent to £119·60, leaving them £49·60 in pocket. We estimate that over 300,000 community charge payers in Wales—about 14 per cent.—will qualify for the maximum assistance.
I will be bringing forward more detailed arrangements for all aspects of the settlement in the autumn, following discussions with the local authority associations. But the proposals I have announced today offer charge payers in Wales the prospect of community charges averaging £175 provided that their councils take responsible spending decisions. They offer authorities—particularly those who seek and achieve the efficiency gains which are available—a fair and realistic framework within which to set their budgets for 1990–91. If they budget sensibly, the rewards are self-evident.
Mr. Barry Jones: If the new system is so wonderful, why the eleventh hour acrobatics to alter and improve it? Are they not a tacit admission of its unpleasantness by delaying its impact?
Will the Secretary of State explain why there appears to be a shortfall on the aggregate external finance figure? We note a paucity of the detailed examples that were provided yesterday. On that basis the Secretary of State has made a defective statement. Has not the right hon. Gentleman made inadequate provision for inflation? With the RPI at 8·3 per cent. and pay awards well over 7 per cent., the Government's estimate of the effects of inflation this year is likely to be about 3 per cent. out at outturn. Therefore, many of our councils are cheated of a lot of money.
The statement fails to take full account of the high interest rates on local councils' capital charges. Regarding the Rhondda exemplification, of which the right hon. Gentleman made much in his statement, the House should know that professional opinion is that the right hon. Gentleman is engaged in a doubtful conjuring of the figures. A current ratepayer in the Rhondda faces an average bill of £183. An average poll tax payer in the Rhondda will be paying £50 less than the Welsh average, which amounts to £125. A couple will therefore be paying £250 which is considerably more than £183, and that is before the safety net is removed. The position next year will be bad and in future it will be even worse.
Does the Secretary of State realise that the cost of preparing for and eventually running the poll tax will be at least double that of the current system? Welsh councils expect millions of pounds more to help them over that hurdle.
The statement is a wretched milestone in the history of local government. Does not the poll tax represent reaction, not reform? It is a medieval tax which will hurt ordinary families in Wales. Is it not opposed by almost everyone, except the Government? Will not the poll tax shift the burden of local services on to those least able to pay? Ultimately, the poll tax will hammer the valley communities. It is all very well for the right hon. Gentleman to come here with a masking operation, but will not the poll tax bite most ferociously at the end of the transitional period?
This is a confidence trick. Did not the Scottish Office underestimate its eventual poll tax by 12·5 per cent.? Today we have heard fine words and clever packaging, but it is shaming to see a Secretary of State for Wales as an advocate of a poll tax. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that what he proposes goes against the grain of Wales's concept of fair play? Where is the Government's mandate for this pernicious tax?
What of teacher shortages? Will there be additional funds to secure more modern language, science and maths teachers and more teachers in Welsh? Where are the additional major resources to cover the financial burdens of the Education Act 1988 and the implementation of the national curriculum?
This is the 10th year that a Conservative Secretary of State has stood before the House to make a statement on local government finance. The Government's record has been shabby, with a 12 per cent. real terms cut in money for our councils. In return for tax cuts to the rich, we have poorer services to our local communities, a demoralised education service, a housing crisis and social services stretched to breaking point.
540
We reject the poll tax even now. Will the right hon. Gentleman withdraw this unwanted tax?
Mr. Walker: I congratulate the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) on the thunderous cheers that he received at the end of those remarks. It is easy for someone in his position to say, "What a dreadful thing is being imposed on us." Wales is having 85 per cent. of all local government expenditure being financed by the Government and only 15 per cent. being put on the community charge. That would be the envy of England and Scotland, yet the hon. Gentleman says, "How terrible it is."
Let us consider what the local government associations have said about the talks and so on and about how disappointed they are at the figures. On every occasion—certainly in my lifetime, and I am sure the same is true of the hon. Gentleman—all local authorities under all Governments have been disappointed at the figures. I am sure that in the last few years they have been disappointed while we have been in power, when the support to local authorities has gone up by only a small amount in real terms, and I admit that.
But how they must have felt when the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside was a Minister at the Welsh Office I cannot imagine. In 1976–77, the figure went down by 4 per cent. in real terms; in 1977–78 it went down by 8 per cent.; and in 1978–79 it went down in real terms by 4 per cent. If they are unhappy now, they must have been in tears when Labour was last in office. I suggest, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman should not concentrate on that aspect.
In terms of the retail prices index, it must be remembered that we are referring to the year 1990–91 and that we cannot be certain what the rate of inflation will be at that time. The hon. Gentleman referred to interest rates in relation to inflation. With house mortgage interest rates, it stands at 8·3 per cent., and without them it is 6 per cent.
In terms of local authority interest rates, a great volume of borrowing has been borrowing long, so the average increase in their interest rates is far lower than, for example, the average for house purchase. Thus, without that aspect they are much nearer the 6 per cent. than the 8·3 per cent. now.
I am the first to admit that the standard community charge, with the safety net, will mean an increase for the Rhondda. But I am glad to say that next year Rhondda will remain the lowest community charge authority in Wales—and, if it were in England, it would be the lowest community charge authority in England.
We appreciate that there are many people on low incomes in the Rhondda. The benefits under the rebate system will mean that in the coming year, with the safety net, the average payer in the Rhondda will obtain £72 more in rebate and service charge than he or she will pay in community charge. Therefore, instead of a rebate of 100 per cent. under the rating system, they will be getting a rebate of 130 per cent. under the new system. I hope that hon. Members will ensure that the people of Rhondda are aware of those benefits.
I am glad to say that it is estimated that businesses in the valleys will benefit as a result of the change in the business rate by about £10 million a year.
Sir Anthony Meyer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I regard the community charge as unfair, unworkable and unwise? However, is he further

541
aware that there will be admiration and amazement throughout Wales at the skill with which he has managed to screw so much money out of the Treasury? There will be no advantage, indeed the reverse, for the poorest, though, and I am not clear what the position is for those just above the income support level. He has also managed to shoot the fox of the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones). Is my right hon. Friend also aware that, by his skill in so lightening the burden, he has gone a long way to demolish the argument for the community charge—that it brings home to people the cost of local services?
Mr. Walker: It will mean that any local authority that involves itself in extravagant expenditure will hit community charge payers in that locality. There will, therefore, be a degree of discipline. I am pleased to say that in Wales there is no doubt that low-income families will benefit from the change in the system.
Mr. Ted Rowlands: Is the Secretary of State aware that, after all the fiddling and fudging, working people in Aberfan, Merthyr Vale and New Tredegar in my constituency, who are home owners but who do not receive benefits and are not likely to get rate rebates of the kind he mentioned, will face almost a doubling of their present rates bills as a result of the community charge?
Mr. Walker: In those areas people will still have the enormous advantage of 85 per cent. of all local government expenditure being met by the Government. Because of that, the people the hon. Gentleman has just described, who are on low incomes and not able to take advantage of rate rebates. will be better off. The average for the community charge in Wales will be £175, compared with £275 in England and, last year, £280 in Scotland. The people of Wales should realise that they are considerably better off.
Mr. Keith Raffan: Is it not very revealing that, when my right hon. Friend reached the section in the statement that concerns the dramatic benefit that it will bring to the 300,000 people in Wales who are on income support, it met with silence from Opposition Members? Is it not also revealing that the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) is as churlish as usual, and cannot pay tribute to my right hon. Friend for what he has done for those who are in real need in our community? It is a tremendous achievement and the Secretary of State deserves our thanks for that.
Returning to the local situation in north-east Wales, I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, North-West (Sir A. Meyer). Does my right hon. Friend agree that Delyn and Rhuddlan borough councils could end up with community charges that are significantly higher than the Welsh average, because Clwyd, which is under Labour control, is a high-spending, improvident and chaotically managed county council?
Mr. Walker: As my hon. Friend says, during the past year Clwyd county council increased its expenditure, compared with its budgets and estimates, which was out of line with the majority of Welsh local councils. I hope that it will recognise that, if it continues to do so, that will be a considerable disadvantage to community charge payers in its county. I hope that it will budget and spend prudently during the coming year. As my hon. Friend says,
542
this is a total settlement which is of considerable advantage to the lowest income people in Wales. I am as surprised as he is at the Labour party's reaction to the statement.
Mr. Richard Livsey: Will the Secretary of State note that with the introduction of this iniquitous tax in my constituency—which is a rural area, like many other parts of Wales—the average poll tax of £175 per head will be an increase of £45 per head on the present rating system? Does he agree that his figure of £4 is way out for rural areas? It will be a case of paying Peter or robbing Paul. The non-domestic rate is forecast to increase by 15 per cent., which is double the rate of inflation, and will hit small businesses, which are the backbone of Wales.
Mr. Walker: That is not so. Small businesses will not be adversely affected by at last having a system in which the business tax is kept within any increases in inflation. Small and large businesses will prefer to have that stability. I repeat that to have a system where 85 per cent. of all local government expenditure is paid for by the Government is of considerable advantage to rural and urban areas in the Principality.
Mr. Gwilym Jones: I welcome the easing of the safety net arrangements which otherwise would have been more disadvantageous for the people of Cardiff. Can my right hon. Friend say whether, with the safety net, there will be lower transfers of funds between councils than there is with the existing rate equalisation mechanisms, that the safety net represents a lower amount of the help that will he received through income support, and that, at last, with the introduction of the far fairer community charge, every citizen in Wales will be able to measure his council against the all-Wales average of £175? If it comes to pass, as has been threatened in Cardiff, that we have a community charge of £275 or more, the responsibility will lie with the local councils who are making a direct attack on the least well off.
Mr. Walker: I think that it will have the result that fewer local authorities will be imprudent. In general, over the years, Welsh local authorities have been prudent compared with those in other parts of the United Kingdom. If individual local authorities decide to break with that, they will impose a considerable burden. Considering the system in terms of Wales as a whole, I decided to reduce the safety net provisions, and having obtained a settlement where 85 per cent. of finance comes from central Government, I considered it right to proceed as quickly as possible to get the full system into operation.
Mr. Donald Anderson: The Secretary of State gave the example of the relief to people on income support. Will he consider the gross injustice to those who are just above income support? I shall give him an example. In Landore, in my constituency, where the average rates are rather less than £200, a pensioner couple with a small private income from a works pension will probably have to pay more than double that. That has nothing to do with accountability. Surely the Secretary of State recognises that this is a gross injustice to people who are just above the level of income support.
Mr. Walker: When we finally agree the specific needs element with the local authorities and the figures are finally published, couples in Swansea who have been paying rates,

543
and who will pay the community charge, will, if anything, pay less than they do under the rating system. It is all very well to talk about injustice, but quite a few of the hon. Gentleman's constituents in that income bracket who have been widowed or who live alone have been adversely affected by the rating system.
Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there will be much envy among English colleagues about the fact that he has, once again, secured a much better settlement for Wales than is the case for the rest of the United Kingdom? I assure him that my constituents will welcome the community charge because it is workable and fair. At the moment, only 50 per cent. of my constituents pay towards the services provided by their local authorities which they all enjoy and for which they have a vote. Under the new system, everybody will look to local authorities to be truly accountable for the services that they provide.
Mr. Walker: I think that there will be a clearer indication of local authorities' performance. There are problems associated with changing any system. There is no perfect system of local government—none has been advocated by any political party. In Wales, we felt that this system, in which we have to meet 15 per cent. of local authority expenditure through the community charge, and which includes rebates for low incomes, will produce both accountability for local authorities and a better deal for people on low incomes.
Mr. Alan Williams: I now understand why the Secretary of State gabbled so much when he made his statement. Will he confirm that, on the figures that he just announced, our beleagured councils will receive £14 million less than is necessary just to manage the cost of living increase, and £50 million less than is necessary to match the increase in their costs? After all his fine words, does not this mean that our councils will have to impose cuts in services or increase the poll tax—not to the £175 that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned, but by at least £20 beyond that, so that the true figure will be nearer £200?
Mr. Walker: If there is an increase of more than 7 per cent. on local governments' budgets for last year, it is very difficult to argue that they cannot prudently and sensibly meet their obligations.
I have already given the figures. Local authorities are treated much better now than they were during the time when the right hon. Gentleman was at the Welsh Office.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I say to the two hon. Members who have been rising and who represent English constituencies that this is the United Kingdom Parliament and that they will be called, but I propose to give precedence to Welsh Members because this statement primarily affects Wales.
Mr. Allan Rogers: May I point out to the Secretary of State that the illustration he used—it was pointed out by his hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr. Raffan)—of Clwyd county council concerned the budget for last year, which was set by a Conservative and independent-controlled council, and that a Labour authority took charge of the council only this year?
544
Local authorities in Wales will view this settlement of only £182 million in standard spending with dismay. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) said, it will mean real cuts in social services, education and housing.
I wish that the Secretary of State would not take the name of the Rhondda in vain. In Rhondda, a couple living with one child in a house will pay three times as much under the community charge as they would under the old rates system. It is wrong of the Secretary of State to suggest to the House and to the public at large that the people of the Rhondda will be better off: they will not be.
Mr. Walker: I am glad to say that next year the people of the Rhondda will have the lowest community charge of any area in England or Wales. I do not know how many of the hon. Gentleman's constituents are in receipt of full rate rebate now, but there are 300,000 such people in the whole of Wales, so I guess that there are at least 7,000 or 8,000 in his constituency. In view of all that the hon. Gentleman has said about the community charge, I hope that he will take great care to announce to the 7,000 or 8,000 people in his constituency on the lowest incomes that, instead of receiving 100 per cent. rebates under the rating system, they will receive 130 per cent. rebates under the community charge this year and 114 per cent. thereafter. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will communicate that improvement to his electors.
Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones (Ynys Môn): It is a bit much of the Secretary of State to come to the Dispatch Box and give us the average figure for Welsh local authorities and then proceed to give us three examples of authorities that he says will benefit next year, since he gave us no examples of local authorities that will not benefit and in which consequently people will pay more than the average standard poll tax. The right hon. Gentleman should do his duty to the House and the people of Wales and publish a list, authority by authority, telling us how much people in each will pay—and how much people in the Anglesey borough council area will pay next year.
Mr. Walker: I have already published a list based on last year's, figures since when I have adjusted the safety net. We still have to agree the final distribution with the local authority associations, and I hope to do that in the near future. It was the local authority associations—they are not, in the main, under my party's political control—which asked that no indicative figures should be issued until the figures are finalised. When they are, I shall be delighted to send out the details.
Mr. Donald Coleman (Neith): During the past two years, the right hon. Gentleman has had some association with us in Wales. In his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) he seemed to equate home ownership and owner-occupation with income. But many of those who live in these properties are in impoverished circumstances, and the right hon. Gentleman should recognise that.
What are the figures that will affect all of us in all our valley communities? Why has the right hon. Gentleman not brought them here, as his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment did yesterday? Surely this is an incomplete statement. If the right hon. Gentleman does not have the figures, he should not have come here and made it.
Mr. Walker: I shall convey the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the leaders of the Welsh local authority associations, virtually all of whom are of his political persuasion. I shall tell them that they were wrong to demand what they did—if that is the substance of the hon. Gentleman's attack.
A few weeks ago, in reply to a parliamentary question, we published the best estimates available; they are in Hansard. As soon as we have agreed more detailed and accurate figures with local authorities, I shall be happy to issue them. They tell a good story: when the Government are paying 85 per cent. of all local government expenditure. that is something to be proud of——
Mr. Rhodri Morgan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Would it not be better if the hon. Gentleman raised this in the form of a question? I shall take it if it is a point of order.
Mr. Morgan: This is the fourth time since I have been in the Chamber that the Secretary of State—I am sure unintentionally—has misled the House by saying that 85 per cent. of grant will come from central Government. That is not what his statement says——
Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister will have to deal with that.
Mr. Roy Hughes: Where are the high-spending, Labour-controlled authorities which the Government have been so busily criticising in recent weeks and months? I venture to suggest that, in Wales, they just do not exist. Our local authorities have had to contend, since the Government were elected in 1979, with the loss of no less than £990 million in rate support grant payments.
When will the right hon. Gentleman recognise that the poll tax is essentially regressive? The poorer sections of the community—people in low rateable value homes—will have to pay the main burden, and the right hon. Gentleman's safety net is not adequate.
Mr. Walker: When the system has finally settled down and, at the next general election, the people of Newport are offered the choice of returning to the present rating system or sticking to the poll tax, I have a feeling that the hon. Gentleman will not be eager to proclaim a return to the rating system for Newport.
Three hundred thousand of the lowest income group will directly benefit by the proposals.
I have already paid tribute to Welsh local authorities. One of the important reasons why I have been able to negotiate the sort of settlement that I have is that I have been able to show that local authorities in Wales have acted responsibly and prudently under the system that they have enjoyed in the past.
Mr. Alan W. Williams: How many gainers and how many losers will there be when the poll tax is introduced? In particular, who are the losers? I grant the right hon. Gentleman that the bottom 14 per cent., on income support, will benefit from the rebate, but the next 30 or 40 per cent., on below average pay, in low rateable value houses will be hit hard.
Mr. Walker: The 80 per cent. rebate for 300,000 people goes to the lowest income group, but the rebate system deals with many more people on lower incomes than I have
546
mentioned. Many single people, widows and so on will benefit. Households that include three or four adults will be at a disadvantage if they earn tolerable levels of income. That is the nature of the mixture.
Mr. Neil Hamilton: As one born, bred and educated in Wales, and representing a constituency only 16 miles from the Welsh border, I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the characteristic dexterity with which he presented his statement today, and I counsel him not to be too savagely destructive of the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones), because my right hon. Friend may be in danger of creating a residual sympathy for the hon. Gentleman which might not otherwise exist.
In due course, my right hon. Friend may face some criticism from authorities and from Members representing constituencies which will pay into the safety net during the coming year. I ask my right hon. Friend on the whole to disregard these criticisms because people in the vast majority of these areas will pay no more than they would otherwise have paid under the rating system, and by and large they will benefit significantly in the future.
Mr. Walker: I agree with my hon. Friend that, once the safety provisions have come to an end and the whole system is in operation, many parts of the Principality will have considerable benefits from the change in the system.
Mr. Geraint Howells: Having listened to the comments of hon. Members on both sides of the House, does the right hon. Gentleman think that the Government made the wrong decision to impose the poll tax on the people of Wales?
Mr. Walker: The measures and the terms of the settlement which we announced are good for Wales, Welsh industry and Welsh business.
Dr. John Marek: I hope that, on reflection, the Secratary of State will admit that he has done a disservice to the House by making a statement and allowing questions to be asked without the facts and the details being available to any Member. I hope that he will accept that this is not a good practice and that it should not be followed in future years.
Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me about the 100 per cent. rebate for people on income support? Are there any areas in Wales where the 20 per cent. increase that those on income support will have to pay will not be completely rebated?
Mr. Walker: I know that the hon. Gentleman will be delighted to hear that no one in Wales will be in that category. All the people will be net beneficiaries.
Mr. Ron Davies: I hope, Mr. Speaker, that you have noted our complaints about the inadequacy of the statement. I hope that, when the detailed information is available on a district-by-district basis, you will be responsive to any requests for a further opportunity to question the Secretary of State—whoever it may be—on those arrangements.
Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that the safety net is nothing more than a temporary, hidden subsidy and that, when it is removed, the poll tax will be revealed as having a built-in mechanism to levy increases year by year on Welsh communities?
Will the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge a point that has been made by several of my hon. Friends? We

547
obviously welcome the fact that 14 per cent. of the population will receive a full rebate, but that rebate will be raised at the expense of people on low incomes. Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that he is making the poverty trap which applies to many of our low-income earners considerably greater? In publishing the district-by-district basis of the poll tax, will the right hon. Gentleman take it upon himself also to publish a table showing the impact of this new poverty trap on our Welsh communities?
Mr. Walker: The information to which the hon. Gentleman refers has been made available in considerable detail in reply to parliamentary questions. The updated information has not been issued, at the request of local authority associations, and they were probably quite right to make that request. That information will not be available until the final settlement is reached.
The hon. Gentleman talked about the rebate. I cannot do this through the political party machine or through the Government machine, but I shall do my best to ensure that the Conservative party in the hon. Gentleman's constituency distributes to every household the leaflet on the poll tax which he issued and compares the outrageous predictions that he made to low-income people, which must have scared the life out of them, with what will happen.
Mr. John P. Smith: Does not the Secretary of State recognise that the overwhelming majority of poll tax payers in Wales who will benefit are the people who need help the least? That is why this tax is so obviously unfair. That is why it was rejected so decisively in the Vale of Glamorgan, which is one of the most affluent constituencies in Wales.
Mr. Walker: In fairness, I thought that at the time the hon. Gentleman gave a number of other reasons why he managed to succeed in the Vale of Glamorgan. If that was the reason, I hope that when the community charge is fully implemented in the Vale of Glamorgan he will make it clear to the electors well before the next general election that he would prefer to return to the present rating system or the system that the Labour party advocates. That will help us considerably in winning back the seat.
Mr. Win Griffiths: To follow the theme of other questions that the Secretary of State has not yet answered successfully, will he confirm that the principal gainers will be those on high incomes and the principal losers will be those on low incomes but who are above any income support level? Many people on high incomes in my constituency are totally against the imposition of the poll tax, and I would be willing to say that in any election manifesto at the next election.
Mr. Walker: When the hon. Gentleman meets those people, he should explain that at least in Wales 85 per cent. of local government expenditure is financed by the taxpayers. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman's argument does' not prevail when only 15 per cent. of all the costs are met out of the community charge and 85 per cent. are met by the taxpayer.
Mr. Paul Flynn: We have had another piece of meaningless trumpeting by the Secretary of State
548
in his abuse of statistics again and his claim that those on income support will benefit in some way from the Government's actions. He says, wrongly, that payments will include certain amounts, but people on income support—it is a miserable level—already receive those amounts and have no idea that there is meant to be compensation.
It may be true that certain couples will gain, by a few pence, because of the quality of local government in Wales and their prudent and good running of local matters over the years. Where is the trumpeting when people on income support in Wales lose out more than those on income support in the rest of the country? Where was the trumpeting when there were cuts of £650 million in housing benefit and when people lost out on transitional payments? Half a million pensioners in this country, many of them in Wales, had not a penny increase in 1987 or 1988 and may well go on through the next year and the year after without a penny increase. It is an outrage for anyone to suggest that the Government's actions are helping people on income support, whose income has been cut year after year by the Government.
Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman's argument that the 20 per cent. rebate has been paid before the community charge has been introduced and therefore should he discontinued gives us a good insight into how the Labour party will attempt to play this matter. As the hon. Gentleman knows, this system for people on low incomes is far better than the rating system.
Mr. Tony Marlow: Speaking as the husband of a Welsh woman, should it not be a matter of shame to every decent Welsh woman and Welsh man that, when my right hon. Friend announces a settlement whereby a couple in the Rhonnda will pay signficantly less than the average individual in England and 7,000 or 8,000 people in the Rhonnda will pay about 70p a week and, as my right hon. Friend said, be better off, all that the Labour Front-Bench spokesman can do is whinge? Is it not the case that in Wales the average person will pay £3.50 a week and 300,000 people will pay a mere 70p a week for the whole range of local government services? Are they not getting an incredibly good buy?
Mr. Walker: The people of Wales have a considerable advantage under this settlement, with so much of it centrally financed. Wales has considerable problems because a large number of people are on very low incomes. This will be a far better system for them than the rating system.
Mr. Alun Michael: I was interested in the right hon. Gentleman's answer to the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Smith). Does not the right hon. Gentleman accept that the poll tax is equally unpopular in Penarth, which is the other part of the Vale of Glamorgan and which falls in my constituency, because even gainers regard it as unfair and unacceptable? That is why we are not whingeing but winning.
The right hon. Gentleman is patronising and unfair to local authorities when he says that they are spending above the planned level. Does he accept that, with 4 per cent. inflation as the level projected when the budget was set, with poll tax preparation costs and with central Government decisions creating extra costs in preparing for

549
education reform, increased demand on social services and so on, local authorities are showing remarkable restraint as well as making positive contributions to efficiency reviews in which the right hon. Gentleman, like Oliver Twist, is always asking for more?
Perhaps we should commiserate today with the Secretary of State who has had another bad afternoon. Will he accept that the statement lacks content, facts, figures and reality for those of us who have knowledge and experience of local government finance? Will he accept that under the smooth surface lurks a heavy burden for many of the low paid and especially for those who fall into the poverty trap, which is the Government's particular creation?
Mr. Walker: I only hope that I shall have many more afternoons as bad as this afternoon. The sight of Labour Members, having heard the degree to which those on low incomes in Wales will benefit, is a sight that I wish could have been televised. When, in a rather speedier time than anticipated, the system is operating fully in Cardiff, I shall be interested to see how many of the hon. Gentleman's constituents want to go over to the old system or the incredibly ridiculous system his party advocates at present.

Education (No. 2) Act 1986
5.10 pm
Mr. Alan Williams: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration.
It is certainly specific, as you know, Mr. Speaker, because I sent you a copy of this letter. It is a preposterous letter which has been issued by Conservative Central Office, setting out its plans to subvert the Government's own education legislation, which forbids political indoctrination in our schools. In this context, it is worth bearing in mind the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), the shadow Education spokesman, during the European elections, to stop the circulation of certain Conservative documents to our schools.
The matter is important because section 44 of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986, which was introduced by this Government, states categorically:
"the governing body and head teacher"—
and I emphasise those posts—
"of the school shall forbid … the pursuit of partisan political activities … and the promotion of partisan political views in the teaching in the school."
Yet in this letter, of which I gave you a copy Mr. Speaker, from Conservative Central Office, a Mr. John Spiers says that he has been appointed to edit, at the request of the deputy chairman of the Conservative party who is a Minister in this Government, a journal for Conservative school governors.
I want to quote one sentence from the letter. It says:
"We hope that it will equip Governors"—
those who are supposed to be monitoring political activity—
"to manage schools so that head teachers"—
who also have the same responsibility—
"and teachers are motivated to make a Conservative"—
and I emphasise that it is spelled with a capital "C"—
"educational agenda effective in their day-to-day work".
Clearly, the letter must be important because the heads of Conservative Central Office—the chairman and vice-chairman of the Conservative party—are both appointed by the Prime Minister. It is important because both were Ministers at the time when the legislation was passed and it is important because they are both Ministers now. It is also important because it aims to subvert and pressurise the very people the Act forbids to allow any partisan politics in our schools and because we need to know exactly how this vindictive and malevolent Government intend to motivate teachers to carry out their political dirty work in schools.
I suggest that it is urgent because on Monday it is quite likely that the present Secretary of State for Education may himself be chairman of the Conservative party and he could be presiding over this attempt to create a Conservative fifth column in our schools.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Three minutes, please.
Mr. Williams: I am making my final point, Mr. Speaker. The matter is urgent because we go into recess next week and it will be three months before we have a chance to discuss it.
Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Member for Swansea West (Mr. Williams) asks leave to move the Adjournment

551
of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the implementation of section 44 of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986."
As the House knows, under Standing Order No. 20, I have to take into account the requirements of the order and to announce my decision without giving reason to the House. I have listened with care to what the right hon. Gentleman has said, but I regret that the matter he has raised does not meet the requirements of Standing Order No. 20 and I cannot, therefore, submit his application to the House.
Mr. Jack Straw: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Your ruling is, of course, accepted by the whole House, but as the matter is plainly unlawful in the light of section 44 of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986, as it invites Governments to ensure that head teachers are motivated
552
to make a Conservative education agenda effective in their day-to-day work and as the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science, the hon. Member for Coventry, South-West (Mr. Butcher) is in his place, can he be invited to make a statement as to whether the letter has the support of Government Ministers?
Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter for me. We have a heavy day ahead of us.

Education (No. 2) Act 1986
  BILL PRESENTED
    TELECOMMUNICATIONS (PREMIUM RATE SERVICES AND CONSUMER REPRESENTATION)
    Mr. Terry Lewis presented a Bill to amend the Telecommunications Act 1984 with respect to the provision of advice about premium rate services and to provide for consumer representation on advisory committees: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Thursday 27 July and to be printed. [Bill 191.]
Orders of the Day

  Electricity Bill
  Lords amendments considered.
  5.15 pm
  Ordered,
  That the Lords Amendments to the Electricity Bill be considered in the following order, namely, Nos. 4, 5, 9, 10, 95, 14, 101 to 108, 22, 25, 26, 51, 52, 55, 56, 129, 140, 27, 108A to 114, 118, 3, 2, 100, 62 to 65, 6, 90, 7, 119 to 128, 130 to 139, 141 to 143, 11 to 13, 15, 16 to 20, 115 to 117, 53, 54, 57, 58, 59 to 61, 66, 67, 68, 69 to 74, 75 to 77, 144 to 153, 174, 154 to 157, 80, 163 to 167, 91, 92, 168, 93, 94, 169, 170 to 173, 175 to 178, 179 to 181, 96 to 99, 158 to 162, 21, 81 to 89, 28 to 50, 78, 79, 1, 8, 23 and 24—[Mr. Michael Spicer.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): I have to advise the House that Lords amendment No. 10 involves privilege.
  (1) The Director may, after consultation with public electricity suppliers and with persons or bodies appearing to him to be representative of persons likely to be affected, from time to time—

  (a) determine such standards of performance in connection with the promotion of the efficient use of electricity by consumers as, in his opinion, ought to be achieved by such suppliers; and

  (b) arrange for the publication, in such form and in such manner as he considers appropriate, of the standards so determined.

  (2) Different standards may be determined under this section for different public electricity suppliers.'.
  The following amendments to amendment (a): (i) in line 1, leave out 'may' and insert 'shall'.
  (ii) in line 5, leave out
  'as in his opinion ought to'
  and insert 'which shall'.
  (iii) in line 11, at end insert
  'and
  (c) shall set a date by which these standards must be achieved and shall apply such sanctions as appears necessary should these standards not be met.'.
  Government amendments (b) to (e).
  Mr. Parkinson: At present, the only duty that rests on anyone to promote energy efficiency is the duty on the Secretary of State. As a result of the Bill, the range of responsibilities for promoting energy efficiency will be widened and strengthened considerably. The statutory duty will still remain on the Secretary of State, but, in addition, the new Office of Electricity Supply, which will be a very powerful body, and its regulator will also have a statutory duty to promote energy efficiency and for the first time the area boards will have a duty to publish information about energy efficiency and to make it available to their customers. These duties all deal with the consumption of electricity, and with the saving of electricity and energy by users.
  However, there is a fourth important pressure built into the Bill and into the structure created as a result of the Bill. It is a major pressure to produce electricity more efficiently. At present, we have a Central Electricity Generating Board which has monopoly powers and operates on a strictly cost-plus basis. Whatever its costs are, it simply passes them through to the customer.
  Under the new structure there will be substantial competition from day one for the business of the area boards in both England and Scotland. The Scots are only
  Lords amendments Nos. 4, 5, 9, 10, 95, 14, 101 to 108, 22,25, 26,51,52,55, 56, 129, 140, 27, 108A, 109, 109A, 110 to 114 and 118 agreed to.
  Lords amendment: No. 3, before clause 3, insert the following new clause—Promotion of efficient use of electricity—
  ". The Secretary of State and the Director shall require each of the public electricity suppliers to make and produce evidence to the Director showing that he has made such arrangements as will promote the efficient use of electricity and may direct any public electricity supplier to take specific action in this area and, if appropriate, may refuse or amend any application for tariff increases or major capital projects."
  The Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Cecil Parkinson): I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment (a), a new clause—
  'Promotion of efficient use of electricity—
  just finding out that that is a serious possibility. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) will listen, he may get a surprise.
  PowerGen has just written to every major company in Scotland offering to supply them with electricity. National Power is following suit. For the first time major companies and boards in Scotland are being pursued by generators seeking their business. Therefore, there is competition in generation. As fuel represents 60 per cent. of the cost of all electricity generation, the pressure is on generators to compete by using fuel efficiently.
  Mr. John Maxton: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Parkinson: I shall not give way because we have agreed to make short speeches as the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) is under the weather.
  People used to say, "Where there's muck there's money", but pollution in electricity production is extremely expensive because the less efficiently fuel is used and the worse the technology, the greater the pollution and expense. Therefore, competition and efficient use of fuel run hand in hand with conserving fuel and reducing pollution. That is an important aspect of the new structure that the Bill creates. The company that uses fuel efficiently will have an advantage over its competitors and there will be real pressure for efficient production of electricity.
  Their Lordships felt that more should be done and they amended the Bill. I ask the House to reject their amendments and replace them with our new clause. It is not disputed that their Lordships' proposals are defective. The person who proposed them has accepted that. The subsequent amendments only made matters worse. The

  555
  Select Committee has confirmed that the amendments are unworkable and unsatisfactory, and nobody in the House will be tempted to dispute that.
  The amendments are ineffective because they were based on American experience and were designed to discipline a system that we do not have here. They are an attempt to import into this country a set of rules and regulations designed for an over-regulated, vertically integrated industry. Their Lordships' failure to understand that has led them to produce this dog's breakfast of amendments. Everyone accepts that they are ineffective and unworkable.
  I wish to give the House some of the reasons why the amendments are ineffective. First, they are built round the concept that the Secretary of State or the director general has the power to approve tariff increases and major capital projects. Nowhere in the Bill do we have that power. Moreover, because it is assumed that it is a vertically integrated monopoly the amendments assume that generation is part of distribution. In fact, they are separate. The generators will build the new capacity. The amendments do not include any arrangements to deal with that, but deal exclusively with public electricity suppliers, who will not produce new capacity.
  We recognise their Lordships' desire to see the commitment to energy efficiency in the Bill strengthened and we recognise that my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) and others agree with that. Although they think that least-cost planning would be a mistake, they want the Bill to be more specific about how the new duties will be carried out.
  In the new clause and in the two revised conditions to the licence we spell out exactly how the director general will carry out his new duties to promote energy efficiency. Each public electricity supplier will have a duty to set performance standards for the promotion of energy efficiency. He will monitor performance and ensure that the standards are met.
  Condition 17 supports the new clause and binds the company in the licence to meet the standards set by the director general. Condition 18 spells out clearly how the public electricity supplier will have to carry out his duty to make information available to the customer. In a code of practice which will be part of condition 18 we shall spell out how the public electricity supplier must meet his obligation to provide information. It will be specific and will include the need to maintain a telephone answering service and an office or bureau to supply information. It will give flesh to the commitment that the Bill imposes on the public electricity supplier to provide information.
  The new clause spells out clearly the two new specific duties imposed on both the regulator and the public elecricity supplier. Specific action will be taken to set standards, collect information and enforce the standards.
  The hon. Member for Sedgefield has conducted a campaign inspired by Mr. Mandelson. He used Mr. Mandelson's Monday morning spot on the "Today" programme to push out his half-thought-out ideas. He made great play of the fact that gas regulators have duties but have not carried them out. We have had discussions with the Director General of Ofgas, who finds his powers too vague and general. He believes that the powers spelt out in our amendments and in the Bill would enable him
  556
  effectively to promote energy efficiency and he intends to seek such powers. He recognises that his present powers are inadequate and need to be strengthened and that the powers set out in this Bill would enormously improve his position.
  The hon. Gentleman and some of his hon. Friends have suddenly discovered least-cost planning. They see it as the answer to their predicament of having no energy policy and are suddenly rushing madly towards it. Yesterday the hon. Gentleman gave a series of quotations, all garnered from regulators in America. In America the people who have this overweaning power claim that they use it extremely well. The hon. Gentleman said that that proved conclusively that least-cost planning is widely accepted and admired in America, but it has far more critics than supporters. Its supporters are mainly people who enjoy using the powers and its critics are mainly those who suffer under them. I could give many more quotations than the hon. Gentleman gave yesterday.
  I shall read some evidence given by Professor Joskow, who is a highly respected professor of economics at the Massachusetts institute of technology to the House of Representatives sub-committee on energy and power in March 1988. He said:
  "My analysis leads me to conclude that the broad implications of this proposal is likely to lead to several undesirable outcomes. In particular, it could result in higher energy prices, inequitable … electricity rates and incentives for inefficient conservation investments. My testimony does not argue that there is no role for utilities in encouraging conservation. The main point is that this proposal is the wrong way to identify and implement fair and efficient energy conservation programmes."
  Let us hear no more nonsense about that system being universally admired throughout the United States. It has been adopted by only three states that have competition in generation. It has been ignored by more than 40 states and is widely regarded by many people as a disaster and a further strengthening of a deeply over-regulated regime.
  5.30 pm
  Mr. Tony Blair rose——
  Mr. Parkinson: The hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) can make his speech in a couple of minutes. This is not the Old Bailey. The hon. Gentleman is not Rumpole and I am not in the dock. He will have an opportunity to make his speech in a moment.
  Mr. Alexander Eadie: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Lords amendment No. 3 is important. The arrogance of the Secretary of State in refusing to give way is almost unknown. The Secretary of State should be informed that he is a servant of the House, not the master of it.
  Mr. Parkinson: The hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie), not for the first time, is misinformed. I was asked, on behalf of the hon. Member for Sedgefield, to keep my speech short because he was feeling under the weather. He therefore wanted me to make a short speech, which is why I am not giving way. Perhaps the hon. Member for Midlothian should break the habit of a lifetime by thinking before he speaks.
  Mr. Blair: I am happy for the debate to continue. It is absurd for the Secretary of State to say that he will not give way in a debate on a Lords amendment. I ask him to give way on the point that he is making.
  Mr. Parkinson: I thought that I was helping the hon. Member for Sedgefield. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not forget that I shall be replying to the debate and shall therefore be able to answer his questions. I am happy to give way to the hon. Gentleman; I thought that I was being helpful.
  Mr. Blair: The Secretary of State said that the view in the United States is that least-cost planning does not work. Regulators in 29 different states apply least-cost planning, including California, which is the largest state. The only effect of Lords amendment No. 3 is to allow the regulator, if he wishes, to introduce such a concept. It does not oblige him to introduce such a concept; therefore, the regulator can act accordingly.
  Mr. Parkinson: Lords amendment No. 3 assumes a power that the regulator and I do not have. If the regulator decided to intervene in tariffs and stop capital development he would be exercising a power that does not exist in the Bill. Therefore, the amendment is fundamentally misconceived. The hon. Member for Sedgefield will recognise that Ministers only have the powers that Parliament gives them.
  I am saying not that least-cost planning does not have supporters but that it has many critics and is designed for vertically integrated monopolies, which we are determined to avoid. It is a by-product of the over-regulated and vertically integrated American system. Ironically, because the American system is so strong and based mainly on the rate of return, an incentive is built into it to create over-capacity. Least-cost planning was introduced to correct a distortion that was built into its over-regulated system. Our competitive system of generation and the Government's powerful amendments and new clauses offer a better opportunity of providing worthwhile energy conservation.
  Throughout our debates, security of supply has been taken for granted. Conservationists ignore the need to maintain security of supply. The Government do not deny that conservation has a role to play, but we believe that the Bill creates more powers for more people to promote energy efficiency than have existed hitherto. We are not prepared to put the security of the system at risk. Conservation must be balanced with the need to maintain security of supply, which is what the Bill aims to do. Evidence from America shows that one of the by-products of least-cost planning is an increase in the danger of blackouts. We believe that our policy offers a much more balanced and sensible approach.
  I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to reject Lords amendment No. 3 and accept the Government amendments, which recognise the vital importance of energy efficiency and provide the people who can do something about it with the specific powers to do so.
  Mr. Blair: I shall begin by setting out the matters on which, apart from the Government, we all agree. We agree that the greenhouse effect and global warming is a serious environmental problem—perhaps the most serious that we face. We agree that energy efficiency is the best method of combating it. The question is whether Lords amendment No. 3 or the Government's amendment is the most effective to promote energy efficiency.
  There can be no more stark contrast than between the two amendments. Lords amendment No. 3 would impose energy efficiency duties on suppliers and regulators. It
  558
  would give the regulator freedom to direct suppliers to do whatever is necessary to carry out their duties, and it backs that up with tough new penalties. By contrast, the Government's amendment does not even impose an obligation on the director general; it merely leaves it to his discretion. That power must be exercised from time to time, but no specific penalties are attached to the Government's amendment. The difference in the protection that the two amendments offer is the difference between wrought iron and writing paper. The argument that the Government's amendment is going half or quarter way to meeting the arguments advanced in the other place is absurd. It would surely require powerful arguments for rejecting Lords amendment No. 3 in favour of the weak Government amendment.
  The Secretary of State said that everyone concedes that Lords amendment No. 3 is technically unworkable. I do not concede that it is unworkable. It has been changed slightly, and I believe that it could work. If the Secretary of State's only objection to it is that it gives him a power to increase tariffs—the Secretary of State does not have such power under the Bill—it could simply be amended. The idea that the Lords amendment can be entirely ruled out on that basis is absurd. It probably has broader support than any amendment that has come from the other place in recent times. It has the support of almost all the environmental groups, such as the Council for the Protection of Rural England, Friends of the Earth and the World Wildlife Fund. It was supported by the House of Lords Select Committee on Energy, which moved it in the other place. The House of Commons Select Committee, in paragraph 5 of its short but valuable report on the Lords amendment, said:
  "There are a number of basic principles in the Lords Amendment which we believe that the Government should now ensure are inserted into the Electricity Bill. These are:

  (a) Public Electricity Suppliers must be under a statutory obligation to promote more efficient electricity use.

  (b) That statutory obligation must be reinforced by penalties to ensure that it is met.

  (c) The most effective penalty is for tariff increases to be refused, especially where such increases, caused by additional supply investment, could have been avoided by investment in energy efficiency."

  At that infamous No. 10 seminar on global wanning, energy efficiency was given as the most effective way to combat the greenhouse effect. If the test for the amendment were either public support or scientific support, it would be carried overwhelmingly.
  The Government's position has been characterised by a malign reluctance to have anything to do with the notion of energy conservation. When this was first raised months ago, the Government's response was to rubbish it. We were told that conservation was all about turning the lights off and that, in so far as it was relevant, it would be left to market forces, leavened with a little persuasion. The Government were then hoist with their own petard. Having made a big issue of the greenhouse effect, as concern about it grew and it became clear that energy efficiency was the best way to deal with it, and as the inadequacy of mere persuasion of the market forces became self-evident, the Government were forced more and more into having to concede something to salvage their credibility.
  In other words, this long tale of Committee stage, Report stage and passage through the other place with amendments from it is not a tale of a Government who are

  559
  desperate to carry out the common will and anxious to get first in the field with energy efficiency. They have had to be dragged, kicking and screaming into this position. Driven to it, disbelieving and reluctant, acting from expediency rather than commitment, they have come up with their amendment today.
  The Government's amendment imposes no obligation on the regulator—it simply gives him a power. He may use it if he wishes, but he need not if he does not. If the regulator were so minded, he need never use the power. The idea that this amendment matches the seriousness of the problem is absurd. The regulator can do much if he is so minded. He can determine standards of performance in connection with the promotion of the efficient use of electricity by consumers. In other words, he can intervene, but only to set standards by which suppliers must promote the efficient use of electricity by consumers. There is no direct power to make the suppliers do anything.
  Would the regulator, under the Government's amendment, be able to set targets for the reduction in energy demand? Would he be able to direct suppliers to use more energy efficient power generation? Would he even be able to order suppliers to provide incentives for customers to purchase more energy efficient equipment? If, as I believe, it is doubtful that he can do any of these things, then we do not have a brand new amendment and new clause designed to put energy conservation and energy efficiency on the energy map; we have simply a round-about way of saying that more and better information should be disseminated, with bigger and better leaflets and more of them. In other words, we shall not have the teeth that the Lords amendment assumes is necessary to promote energy conservation and efficiency. We shall simply have a publicity campaign that may be better than the publicity campaigns that we have had before, but still one that falls woefully short of what is required to do the job.
  Many Conservative Members have signed the early-day motion supporting the Lords amendment. They should be aware that the idea that the Government amendment embodies the spirit of the Lords amendment and is almost a redrafting of it—the same spirit but in different words—is fatuous. If we compare it with the Lords amendment, we see immediately that the latter carries an obligation. That is the first difference. It allows interference with tariff increases and hard and harsh penalties. That is the second difference. It allows interference with new capacity, which is the building of new power stations. The Secretary of State may say that least-cost planning does not work in the United States, but many think that it works extremely well. However, the question is whether we should allow the regulator, if he believes that it is right, to interfere with the planning of new capacity if energy conservation would yield better results.
  It cannot seriously be said that the Government do not mind taking powers where they are necessary. For example, clause 36 gives the Secretary of State wide powers to manage power stocks at power stations. Clause 38 obliges him to give consent to the new power stations. Clause 41 sets out standards of performance generally. The nuclear levy is the most direct interference with the market that could be imagined. Whatever other reason the
  560
  Government have for saying that the Lords amendment should not be accepted, it cannot be because they are opposed to intervention.
  5.45 pm
  The Chairman of the Select Committee said that he believed that we were hanging on by our fingertips in relation to the problems of global warming. If the problem is that serious, should we be afraid of taking powers such as those in the Lords amendment? If it is that serious, can those powers be said to be of a lower order of significance than fuel stocks or the need that the Government see to protect nuclear power, with which they agree although we may not? It is absurd to say that these things are of tremendous importance whereas global warming, which is acknowledged to be the most serious environmental problem that we face, is not.
  I do not know whether the director general quite understands the effect of the Government amendments. However, the record of British Gas is an appalling indictment of the power that the Government have given that company. The regulator has not made a single directive concerning British Gas over the years since privatisation. Only four people, although they are good people, work in the marketing division of British Gas, which has a turnover of £7·5 billion, but spends only £4 million on energy conservation.
  Mr. David Clelland: Is not privatisation of energy industries incompatible with energy conservation and efficiency, as we are now seeing with British Gas? The simple fact is that people will not be interested in investing in a private company that has a statutory duty to encourage its customers not to use the product that it is trying to sell. That is why the Secretary of State will not introduce such statutory duties and the amendment that he has tabled will not work.
  Mr. Blair: My hon. Friend is right. The Secretary of State seems to believe that the commercial impetus of a privatised electricity system will be to promote energy efficiency and conservation. That is a curious idea. I should have thought that the commercial impetus would be to sell as much electricity as it could. What has happened with British Gas over the past few years makes it difficult to sustain the notion that it sees such a policy as being to its commercial advantage.
  The issue of the environment and the central role of energy efficiency in its conservation will not disappear. People will ask why the Government are opposing the Lords amendment when there is so much support for it. The answer is simple. The Government's agenda is privatisation, but the agenda of the British people is the environment. Faced with a choice between the environment and privatisation, the Government have chosen to put privatisation first. There is no more important environmental test of this Parliament than the acceptance of the Lords amendment.
  Many of the Conservative Members who have put their names to the early-day motion support the concept of privatisation, whereas Opposition Members believe that the privatisation proposals are one great unedifying shambles. They have already caused higher prices and chaos within the industry, and the provisions on nuclear power have met with condemnation from every quarter. But even if one accepts the principle of privatisation, what possible rational argument can there be for adding to the

  561
  litany of failure to which the Bill has already given rise by refusing the most coherent and effective method of fighting our common single greatest environmental problem?
  I therefore call upon all Conservative Members who acknowledge the seriousness of the problem to support the Lords amendment in the Lobby. It is one thing to sign early-day motions, but they will not bring home to the Government the credibility and seriousness of the threat unless they are prepared to put their votes where their mouths are. The Government may win the vote tonight, but if they do it will be on the basis of arguments that have been universally discredited. They have been given the single most significant environmental test of this Parliament. They have sat that test and they have failed.
  Sir Ian Lloyd: I felt that it would probably be less than principled of me if I did not take part in this debate because of the strong position that the Committee of which I am Chairman has taken on the amendment and the views expressed in the report that we published to which the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) referred.
  Before I get down to the nuts and bolts of the argument, let me put one thing straight. The hon. Member for Sedgefield referred very generously to the simile that I had used about global warming—that we were clinging by our fingernails to the cliff. As I explained at the press conference, the simile, though a great one, was not mine. It was the fine British historian Arnold Toynbee who said that all civilisations cling to the cliff for one reason or another, and ours is clinging to the cliff because of the complex and dangerous technological fix in which we find ourselves.
  The Secretary of State said that the Select Committee had confirmed in its report that the amendment was defective. I must point out that, having accepted that, we said that the objectives that the amendment sought to achieve were most powerful and deserved careful consideration by the Secretary of State and his Department. I adhere to that view, although, broadly speaking, I welcome much that the Secretary of State has done during the passage of the Bill to reflect the Government's concern for energy efficiency and conservation. In the letter that the Secretary of State sent to us this morning, he spelt out several respects in which the Government have developed a very effective approach to the question.
  We endorse and accept, for example, the idea of having an independent regulator with a duty to promote the efficient use of energy. We also endorse and accept the fact that the Secretary of State will be required to promote the efficient use of energy. The Secretary of State said in his letter:
  "The licences for electricity distribution companies will require them to advise their customers on the efficient use of energy."
  But what happens if they neglect that advice? That is a question to which I shall return.
  The Secretary of State continues:
  "The Bill introduces competition in electricity generation".
  I share his faith that under the new structure competition will be rigorous and effective, but we do not yet know quite how effective it will be. In the context of the greenhouse effect, unless it is completely effective many other things will have to be done to secure the overall objective.
  The Secretary of State said in his letter that the Government have made special provision to encourage the development of renewable sources of energy. I welcome
  562
  that, but I would argue, as I did the other day, that the scope of renewables is limited. Even with almost zero interest capital investment on the largest scale, we can expect the contribution from that quarter to be comparatively small. I welcome what the Government have done about combined heat and power.
  Let us now consider the four specific arguments that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State advanced in his case for rejecting the amendment. The Secretary of State said in his letter that the amendment
  "gives a duty to both the Secretary of State and the Director General of Electricity Supply to promote energy efficiency but does not indicate what should happen in the event of disagreement between them, how they should consult, or what should be the basis of evidence necessary to satisfy their duties".
  Surely those are not insuperable problems. A formal quarterly report from the director general to my right hon. Friend would certainly cover the question of how they should consult and of what should be the basis of evidence. The degree of observance of standards could also be incorporated in such a report. Conspicuous failures could also be incorporated, as could applications for new and existing generators in areas where, in the director general's opinion, there is massive scope for increased efficiency in energy use or conservation. I am not terribly convinced by my right hon. Friend's first argument, therefore.
  My right hon. Friend then argues that the Bill
  "removes from the Secretary of State the power to fix prices or decide"—
  that is the key word—
  "on new capital investment … it would be quite wrong for electricity prices to be subject to political interference once the industry is in the private sector."
  I do not really believe that we are talking about a decision, though. As I understand it, under the new system, the decision to invest in new generating capacity will be made by existing major companies, by new companies moving in to the industry or by the area boards. The decision to invest will be theirs. What we ask—perhaps we are seeking to transfer American experience here—is that the Secretary of State should retain the power to examine and, if necessary, to reject that decision to invest. As far as I have been able to judge the American experience, the fact that that power has been retained by the public utility commissions has occasionally resulted in a restriction of investment, but it has certainly not resulted in the disappearance of investment in electricity generating capacity in the United States, so I am not altogether impressed by that argument either.
  My right hon. Friend then refers to the need to balance energy efficiency against the need for security of supply. That judgment is made repeatedly in arguments between public utility commissions—in the various states of the United States where the structure remains—and those seeking to invest. My right hon. Friend referred to the danger of brownouts, but I do not believe the United States has experienced persistent and threatening brownouts during the past two or three decades. That is not the record in the United States, and it would not necessarily happen here.
  Finally, my right hon. Friend argues:
  "the Amendment is illogical since it inhibits the construction of new capacity by the distribution companies".
  I found myself unable to understand what my right hon. Friend was driving at there; perhaps he will explain later.

  563
  I come now to what I believe to be the key statement underlining the Government's position—the statement made by my noble Friend Baroness Hooper in the other place:
  "It is in the consumer's own interest to use electricity efficiently."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 16 May 1989; Vol. 507, c. 1053.]
  Of course it is in the consumer's interest to use energy efficiently. Against that fact, however, we must consider the evidence given to the Committee in the other place, which I found extraordinarily impressive, that, whereas in 1976 the Commission decided that by 1985 we should have endeavoured to achieve a 20 per cent. improvement in energy efficiency, the perceptible improvement eight years later was a mere 3 per cent.
  We have now reached a stage at which the difference between the 3 per cent. that has been attained and is demonstrable and the 20 per cent. or more that the Commission thought desirable—the Toronto conference looked at that figure and even bigger figures—has become much more crucial in the light of our enlarged understanding of the fact that our civilisation relies on massive burning of hydrocarbon fuels and that that contributes to global warming and the greenhouse effect.
  We must now go further. However important and significant voluntary contributions may be, and however important market forces may be—I do not for one moment underestimate their importance; as I have said elsewhere, I regard them as a necessary condition of our salvation—we must go further than we have gone so far if we are even to begin to achieve the massive shifts in the patterns of energy consumption that we may be asked to undergo in the next five or 10 years.
  If such massive shifts are required, the whole ethos of energy conservation and efficiency will have to be looked at, in my humble judgment, in a much more fundamental sense. That is the priority that has dominated my thinking on the matter for some considerable time.
  6 pm
  I am sure that my right hon. Friend's amendment recognises the problem, as I know that he does from our many formal and informal discussions on the matter. However, I do not believe in my heart of hearts—if I did I would not be standing here—that it contributes significantly to the solution. If I use the word "significantly", that is where I would like the emphasis to lie. I believe it to be anodyne and exhortatory, but I do not believe it to be effective. When hon. Members suggest that this kind of measure produces very little in the way of significant results, I call to mind the experience of California, where we know that the California commission, as a result of measures taken some time ago, managed to achieve savings of $350 million in energy conservation and efficiency. That was the agreed measurement of the Utility Commission.
  Bearing in mind the roughly similar scale of the Californian and United Kingdom economies, can my right hon. Friend tell us that we can look forward in the next one, two or three years to energy efficiency savings of the order of $350 million? If we cannot so look forward, why can we not? If we can, why do we not adopt similar measures?
  564
  That summarises my position. I shall end with an analogy which this time is completely mine, but is none the less valid. It concerns global warning. We know that some time ago a small capsule known as Challenger exploded on its way into space because of the failure of an O ring. We know that our civilisation is on a somewhat larger capsule in space. We know that the O ring round it is the atmosphere and the ozone layer. When the Challenger exploded, the President of the United States set up an investigatory commission which produced a fine report saying why the O ring had failed and its consequences. If the O ring round this planet fails, there will be no presidential commission; there will be no follow up; there will be no civilisation.
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I congratulate the Chairman of the Select Committee on Energy for his two forthright and timely reports on the subject. They have given unequivocal guidance which the Government would be foolish not to accept. After all, that guidance was based not just on the opinion of the Committee, but on universal testimony from a wide variety of sources. It was testimony that I would regard as overwhelming and I find it depressing that the Government seek to dismiss it.
  I have a special interest in the clause. Like all hon. Members who recognise the importance, especially, of tackling the greenhouse effect, I believe that the clause is our last chance to convert the Bill from what is effectively a commercial interest measure to an environmental Bill. Although the Government have insisted all the way through that that is not what the Bill is about, they should accept even now that that is what the Bill should be about.
  The wording of the Lords amendment, which the Secretary of State criticised so fulsomely, does not fail the test that he suggests. I am a little biased because I had a substantial hand in drafting the amendment. It is based partly on an amendment that I moved in Committee, especially the enforcement element of the clause. For the Government to say that there is a technical deficiency in the amendment and, therefore, reject the whole concept is not very convincing, because the Government could modify the amendment to make it work if they wanted to and were prepared to put the political will behind it.
  I and my colleagues have tabled an amendment to the Government's own pathetically weak pusillanimous amendment, which seeks to ensure that enforcement is built into the requirement to promote energy efficiency. Pious declarations of good intent are not good enough. As the hon. Member for Havant (Sir I. Lloyd) said, we have had consistent statements from the Department of Energy, through the Energy Efficiency Office, about the objective of achieving 20 per cent. savings per year. That has been recommended for years, but we have not come anywhere near it. Clearly, publicising the benefits of energy efficiency and advertising the fact that it is in the commercial interest of consumers to take account of energy efficiency are not enough. We are dealing, after all, not just with economics, but with the environment of our planet and ecosystem.
  I admit, as have other hon. Members, that the amendment is based on American experience, but I do not accept the Secretary of State's rejection of that experience. I have had discussions with people involved in utilities on both sides of the fence in many states in America, and I do not believe that his statistical rebuttal stands up to examination.

  565
  I must stress that the amendment is essential to tackling effectively the greenhouse effect. Untrammelled industrial expansion, which is what we have been experiencing throughout the world in the past 20 years, is now bringing our planet to the boil. The Prime Minister's conversion to concern about the greenhouse effect, heralded in her Royal Society speech, is genuine, but I find it incredible that she does not seem able to grasp the fact that it requires a fundamentally different approach to policy.
  Independent assessment suggests that, within existing technology, we can achieve a reduction of more than 20 per cent. in carbon dioxide output by the year 2005 while still sustaining a 2·5 per cent. per annum growth. If that information, which comes from a variety of sources, is anything like true, how can any responsible Government fail to take action to ensure that we secure that benefit? If the Government are really pretending that this pathetic amendment, which is their alternative to the Lords amendment, will go anywhere near achieving that, they are treating us with contempt and as fools. I am not prepared to be treated as a fool by the Government or the Secretary of State.
  I do not believe that we will achieve anything like progress towards that essential reduction unless we have a much stronger measure. A Bill about the regulatory framework of the electricity industry is the most appropriate one to contain such a measure.
  We in the United Kingdom are major contributors to the greenhouse effect. We cannot hide behind the need to secure international action and use that as an excuse for not taking action on our own behalf—yet that, essentially, is what the Government are doing.
  As I understand it, in simple terms, carbon dioxide accounts for about 50 per cent. of the greenhouse effect and 80 per cent. of that carbon dioxide comes from burning fossil fuels. Here in the United Kingdom, with 1 per cent. of the world's population, we are contributing 3 per cent. of the carbon dioxide output. We must, therefore, take action to put our own house in order if we are to make any contribution to solving the global problem.
  The problem touched on by the Secretary of State is not confined to the United States industry, which has a tendency, as he put it, to go for overcapacity. I represent a constituency in Scotland and I have never been convinced that we need 105 per cent. extra capacity. If that is not excess capacity, I do not know what is. But even taking the United Kingdom position as a whole, the problem with the electricity industry, as it is presently constituted and as it will be constituted post-privatisation, is that its response to increasing electricity demand is to want to build more power stations, when its response should be to use the capacity that we have substantially more efficiently. That makes economic sense, but, more importantly, it makes environmental sense. The economic arguments have not delivered the goods. We need more action to ensure that we achieve more substantial results.
  Our commitment to energy conservation goes back a long way. I was involved in writing a pamphlet in the mid-1970s on the important role of conservation and what it can contribute. I find it depressing to look back over the period of that first oil crisis to see the way in which we were then approaching the issue of energy conservation, and to find out how little progress has been made 15 years on, when we now know that the environmental consequences are far greater than we realised then.
  566
  We have tabled amendments which are only fall-back amendments. I believe that the House should agree with the Lords amendment and reject the Government's proposed motion to disagree. The Lords amendment sets the framework which ensures that energy efficiency is not only something that we seek to promote or that we express as being desirable, but something by which we can put teeth behind the Director General of Electricity Supply to ensure that energy efficiency is achieved. So far, we have conspicuously failed in that.
  The benefits are not just environmental. The benefits of seeking greater efficiency in energy use are that it will help to alleviate fuel poverty and to improve the competitiveness of our industry. In a sense, we get three benefits in one—a benefit to the consumer, a benefit to industry and a benefit to the civilisation of the earth in ensuring the protection of the environment.
  When the Secretary of State replies to the debate, it would be helpful if he could say exactly how the Government will confront the crisis of the greenhouse effect if he does not believe that enforcement of energy conservation has a part to play.
  I draw attention to two passages in the report of the Select Committee on Energy, entitled "Energy Policy Implications of the Greenhouse Effect". Paragraph 102 states:
  "the most striking feature of our Enquiry has been the extent to which improvements in energy efficiency—across all sectors of the economy—are almost universally seen as the most obvious and most effective response to the problem of global warming".
  That is the Committee's view and it is the view of experts. What is the Government's view? Do the Government agree? If so, what will they do about it? If they do not agree, how do they justify their splendid isolation on that argument? We need to hear answers to those questions.
  In paragraph 146 the Committee states:
  "It would be inexcusable if pusillanimity and the inability of the governments of the world to plan long-term allowed irreversible and disastrous global warming to occur for want of the means or political will to take effective action to curb it."
  We and the Lords are proposing a way in which the Government could take effective action. The Government amendment is a way of taking no effective action and of ensuring that the problem will continue and get worse and that the civilisation to which we contribute will continue to be damaged. The Government must accept that their amendment is unacceptable and that it will have to be reversed. If this Government will not do that, a future Government must.
  The Secretary of State does not have the time that he thinks. Every scientific report suggests that the problem of global warming is becoming more and more urgent. Having just heard the Secretary of State's remarks, I advise him that it is a grave tragedy if he thinks that he and his party can continue to sit on the Government's green Benches and fail to grasp the nettle that the people of this country expect them to grasp. The sooner that he and his party are removed from office, the better. He has shown a total failure to recognise that representing commercial interests in this place is not what he is here for. As Secretary of State for Energy, he has a wider responsibility. His decision to move the motion to reverse the Lords amendment proves that he has failed in that responsibility. People will not forgive him for doing so.
  Mr. Peter Rost: Increasing concern about the threat of global warming is rapidly rising to the top of the world's political agenda. I have attempted to assess the merits of the Government's new clause in that context. I have listened carefully to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, but in my view his approach does not offer an adequate response to what may well be the greatest environmental challenge that has so far threatened mankind.
  All the best scientific advice tells us that it may be another five years or more before international research studies can guide world politicians about the causes and effects of global warming. So far, all that we are certain about is that global warming is happening and that it is measurable. What we do not know yet is how much of the global warming is caused by mankind's distortion of the natural balance of global ecological systems.
  We do not yet know the likely effect on sea levels, world climate, agriculture or anything else. We do not yet know how much global warming can be expected if we succeed internationally in stabilising carbon dioxide releases. We do not even know how much global warming is in the pipeline, resulting from increased CO2 and other gas emissions over recent decades. We do not know how long the lead time will be. We do not know how serious the threat may be if we succeed and begin to implement the Toronto conference proposal of a 20 per cent. world reduction in greenhouse gases by 2005.
  6.15 pm
  However, what we do know and what we ignore at our peril is the fact that there is global warming. We also know the overwhelming consensus of scientific advice to us here and now. Until we can predict with more precision what may need to be done to save life on earth, all the authoritative voices are saying that in the meantime, as an insurance policy—even if it is a third-party insurance policy, rather than a comprehensive insurance policy—we need vigorously to promote energy efficiency.
  Therefore, I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to study the report of the Select Committee on Energy. It is all there. I believe that it is the most important report that the Committee has produced to the House in its 10 years' existence. It is by no means the first report in which we have recommended a policy of energy efficiency, but it is the most important report. We have gathered the most wide-ranging expert evidence, including from those scientists and energy experts who participated in the No. 10 Downing street seminar. They all came to the same conclusion—that the priority now should be greater energy efficiency because that is the quickest, least costly and least painful option and the one with the most potential.
  Judged against that overriding priority, I am afraid that I must advise my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that the Government's proposal is inadequate. It does not have sanctions and it does not address itself to the priorities. I accept that the Lords amendment has technical flaws and that it might well discourage more efficient investment in power plants, such as combined heat and power even though such new investment would double thermal efficiency and thus make a greater contribution to reducing fuel consumption and pollution than would investing at the consumer end of energy efficiency.
  However, I also accept that much of what needs doing cannot be included in this Electricity Bill. The distribution
  568
  companies can do a great deal and my right hon. Friend's amendment will direct that beginning. However, until the Government provide much stronger market signals for consumers, it will not happen.
  What we need is an energy efficiency Bill to meet the real challenge of global warming just as we are promised a green Bill next year. We need an energy efficiency Bill to build on what my right hon. Friend has done. I welcome his announcement this week about stronger building regulations. Such a Bill would at long last deal with a system of energy labelling—the labelling of buildings and energy appliances—which, through incentives and the fiscal system, would send the right signals to consumers. It would be a programme of incentives with some regulation and with a fiscal carrot and stick.
  We know that the potential for energy efficiency could replace the equivalent of 12 new large power stations, so reversing the annual increase in global greenhouse gases, and perhaps meeting the Toronto target of a 20 per cent. reduction. We also know that that would be cost effective because it would have a short pay-back period. It would be less costly than meeting the increasing demand with new capacity.
  I understand the Government's reluctance to tie the electricity industry with unreasonable regulations. I accept that argument. On the other hand, the Bill provides tough regulations to promote competition so that we can put downward pressure on electricity prices. That will be done through a tough regulatory system. Should we not also accept equally tough regulations to promote greater energy efficiency in order to put downward pressure on global warming?
  If the existing consumer signals—the market forces—are enough to provide greater energy efficiency, why has that not happened, particularly in the public sector where the Government's responsibility lies? An energy bill carrying a cost of nearly £2 billion could achieve a saving of 20 per cent. of taxpayers' money with a pay-back period of two to three years. That has not happened.
  We need a wider, all-embracing range of measures, putting energy efficiency higher in the Government's overall priorities. We use the tax system to promote high priority objectives in other sectors of the economy. That is why we provide tax incentives to people to buy their homes. It is not suggested that people would not buy homes if we did not provide them with a tax incentive. But we still provide that encouragement. We use the tax system to provide money for grants for urban renewal, industrial training and regional aids. We use the tax system—the carrot and the stick—to promote lead-free petrol, and I congratulate the Government on having done that. We use the tax system in all sorts of ways to intervene in the market place to provide stronger signals to consumers to do certain things. The time has now come—indeed it is long overdue—for us to do the same with a major programme of energy efficiency incentives.
  I hope that my right hon. Friend will have the opportunity to stay on at the Department of Energy and that the Department will stay on for just long enough for him to put such a Bill on the statute book next year. Meanwhile, the Lords amendment has technical defects, so I cannot vote for it. But without a satisfactory Government alternative that meets the spirit of that amendment, I cannot go into the Lobby to vote it out of the Bill either.

  569
  I am not brave enough to predict how much time we have to tackle the probable threat of global warming. In due course, we shall know. I just hope that by then it will not be too late.
  Mr. Peter Hardy: I hope that the hon. Member for Erewash (Mr. Rost) will not come to regret that he had not the confidence to carry his argument to a more logical conclusion. However, I congratulate him on having argued the case for energy conservation for 10 years.
  Mr. Rost: Fifteen.
  Mr. Hardy: It has been 10 years since the Government took office and for 10 years he and I and a few other hon. Members have been arguing for energy conservation and energy efficiency and we have become increasingly frustrated that the Government have given priority to the service of greed and the exercise of frivolity.
  The Government's exercise of frivolity leads me to my next point, which is that my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) would have spoken today as an active member of the Select Committee with the hon. Members for Erewash and for Havant (Sir I. Lloyd), but he is chairing the Standing Committee on the Football Spectators Bill. He would have made a useful contribution to the debate because the Select Committee offered the House useful advice which I regret that the Government have not taken.
  The same applies to the House of Lords Select Committee. Unfortunately, the Government maintain the line that the noble Baroness Hooper, their confident and ebullient spokesman in the other place, adopted in selling the Bill in the other place on Second Reading. The House should pay attention to the words that the noble Baroness Hooper used. In an important presentation of the Government approach she said:
  "The Bill and public electricity supply licence also provide for the promotion of efficiency in electricity use. These are important provisions which wil be of particular interest to your Lordships. They impose a specific duty on the director and the Secretary of State, and public electricity suppliers will be required to provide guidance to their customers on the efficient use of electricity.
  The public electricity supply licences require each licensee to provide, within three months of his licence coming into force, information on the efficient use of electricity. Licensees will be required to revise this information as necessary; and also to send information on energy efficiency prepared by the director to every customer, if so asked."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 25 April 1989; Vol. 506, c. 1155.]
  The Government will do all those wonderful things so long as the customer knows that he has the right to ask for the information. We have the hon. Member for Havant who recognised the fragility of our planetary system, and the hon. Member for Erewash who has for 10 years or more served the cause of conservation, but we have a Government who are more interested in a Football Spectators Bill and in serving dogma than in contributing to the survival of the planet.
  A few moments ago the hon. Member for Erewash expressed anxiety about whether the Department of Energy would survive. The Secretary of State appeared to be complaining that the Opposition did not have an energy policy. But we would have a Department of Energy because we recognise that an energy policy is vital if we are to manage the affairs of our planet in the hope of creating the prospect of survival within the next few decades.
  570
  On Monday 17 July, the House debated the Antarctic Minerals Bill. During that debate I made the point that some of the Antarctic pack ice is scores of thousands of years old. In that ancient pack ice, pockets of air have been trapped since its formation. That air has been measured and the proportion of carbon dioxide in the air in that trapped air is half what it is at present in our planet. In the face of that change, a change which is almost certainly accelerating rapidly, the Government have an obligation to seek to contribute to survival. Therefore, it is a pity that we have seen an utterly counter-productive exercise.
  In the next few weeks, I understand that hundreds of cups and saucers bearing the mark of the CEGB, or E, representing the publicly-owned electricity company, will go out of use because the private sector cannot possibly allow publicly-owned and publicly-purchased cups and saucers to bear the brand of the publicly-owned industry. It will go out and buy more.
  The Minister knows, and the Select Committee recognised, that enough money was spent last year to employ 222 people and this year 749 people, not to contribute to the survival of the planet, but simply to promote the organisation of electricity privatisation. There has been clear evidence of fecklessness and frivolity. It is regrettable that the Secretary of State, rather than seeking a way to make the minor flaws in the amendment acceptable, should prefer to return to the present grossly unsatisfactory position.
  6.30 pm
  Mr. Michael Stern: As I am conscious of the need for brevity, I shall concentrate my remarks on two of the points made by the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair). He began—I believe that it is a frequent trick of members of his profession—by making a statement with which he said everyone would agree. I certainly do not agree. It was that energy efficiency is the best way to combat global warming. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman believes that, but it is rather like the White Queen asking Alice to believe six impossible things before breakfast.
  I remind the hon. Gentleman of my comments on Second Reading, when I said that in more than one third of the world the energy intake available to each person was less than one tenth of the energy intake available in the developed world. In those circumstances, I do not understand how anyone could suggest that energy efficiency is a solution to the problems of the world. A reduction in energy production would inevitably mean condemning one third of the world to continuing grinding poverty. Quite frankly, that would be an expression of inhumanity that I had thought that even the Labour party had abandoned. A policy of energy efficiency to solve the problem of global warming would be at such a cost to humanity that most of us would consider it unacceptable.
  The second point in the hon. Gentleman's speech which struck me with some horror was when he criticised the Government's amendment because it did not set targets for energy demand. I hate to have to tell the hon. Gentleman this, but it is not a function of the Bill to set targets for energy demand. Indeed, it is not a function of Government to set such targets. We have, thank goodness, moved beyond the days of rationing when a Government could say to ordinary people and to industry, "You may have so much and no more."

  571
  The hon. Gentleman might suggest that the amendment should set targets for energy demands, but not have the power to enforce those targets. I would not trust any Government with having that power and never using it. The hon. Gentleman's criticism of the Government's amendment is, therefore, a criticism of the Bill because it does not take us back down the road, which he clearly would prefer, of a controlled economy. The hon. Gentleman's complaint is that it is not a paving stone on the road to state control. As such, not only do I reject the Opposition's criticism but I earnestly commend the Government's amendment to the House.
  Mr. Alex Salmond: I wish briefly to support my two colleagues on the Select Committee who have already contributed to the debate. The Select Committee strongly supported the principles of the Lords amendment. We wanted an obligation placed on the electricity suppliers to promote energy efficiency, with penalties if that obligation was not met. The Select Committee identified tariff control as the most effective means of imposing penalties. In no way could it be said that the Government's amendment is strong enough to meet those requirements. The Select Committee accepted that the Lords amendment was technically deficient, but it asked that the Government's response to it should reflect
  "its intentions as fully as possible."
  The Government's amendment certainly does not do that.
  I wish to deal specifically with the Scottish position, and I hope that the Secretary of State will pay particular attention because most of his opening remarks were irrelevant to Scotland. Of course, in any electricity industry there must be a balance between security of supply and conservation. However, Scotland has a technical over-capacity of 100 per cent., a duopoly and an integrated structure. I do not think that there will be any competition in the privatised electricity industry in Scotland. Even the Secretary of State will admit that Scotland will have even less competition than England and Wales. In the circumstances of over-capacity and low or no competition, the privatised companies will have the strongest possible motivation for selling as much electricity as possible. Therefore, the regulator will have to have the strongest possible enforcement powers to ensure that the companies meet their energy efficiency obligations.
  The Secretary of State did not deal with the circumstances in Scotland and his silent partner, the Minister with responsibility for electricity in Scotland, is not even speaking in the debate. Who, then, could deny the Select Committee's original advice that the distinctive nature of Scotland's electricity system demanded distinctive regulation if the interests of the Scottish people were properly to be protected? Would the Secretary of State like to intervene on this point?
  Mr. Parkinson: No.
  Mr. Salmond: I wish that the right hon. Gentleman would intervene. He made no remarks relevant to Scotland in his opening speech, so I hope that he will do so when he replies.
  I wish to make a few remarks about the process followed by the Select Committee. There was a difference in emphasis on a number of factors relating to the
  572
  greenhouse effect, but eventually all members of the Committee agreed on two points. The first was that action had to be taken to deal with the problem of global warming, which we thought to be a serious environmental challenge. The second was that, from the evidence presented to the Select Committee, it was clear that energy efficiency provided the best, quickest and most substantial means of making an impact on the problem.
  The Lords amendment has had at least some success because it has persuaded the Government to think about the matter. I hope that the Select Committee's report on the greenhouse effect will make them think rather further than their glib initial response. Given the strength of evidence put before the Select Committee, and given the strength of opinion voiced in the Committee's two reports, we would be selling ourselves short if we accepted the Government's extremely modest amendment as being in any way adequate to deal with the problems.
  Mrs. Teresa Gorman: There is concern that our climate is being substantially altered by an increase in the volume of gases, particularly carbon dioxide, in the atmosphere. However, it should be remembered that at least 99 per cent. of climatic effects are caused not by changes in the atmosphere but by the earth's proximity to the sun and to the effect of sun spots. The contribution made by the atmosphere to climatic changes is relatively minor.
  It is also important to remember that the carbon cycle—the release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere—is not a one-way traffic. Carbon dioxide is reabsorbed by the soil and oceans, and particularly by plants. Plants usually photosynthesise—and I speak as a biologist—at less than 50 per cent. of their capacity, but the earth's capacity to balance the effects of carbon dioxide is rarely discussed.
  Whenever the greenhouse effect is debated, one often has to deal with a cascade of uncertain criteria. We should remember that when we start worrying people about melting ice caps submerging in water not only Southend but London and half of the British Isles. Although it is true that more fossil fuel is used today, the rate at which that use is increasing is dropping substantially. It is said by those who warn of a cataclysm that fossil fuel usage increases by about 4 per cent. annually, whereas the figure is now down to only about 2·75 per cent. There is awareness of the problem, and something is being done about it.
  When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is pressed to make important policy judgments, I urge him to bear in mind the lack of scientific evidence on the true effect of the release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. I am not arguing that man's activities have no effect, because they have. If a forest is turned into agricultural land, if a swamp is drained, or if more fossil fuel is burnt, heat and gases are released into the atmosphere. However, I reiterate that the effect is largely self-correcting.
  The heat effect is micro-related. Urban areas are heat islands, and their temperatures may vary one or two degrees from that of the surrounding countryside. Nevertheless, that extra heat is quickly dispersed and does not make a significant contribution overall. I urge my right hon. Friend to maintain a balanced view in deciding on future policies until such times that more scientific evidence emerges as to the true nature of the carbon dioxide problem and whether it is already being corrected through our awareness of the potential problem. Even so,

  573
  that problem is puny by comparison with the massive effect over the millennia of the earth's proximity to the sun and of the way in which the earth relates to the sun and moves around it.
  Mr. David Steel: Having listened to the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman), I am tempted to inquire of the Secretary of State what he intends doing about the proximity of the earth to the sun. I suspect that the Government have no more policy on that than they have on various other matters.
  The debate should confine itself to the serious issue raised by their Lordships. While I am quite prepared to bow to the superior scientific knowledge of the hon. Member for Billericay, I believe that most people in this country assent to the simple proposition that we should use no more energy than we need for our normal daily and commercial lives. If we agree on that simple proposition, we must accept also that we are nowhere near to achieving that desirable objective. The debate in the other place, and public reaction to it, demonstrated widespread anxiety that far higher priority should be given to environmental matters.
  The Select Committee chaired by the hon. Member for Havant (Sir I. Lloyd) produced a very cogent report, which received far more public attention than most Select Committee reports for the very reason that it struck an intelligent chord on the same theme. Now that the subject of energy efficiency is before us again tonight, we are obliged to ask ourselves what we can do, as mere legislators, to allay public anxiety and to make sure that in restructuring the electricity industry and the sale and distribution of its product we do not ignore the issues that have been raised. The feeble amendment that the Government invite the House to accept pays lip service to energy conservation but does nothing to promote it.
  6.45 pm
  The purpose of the Bill is to privatise the manufacture and sale of electricity. I do not claim to be an expert economist, but I understand that those engaged in that process are primarily interested in making a profit. That is the purpose of the Bill, which is one of a whole series of Government measures dedicated to the pursuit of making money. One way of making more money is to expand the market in which one is manufacturing and selling. The legislation has an inbuilt impetus to increase energy consumption, so we must ensure that effective control is written into the Bill.
  I agree with the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) that, thanks to the wrong forecasts made by the industry in the 1970s—the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) will also recall this—on Scotland's future electricity needs, we were sold a pup in having to accept the construction of the Torness power station. The figures were completely bogus. As a consequence, Scotland is littered with mothballed power stations of every conceivable variety. It is not just a question of the Bill encouraging companies to manufacture more electricity but, as was said by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan, in the case of Scotland, of selling what they are already capable of manufacturing in greater and greater quantities. If nothing is done, that is what will happen. Fortunately, their Lordships have given us a way of doing something by suggesting built-in controls.
  The Select Committee commented:
  574
  "Only part of this considerable potential for energy efficiency will be realised if present circumstances and Government policies in particular remain unchanged."
  The wording proposed by the Secretary of State means that Government policies will remain unchanged. The Committee's report added:
  "Market mechanisms alone will not produce an adequate response."
  I do not see the hon. Member for Havant in the vanguard of those wanting a state-controlled economy, as was suggested by the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern). Indeed, the hon. Member for Havant is well known in this House for being a market freebooter. Nevertheless, he chaired a Select Committee that undertook a serious investigation of the issues and produced a sensible report. It concluded:
  "A mixture of regulations, penalties and incentives is required to promote energy efficiency, and the Government should bring these forward."
  Suddenly a solution lands on the Government's plate in the form of the amendment from another place. The Government did not even have to invent an answer because one was generously and kindly produced for them by the combined might of the minds in the other place, yet they spurn that proposal.
  We must honestly admit that our country has not been very successful at, or interested in, energy conservation. Even if the hon. Member for Billericay is right—which I beg leave to doubt—about the minimal effect on the ozone layer of increased energy consumption, and although I am privileged to live in a part of the country that is relatively pollution-free, I noticed when I visited Northampton last weekend, which has beautiful countryside even if it cannot compare with the Scottish borders, that a brown haze of pollution was visible to the naked eye which came from the industrial towns in that part of the country. One does not need to be a scientist to know that that kind of pollution cannot be healthy.
  In earlier years, the Government did a great deal through home insulation grants to help energy conservation. In 1987, however, they were stopped for all but those on supplementary benefit. We are no longer providing people with incentives to ensure that private dwellings are as energy-efficient as they should be; nor do we make much effort in the public sector—we need not go far from this place to see that.
  I am a new tenant in the parliamentary annexe of the Norman Shaw North building. As my fellow tenants will know, in the dead of winter the place is boiling hot, and there is no control over the temperature. If anyone complains, a member of our efficient staff will come along and put lagging on the pipes, so that the excessive amount of heat that has been generated can in some way be suppressed and prevented from entering our rooms. If we cannot even get the temperature of this place right, what hope have we of sending a call for energy efficiency across the country?
  The Government's replacement for their Lordships' proposals simply gives the regulator a possible responsibility—no more than that—to set standards of energy efficiency. Our amendment seeks to rectify that, and we shall divide on it later this evening. As was mentioned earlier, we have a precedent in British Gas. All that British Gas has done, however, is to produce a rather badly printed leaflet—available in some gas showrooms—giving advice on how to promote energy efficiency. The electricity

  575
  industry is desperately in need of more than mere leaflets and advice: its need is much greater than that of the gas industry.
  The main failing of the Government's alternative proposal is that, in practice, it would have no teeth. If a supplier fails to comply with the provisions of the Lords amendment, on the other hand, the regulator has two real sanctions, over tariff increases and over permission to construct new plant. I think that those sanctions are essential in the public interest. I know that phrases such as "public interest" and "public service" have rather gone out of fashion in recent years, but I feel that in this context it is time that they became fashionable again.
  Mr. Malcolm Moss: As a signatory of the early-day motion to which I am delighted to see that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has responded in the amendment, I—along with others—have sought to express my concern about energy efficiency. We expressed that concern for three reasons: we recognised its contribution to mitigating the greenhouse effect, we saw that it kept a downward pressure on electricity prices and, of course, we knew that it prevented unnecessary generating plant from being built and used.
  Let us examine the history of the Central Electricity Generating Board, much beloved by Opposition Members—an example of an American vertically integrated monopoly utility. It built new capacity in the past without too much regard to the ultimate cost, and without any regard—as far as I can determine—to energy efficiency. Yet over the years we have heard nothing from Opposition Members about any of those deficiencies in the present system. To listen to them, one would think that the Government had done nothing.
  It is time to put the record straight. Britain's rate of improvement in energy efficiency is now twice that of any other EEC country. We were once the seventh largest energy consumer out of 10 countries, and we are now the fourth largest out of 12, although our gross national product has increased by 25 per cent. in the past 15 years. The carbon dioxide generated from each unit of electricity has been cut by 33 per cent. in the past 30 years. In the past 15 years, energy efficiency measures have saved the country 122 million tonnes of coal equivalent. There is no room for complacency, but that is certainly not the record of a Government who are showing a lack of interest or involvement.
  The Electricity Bill contains a large number of measures that seek to develop and promote energy efficiency, including the imposition of a duty of promotion on the director general and the Secretary of State, and licences issued to distribution companies will require them to promote energy efficiency. This could mean a whole new range of activities, as the privatised PLCs will be able to become involved in efficiency, manufacture and sale. The companies will want to keep customers' bills down, and will buy from the cheapest generators—those that employ the most energy-efficient measures in their plant. Competition will mean that new technologies—for example, combined-cycle gas—will come on to the market for the first time. At a meeting yesterday, the new chairman of British Gas told us that he was involved in 20 sets of discussions on that new technology, including
  576
  discussions with National Power and PowerGen. It is important to remember that gas produces 55 per cent. less carbon dioxide than coal.
  The Bill makes special provisions for renewable energy, which produces no carbon dioxide and no pollution. It has been given a market share of some 600 MW. Methane gas contributes 30 times more global heating than carbon dioxide: about 46 land-fill projects produce 41 MW.
  Much has been said today about the American model—vertically integrated monopolies whose price increases are strongly regulated. The problem is that we have moved away from vertical integration: we now have a privatised industry on the stocks, and have separated generation and supply. In America, because prices are built into a formula based on the return on assets, there is always pressure on the utility to build new plant and increase the asset base—hence the need to introduce the corrective regulatory system called least-cost planning.
  Least-cost planning, as set out in the Lords amendment, would drive a coach and horses through the negotiations in the free market between suppliers and generators. That is unworkable, as the proposers have admitted. The Government's amendment is much more sensible.
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan: We have all had to apply the principles of energy conservation to the length of our speeches. That is particularly difficult for politicians from my part of the world, but I shall do my best to limit my remarks so that we can complete the debate on the original timetable.
  That does not mean that this is not an important issue; it is among the most important issues of the current Parliament, and was recognised as such by the Prime Minister when she signed a declaration last Sunday, along with the other six leaders of the Group of Seven advanced industrialised nations. She said that from now on environmental matters would rank equally with economic matters, even at so-called economic summits of the Group of Seven. That illustrates the importance of putting the environment on the agenda: those, at any rate, were the Prime Minister's words.
  We do not want to pass any legislation that does not accord with the spirit of that declaration—which the Prime Minister signed in all sincerity, as did her fellow signatories. This is the first opportunity that hon. Members on both sides of the House have had to try to put it into effect, and we should all be conscious of that when we decide how to vote.
  As I intend to pass up the opportunity of commenting on hon. Members' speeches in the traditional way, I shall not deal with the rate of improvement in energy efficiency mentioned by the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Moss) or with the interesting idea of the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) about carbon replacement therapy for the globe. I shall, however, refer to the statesmanlike speech of the hon. Member for Havant (Sir I. Lloyd), the Chairman of the Select Committee. I hope as many of the uncommitted as possible will give it serious thought, and will recognise that if a statesmanlike, experienced Chairman of the Energy Select Committee can regard the issue as important enough for him to criticise the Government's attitude, it bears thinking about on the Back Benches. What the hon. Gentleman was really saying was that when we have all left this place our descendants will ask us, "What did you do

  577
  in the great war against energy, waste and inefficiency, Daddy?". The hon. Gentleman gave a strong signal that we should all follow.
  It is not just a matter of reading early-day motions. That is just the graffiti of the Houses of Parliament. What really counts is which Lobby we choose. When one compares the Government amendment, which is long on bumf and short on statute, with the Lords amendment, which tries to do something about a problem and which is generally recognised as capable of offering a major contribution to the solution of global warming, making better use of financial resources and entering into the spirit of the G7 summit declaration last Sunday, the way in which we should bend our thoughts is clear.
  7 pm
  Sometimes we reject Lords amendments because we feel that the Lords are talking for the landed interest, but in Lords amendment No. 3 they are talking for the whole country and for what people outside want. With the full authority of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, I offer an electoral pact to all Conservative Members who signed that early-day motion. If they join us in the Lobby tonight, we will write a letter to the Green party asking its members not to stand against them at the next election. I cannot do better than that. Do we want it said of us, when we consider energy efficiency and conservation, that we accepted the Government's pathetic attempt to replace the Lords amendment, when the Government's sole contribution to energy conservation is to cut down more forests to produce more junk mail, more leaflets, more bumf, more switch-off-something campaigns and more full-page advertisements?
  We should remember the Prime Minister's words to the Royal Society when she said that we only have a lease on this planet and we must hand it on to our children in at least as good a state as it was when we took it over. All Conservative Members who are thinking seriously about these issues and about their place in history and not about their relations with their Whips' Office will follow us into the Lobby tonight.
  Mr. Parkinson: With the leave of the House, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Moss) for pointing out that, although a number of hon. Members making speeches tonight gave the impression that they had suddently discovered energy efficiency for the first time, over a period of years, as a result of persistent campaigns, Britain has achieved a first-class record of improved performance in the use of energy. My hon. Friend quoted a mass of statistics which I shall not repeat, but they demonstrated that, although Opposition Members have discovered energy efficiency for the first time, British people have been saving energy consistently and well for a long time.
  America has been quoted to us as an example, presumably because of its amazing policies, as a country which we should aspire to emulate. Let me point out a few facts. In energy consumption per head, Americans use almost twice as much as we do; in electricity consumption per head they use considerably more than twice the amount we do; in energy consumption per unit of GDP they use nearly twice as much as we do and their emissions of carbon dioxide per head are almost twice as much as ours. The country which we are all being urged to emulate and which, presumably, is on to a lot of secrets to which
  578
  we have denied ourselves access performs about half as well by any criteria of energy efficiency one cares to name. We had a look at the state of Maine in which the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) has suddenly developed an enormous interest. It has had least-cost planning. so presumably we should see the benefit, but its consumption of electricity is growing faster than ours. I can say only that by their work shall ye know them, and the results of access to the amazing policies which have gripped the imagination of Opposition Members, and some members of the Select Committee, appear not to be showing good results and to be leaving America very near the bottom of any energy efficiency league table that one would care to mention, in stark contrast with Britain.
  The hon. Member for Sedgefield talked about 29 states in America. Even the arch-fanatic, Mr. Andrew Warren, has been able to identify only 10 out of 52 states., and admitted that only three of them are states with any remote competition built into their systems. The hon. Member for Sedgefield and the right hon. Member for Tweedale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Steel) mentioned the fact that the word "may" was used. That is a statutory drafting practice where one does not specify in the statute itself exactly the terms which the person has to follow. "May" will be "will". The director general takes this duty extremely seriously, but he has to consult in drawing up the code of practice and performance. He will do that, he will implement it and he will have sanctions.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Sir I. Lloyd) quoted with admiration California, pointed out that it has roughly similar energy consumption to ours, and said that it had saved $350 million a year. Our estimate so far is that our Energy Efficiency Office has helped to produce a saving of £500 million. He also quoted the fourth argument I used in my letter:
  "The Amendment is illogical since it inhibits the construction of new capacity by the distribution companies."
  He said that he did not understand what that meant. Perhaps had he read the second half of the sentence:
  "yet it is the generating companies who will be building the lion's share of the new capacity"
  it would have become clear to him that to impose a duty on the electricity suppliers—as the Lords amendment does—to inhibit their ability to build new capacity, when the new capacity will be built by the generators not covered by the Lords amendment, makes an enormous hole in the argument which he put forward.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Havant was kind enough to say that the Bill contained a considerable number of powers, but he forgot to mention the effect of the new clause and the new licence conditions, which were also ignored by the hon. Member for Sedgefield. The new licence conditions combined with the new clause will give the director general the power to set standards for promoting energy efficiency, and to enforce them; and of course he has available to him the sanctions that anyone in his position would have. If the licence conditions are ignored, he has economic sanctions, he can go to court and get an injunction and he can force the supply companies to honour the code which he sets for them. That is an important sanction. The idea that the public electricity suppliers will behave with ill faith and ignore their legal obligations and that the director general will have no power to do anything about them is quite wrong.
  Mr. Blair: The Secretary of State well knows that I asked what the standards would consist of. I asked him a

  579
  specific question and perhaps he will now answer it. Will the regulator be able to require public electricity suppliers to provide incentives for consumers to use energy more efficiently?
  Mr. Parkinson: The reason for the "may" is that the director general, after consultation, will draw up codes of practice which will set performance standards. After consultation, bearing in mind the duty that Parliament has placed on him, the prime duty to promote energy efficiency——
  Mr. Jimmy Dunnachie: Answer the question.
  Mr. Parkinson: I am answering the question, but the hon. Gentleman has not listened to any of the debate and would not recognise a correct answer if I gave one, as I am.
  The Bill contains a power and a duty and the revised licence condition defines how that duty will be carried out. The director general will set performance standards and enforce them and he can penalise companies that do not implement them.
  The new clause considerably strengthens the energy provisions in the Bill, and I hope that my hon. Friends will remember that, although we have had a wonderful day of bad-mouthing our country, we have a very good record of energy efficiency. Although Opposition Members have come late to it, we have been pursuing it in a very determined way for a long time, and the new clause will continue that good work effectively.
  Mr. James Wallace rose——
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Mr. Wallace.
  Mr. Frank Haynes: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) has not been present for the whole of the debate. May I put it to you that it is not fair that at this stage he should be called to make a speech? We have had a contribution from the Liberal Bench.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) is a Member of the House and I called him to speak.
  Mr. Wallace: What I have to say will probably not occupy much more than the time it took the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) to make that point of order.
  The Secretary of State said that his proposed new clause would strengthen the Bill. That is nonsense. It may represent a strengthening of the measure as it went to the other place, but it has returned from there as an adequate piece of legislation which will have teeth. Our amendment No. (iii) is designed to give teeth to the toothless proposal that the Government have made.
  Mr. Salmond rose——
  Mr. Wallace: I give way to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Stern: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. If the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) had been here to listen to the debate, he
  580
  would know that the comments that he is now making have been made at least five times. Does he really have to waste the time of the House?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I repeat, the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland is a Member of the House. When he rises, he is entitled to be called.
  Mr. Salmond: Did the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) notice that the Secretary of State's reply was as silent on the Scottish issues which he was specifically asked to address as the Minister of State, Scottish Office has been silent virtually throughout the debates on this legislation?
  Mr. Wallace: Although I may not have been present for the whole of the debate, I had the misfortune to hear the speech of the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern). I also heard the valid questions that the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) addressed to the Secretary of State but to which he did not get a reply. That is why we shall divide the House on our amendment No. (iii).
  Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:—
  The House divided: Ayes 310, Noes 216.

  Division No. 312]

  [7.09 pm

  AYES

  Adley, Robert

  Butterfill, John

  Alexander, Richard

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Allason, Rupert

  Carrington, Matthew

  Amess, David

  Carttiss, Michael

  Amos, Alan

  Cash, William

  Arbuthnot, James

  Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Chapman, Sydney

  Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

  Chope, Christopher

  Ashby, David

  Churchill, Mr

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Atkins, Robert

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Atkinson, David

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Colvin, Michael

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Conway, Derek

  Baldry, Tony

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Cope, Rt Hon John

  Batiste, Spencer

  Cormack, Patrick

  Bellingham, Henry

  Couchman, James

  Bendall, Vivian

  Cran, James

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Curry, David

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

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

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Body, Sir Richard

  Devlin, Tim

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Boswell, Tim

  Dover, Den

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Dunn, Bob

  Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

  Durant, Tony

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Bowis, John

  Eggar, Tim

  Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Evennett, David

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Brazier, Julian

  Fallon, Michael

  Bright, Graham

  Farr, Sir John

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Favell, Tony

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

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

  Fookes, Dame Janet

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Forman, Nigel

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Burns, Simon

  Forth, Eric

  Burt, Alistair

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  Butcher, John

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  581

  Franks, Cecil

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Freeman, Roger

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

  French, Douglas

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Galbraith, Sam

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Gardiner, George

  Malins, Humfrey

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Mans, Keith

  Gill, Christopher

  Maples, John

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Marland, Paul

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Marlow, Tony

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Gorst, John

  Mates, Michael

  Gow, Ian

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Gregory, Conal

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Miller, Sir Hal

  Ground, Patrick

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Hague, William

  Mitchell, Sir David

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Moore, Rt Hon John

  Hannam, John

  Morrison, Sir Charles

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

  Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Harris, David

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Mudd, David

  Hayes, Jerry

  Needham, Richard

  Hayward, Robert

  Nelson, Anthony

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Neubert, Michael

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Hill, James

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Hind, Kenneth

  Norris, Steve

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Holt, Richard

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Howard, Michael

  Page, Richard

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

  Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Patnick, Irvine

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Patten, John (Oxford W)

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Pawsey, James

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Irvine, Michael

  Portillo, Michael

  Irving, Charles

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Jack, Michael

  Price, Sir David

  Jackson, Robert

  Raffan, Keith

  Jessel, Toby

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Rathbone, Tim

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Redwood, John

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Renton, Tim

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Riddick, Graham

  Key, Robert

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Knapman, Roger

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Rowe, Andrew

  Knowles, Michael

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Ryder, Richard

  Lang, Ian

  Sainsbury, Hon Tim

  Latham, Michael

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Lightbown, David

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Lilley, Peter

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Lord, Michael

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Lyell, Sir Nicholas

  Speed, Keith

  McCrindle, Robert

  Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  582

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Steen, Anthony

  Walden, George

  Stern, Michael

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Stevens, Lewis

  Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Waller, Gary

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Walters, Sir Dennis

  Stokes, Sir John

  Ward, John

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Sumberg, David

  Warren, Kenneth

  Summerson, Hugo

  Watts, John

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Wells, Bowen

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Wheeler, John

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Whitney, Ray

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Wilkinson, John

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

  Wilshire, David

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Thorne, Neil

  Wolfson, Mark

  Thurnham, Peter

  Wood, Timothy

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Woodcock, Dr. Mike

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Yeo, Tim

  Tracey, Richard

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Trippier, David

  Trotter, Neville

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Mr. Tom Sackville and Mr. David Maclean.

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Viggers, Peter

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Cousins, Jim

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Cox, Tom

  Allen, Graham

  Crowther, Stan

  Alton, David

  Cryer, Bob

  Anderson, Donald

  Cummings, John

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Cunningham, Dr John

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Dalyell, Tam

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Darling, Alistair

  Ashton, Joe

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

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

  Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

  Dewar, Donald

  Barron, Kevin

  Dixon, Don

  Beckett, Margaret

  Dobson, Frank

  Beith, A. J.

  Doran, Frank

  Bell, Stuart

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

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

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Eadie, Alexander

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Fatchett, Derek

  Blair, Tony

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Blunkett, David

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

  Boateng, Paul

  Fisher, Mark

  Boyes, Roland

  Flannery, Martin

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Flynn, Paul

  Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Foster, Derek

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Fraser, John

  Buckley, George J.

  Fyfe, Maria

  Caborn, Richard

  Galbraith, Sam

  Callaghan, Jim

  Galloway, George

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Garrett, John (Norwich South)

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  George, Bruce

  Canavan, Dennis

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Cartwright, John

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Gould, Bryan

  Clelland, David

  Graham, Thomas

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Cohen, Harry

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Coleman, Donald

  Grocott, Bruce

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Hardy, Peter

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Corbett, Robin

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  583

  Heffer, Eric S.

  McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

  Hinchliffe, David

  McKelvey, William

  Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

  Maclennan, Robert

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Home Robertson, John

  McWilliam, John

  Hood, Jimmy

  Madden, Max

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

  Marek, Dr John

  Howells, Geraint

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Hoyle, Doug

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Martlew, Eric

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Maxton, John

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Meacher, Michael

  Illsley, Eric

  Meale, Alan

  Ingram, Adam

  Michael, Alun

  Janner, Greville

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Kennedy, Charles

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

  Morley, Elliot

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Lambie, David

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Lamond, James

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Lewis, Terry

  Mullin, Chris

  Litherland, Robert

  Nellist, Dave

  Livingstone, Ken

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Livsey, Richard

  O'Brien, William

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  McAllion, John

  Parry, Robert

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Patchett, Terry

  Macdonald, Calum A.

  Pendry, Tom

  `( 1) The Director may, after consultation with public electricity suppliers and with persons or bodies appearing to him to be representative of persons likely to be affected, from time to time—

  (a) determine such standards of performance in connection with the promotion of the efficient use of electricity by consumers as, in his opinion, ought to be achieved by such suppliers; and

  (b) arrange for the publication, in such form and in such manner as he considers appropriate, of the standards so determined.

  (2) Different standards may be determined under this section for different public electricity suppliers.'
  Read a Second time.
  Amendment (iii) proposed to the amendment proposed in lieu of the Lords amendment disagreed to, in line 11, at end insert
  'and
  (c) shall set a date by which these standards must be achieved and shall apply such sanctions as appears necessary should these standards not be met.'.—[Mr. Wallace.]
  Question put, That the proposed amendment be made to the amendment proposed in lieu:—
  The House divided: Ayes 135, Noes 298.

  Division No. 313]

  [7.26 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Allen, Graham

  Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

  Alton, David

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Anderson, Donald

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Caborn, Richard

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Callaghan, Jim

  Ashton, Joe

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  Barron, Kevin

  Cartwright, John

  Beckett, Margaret

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Beith, A. J.

  Clelland, David

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Blair, Tony

  Cohen, Harry

  Blunkett, David

  Coleman, Donald

  Boateng, Paul

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Boyes, Roland

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  584

  Pike, Peter L.

  Spearing, Nigel

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Prescott, John

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Stott, Roger

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Straw, Jack

  Radice, Giles

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Randall, Stuart

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Redmond, Martin

  Turner, Dennis

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

  Vaz, Keith

  Richardson, Jo

  Wall, Pat

  Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

  Wallace, James

  Robertson, George

  Walley, Joan

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Warden, Gareth (Gower)

  Rogers, Allan

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Rooker, Jeff

  Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  Salmond, Alex

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Wilson, Brian

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Winnick, David

  Short, Clare

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Skinner, Dennis

  Worthington, Tony

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Wray, Jimmy

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

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

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

  Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Snape, Peter

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths and Mr. Frank Haynes.

  Soley, Clive

  Corbett, Robin

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Illsley, Eric

  Cousins, Jim

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Cryer, Bob

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Cummings, John

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Kennedy, Charles

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Lamond, James

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

  Livingstone, Ken

  Dewar, Donald

  Livsey, Richard

  Dixon, Don

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Dobson, Frank

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Doran, Frank

  Macdonald, Calum A.

  Eadie, Alexander

  Maclennan, Robert

  Fatchett, Derek

  McNamara, Kevin

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  McWilliam, John

  Fisher, Mark

  Madden, Max

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Foster, Derek

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  George, Bruce

  Maxton, John

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Meale, Alan

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Michael, Alun

  Gordon, Mildred

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Hardy, Peter

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Morley, Elliot

  Haynes, Frank

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Mullin, Chris

  Home Robertson, John

  Nellist, Dave

  Hood, Jimmy

  Patchett, Terry

  Howells, Geraint

  Pike, Peter L.

  Hoyle, Doug

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Randall, Stuart

  585

  Richardson, Jo

  Straw, Jack

  Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Robertson, George

  Vaz, Keith

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Wall, Pat

  Rogers, Allan

  Walley, Joan

  Rowlands, Ted

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Salmond, Alex

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Skinner, Dennis

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Winnick, David

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

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

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

  Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Soley, Clive

  Mr. Archy Kirkwood and Mr. James Wallace.

  Spearing, Nigel

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Cran, James

  Alexander, Richard

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Curry, David

  Allason, Rupert

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

  Amess, David

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Amos, Alan

  Day, Stephen

  Arbuthnot, James

  Devlin, Tim

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Ashby, David

  Dover, Den

  Atkinson, David

  Dunn, Bob

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Eggar, Tim

  Baldry, Tony

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Evennett, David

  Batiste, Spencer

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Bellingham, Henry

  Fallon, Michael

  Bendall, Vivian

  Farr, Sir John

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Favell, Tony

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Fookes, Dame Janet

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Forman, Nigel

  Boswell, Tim

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Forth, Eric

  Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Bowis, John

  Franks, Cecil

  Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

  Freeman, Roger

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  French, Douglas

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Gale, Roger

  Brazier, Julian

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Bright, Graham

  Gill, Christopher

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

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Burns, Simon

  Gorst, John

  Burt, Alistair

  Gow, Ian

  Butcher, John

  Green way, Harry (Ealing N)

  Butterfill, John

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Gregory, Conal

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Griffiths. Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

  Carrington, Matthew

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Carttiss, Michael

  Ground, Patrick

  Cash, William

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

  Hague, William

  Chapman, Sydney

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Chope, Christopher

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Churchill, Mr

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Hannam, John

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

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

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Colvin, Michael

  Harris, David

  Conway, Derek

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Hayes, Jerry

  Cope, Rt Hon John

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Cormack, Patrick

  Hayward, Robert

  Couchman, James

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  586

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Norris, Steve

  Hill, James

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Hind, Kenneth

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Page, Richard

  Holt, Richard

  Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

  Howard, Michael

  Patnick, Irvine

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

  Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Patten, John (Oxford W)

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Pawsey, James

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Portillo, Michael

  Hunter, Andrew

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Irvine, Michael

  Price, Sir David

  Irving, Charles

  Raffan, Keith

  Jack, Michael

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Jackson, Robert

  Rathbone, Tim

  Jessel, Toby

  Redwood, John

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Renton, Tim

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Riddick, Graham

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Key, Robert

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Rowe, Andrew

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  Knapman, Roger

  Ryder, Richard

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Knowles, Michael

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Lang, Ian

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Latham, Michael

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Lightbown, David

  Speed, Keith

  Lilley, Peter

  Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Lord, Michael

  Squire, Robin

  Lyell, Sir Nicholas

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Macfarlane, Sir Neil

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Steen, Anthony

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Stern, Michael

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

  Stevens, Lewis

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Malins, Humfrey

  Stokes, Sir John

  Mans, Keith

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Maples, John

  Sumberg, David

  Marland, Paul

  Summerson, Hugo

  Marlow, Tony

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Mates, Michael

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Thorne, Neil

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Thurnham, Peter

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Tracey, Richard

  Mitchell, Sir David

  Trippier, David

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Trotter, Neville

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Moore, Rt Hon John

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Morrison, Sir Charles

  Viggers, Peter

  Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Moss, Malcolm

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Walden, George

  Mudd, David

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Needham, Richard

  Waller, Gary

  Neubert, Michael

  Walters, Sir Dennis

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Ward, John

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  587

  Warren, Kenneth

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Watts, John

  Wolfson, Mark

  Wells, Bowen

  Wood, Timothy

  Wheeler, John

  Woodcock, Dr. Mike

  Whitney, Ray

  Yeo, Tim

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Wilkinson, John

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Wilshire, David

  Mr. Tony Durant and Mr. David Maclean.

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Amendment proposed to the Bill in lieu of Lords amendment No. 3 disagreed to, amendment (a), to insert new clause—Promotion of efficient use of electricity—
  Amendment accordingly negatived.
  Amendment proposed in lieu of the Lords amendment agreed to.
  Amendments made to the Bill in lieu of Lords amendment No. 3 disagreed to: (b), in page 32, line 4, leave out 'and'.
  (c), in page 32, line 6, at end insert
  `and
  (c) the levels of performance achieved by such suppliers in connection with the promotion of the efficient use of electricity by consumers.'.
  (d), in page 32, line 14, after '39', insert
  `or (Promotion of efficient use of electricity)'.
  (e), in page 32, line 15, leave out `overall'.—[Mr. Michael Spicer.]

  Electricity Bill
    Clause 2

      CONSUMERS' COMMITTEES
      Lords amendment: No. 2, in page 2, line 22, leave out subsection (4).
      Mr. Wallace: I beg to move, as an amendment to the Lords amendment, amendment (a) in line 1, at end add
      `and insert
      (4) In appointing a person to be a member of a consumers committee the Director shall have regard to the desirability of appointing a person who has knowledge of the geographical make up of the area.'.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 100 and 62 to 64.
      Lords amendment No. 65, after clause 50, insert the following new clause—National Consumers' Consultative Committee—
      ".—(1) There shall be a committee, to be known as the National Consumers' Consultative Committee, of which the Director shall be chairman and the ordinary members shall be the persons who for the time being hold office as chairmen of consumers' committees.
      (2) The Committee shall meet at least four times a year and shall be under a duty—

      (a) to keep under review matters affecting the interests of consumers of electricity generally; and

      (b) to facilitate the exchange of information relating to such matters between the Director, the ordinary members and their respective consumers' committees."

      Amendment (a) to the proposed Lords amendment, at end add—
      `and
      (c) to make a report available to the public at least once a year on matters affecting the interests of consumers generally.'.
      Mr. Wallace: The Under-Secretary of State may recall that we had a similar debate on Report on an amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) to provide for a geographical link between membership of a consumers' committee and the area in which the committee served. I do not deny that I make this point very much from a Highlands and Islands viewpoint, but I am sure that it has similar consequences in other
      588
      parts of the country. Issues will arise in a particular geographical area that can best be reflected by people with a knowledge of that area.
      The cost of connecting new consumers to the electricity supply has caused considerable controversy in the north of Scotland. The Bill states that the cost of supply will be reasonable in the circumstances. I should welcome the Minister's assurance that the circumstances refer to the consumer as well as to the supplier.
      People would certainly not be satisfied if large sums were charged, but it would be more satisfactory if their views were represented on the consumers' committee by people from their area rather than by people from other areas. It is theoretically possible under the Bill for a person from Carlisle who has never set foot in the Highlands and Islands and has no concept of the problems of consumers to represent that area on the committee.
      I do not intend to elaborate the point. It is straightforward and very much in the consumers' interest. I cannot see how it compromises what the Government are trying to do in privatising electricity. However, it would mean that the interests of consumers were more likely to be represented by those who knew what those interests were.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: It may be helpful for me to add an equally short point from a different geographical perspective. A matter that concerns me, and is a regular concern of hon. Members who represent inner cities, is the way in which our fuel industries and the cost of them affect those on the lowest incomes. A quarter of my constituents are pensioners, and the problem of fuel poverty is illustrated most graphically by a simple comparative statistic. In general terms, for people in the middle classes and middle income brackets, fuel bills are on average 5 per cent. or less of their domestic outgoings. For those in the lowest socio-economic groups and those in the bottom 20 per cent. of income groups, the fuel bill is sometimes as high as one quarter of the regular household budget. The Minister will know that the figure is sometimes one fifth, but often rises up to one quarter.
      The group made up of pensioners and the poorest in our society needs to be well represented round the table at which consumers' needs and the implementation of supply systems and programmes that affect consumers' needs and the cost of supply will be determined. I must say to the Minister with some strength that I am aware that his Department has regularly monitored the way in which the cost of fuel bites on those who are least able to afford it simply because they have the lowest household income for everything, including fuel. I am aware that the Department knows and agrees that the statistics are often as I have specified and that fuel can use up a substantial part of those household budgets.
      In those circumstances, will the Minister give me and those of us who represent areas where there are many on low incomes and many pensioners, including those living alone, some reassurance that the voice of those people will be well and truly represented on the consumers' committees?
      Mr. Thomas McAvoy: The Opposition welcome the Government's decision to accept the Lords amendment and I want to spend a couple of minutes outlining the reasons for that. In Committee, we took the view strongly that information is power and that it is essential that there is as wide a spread of information

      589
      as possible to ensure that the system brought forward by the Government for monitoring the electricity industry is accountable not only to local people, but, more widely, to allow full accountability and scrutiny.
      The Government originally outlined a regional set-up which meant that there was no link-up for information to be shared throughout the country and for knowledge to be used to put pressure on the system for the benefit of the consumer. The intention behind the amendments and the reason for our support for them is to ensure that matters that affect the interests of electricity consumers generally, including the important issue of prices, are kept under review at a national level in a formal structure. That would ensure a forum for discussion and the exchange of information relating to national policy for electricity consumers. In Committee, we maintained strongly that the Government's proposals were not enough and that there should be some improvements. We welcome the proposals in the amendments which will ensure that there is a national forum to scrutinise what is happening in the electricity industry.
      I always shudder when I quote an hon. Member from a Committee Hansard because I think that in future another hon. Member may do the same to me. However, I will take that risk, so here goes. I will quote from a series of debates in which we were putting forward the point that the Government's proposals were not enough. I take some delight at this stage in quoting some of the Minister's comments. He said:
      "The hon. Member for Gordon claimed that our proposals would not allow for comparison or variation of performance between different areas and regions."
      That is, of course, the purpose of the amendment. He continued:
      "That is highly unlikely for two reasons. Clause 46(2)(d) provides a statutory duty under which the director general must publish in his annual report 'a general survey of the activities during that year of the consumers' committees'. That applies to all consumers' committees throughout the country. On that basis, people will have the means by which they can compare the advice and activities of the different consumers' committees. That is clearly stated as an obligation in the Bill."
      The Minister was saying then that the status quo was fine, yet he is now prepared to accept an amendment that puts forward a principle that he rejected in Committee.
      7.45 pm
      He also said:
      "It is right that the Bill allows for independent reports to be made more often than annually and on a regional basis. It is also proper that the reporting structure should be encompassed within the new regulatory regime of which the committees will he part. That is the radical new step which I think that hon. Gentlemen will understand if they reflect on it later outside the rhetoric of party confrontation. If they do not, they should have a word with the area councils in their constituencies. The councils are over the moon about the new teeth that we are giving to consumer representatives—[Interruption.] I am not exaggerating."
      His rhetoric was part of party confrontation and he automatically rejected the Labour amendment. That rhetoric has now been shown to be misplaced and he has accepted the principle that he was attacking then. However, his rhetoric carried him away in Committee. About major improvements for consumers he said:
      "We have given them teeth and made them part of the regulatory body. On that basis, we unashamedly ask Opposition Members to withdraw their amendment. If they do not, we shall triumphantly vote against it."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 16 February 1989; c. 1033–34.]
      590
      We welcome unashamedly the conversion of the Government to our point of view and triumphantly we will not vote against the proposal.
      Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I want to speak briefly to amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 2 which relates to the annual report. It is a matter that we debated fully in Committee, but as the amendment has been selected, it is an appropriate point at which to say to the Minister that the arguments we put in Committee, which the Labour party supported, about the desirability of having an annual report lead me to say that such a provision should be in the Bill. I hope that the Minister will tell us, if he is not prepared to accept the amendment, what assurances he can give.
      The hon. Members for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) and for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) said in Committee that over the years much useful information had been contained within the annual reports from consumer bodies. Without an annual report, it is felt that one cannot monitor from year to year how effectively consumer interests are being protected. The objectives may not be set out and the success in meeting objectives may not be recorded from year to year. It remains my view and, I suspect, the view of Labour Members that annual reports are desirable. It is a matter of regret that the Bill does not require them.
      I would be delighted if the Minister were to accept the amendment. If he does not, I hope that he will tell us what measures he is likely to take to ensure that, in general, annual reports will be the norm rather than the exception.
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Michael Spicer): I begin by speaking to the Lords amendments, which I ask the House to accept. They deal with a variety of aspects of the new regional consumer committees which will be set up under clause 2 and which will be a key component of the radically new consumer protection arrangements in the Bill. They will be the director general's eyes and ears. For the first time a set of statutory powers and duties will equip the committees with a formidable set of teeth to deal with consumers' concerns. The Government's basic proposals have been widely welcomed by existing consumer bodies.
      The amendments address aspects of the committees' make-up and functions in ways which the Government believe will materially improve their effectiveness. There has not been a fundamental change in the Government's policy, as the hon. Member for Glasgow, Rutherglen (Mr. McAvoy) implied. These are strengthening amendments. We have listened to what was said in Committee, in the House and in the other place and we have introduced improving amendments which do not go against the concepts that we advanced earlier.
      Amendment No. 2 removes the criterion which the director general was required to take into account when appointing members of the consumers' committee. That will increase his flexibility when making appointments to the committee and will help to ensure that the best people are appointed, from whatever background. In answer to the hon. Members for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) and for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), may I say that we are not specifying particular groups, whether on a regional basis or on the basis that they represent poor people or pensioners. They made a good point. It is right that the director general should consider such groups, but

      591
      appointments will be at his discretion. That is right. Above all, he should look for ability. As the committees will be structured regionally, they will have a regional dimension.
      In answer to the hon. Member for Rutherglen, may I say that I have never said that meetings of such groups were a bad thing. The Government have never suggested that. We are against reinstituting a completely independent national body such as the electricity consumers council. It is proposed in amendments Nos. 62, 63 and 65 that there should be a national consumers' consultative committee chaired by the director general and composed of the chairmen of the regional consumers' committees. The director general will include in his annual report a general survey of NCCC activities. That, incidentally, partly answers the question about annual reporting raised by the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce).
      The committee will meet at least four times a year. It will keep under review matters affecting the interests of consumers of electricity and facilitate the exchange of information between the director general and the consumers' committees. It will be a good forum for the chairmen of the committees to compare notes and for the director general to compare the standards of the committees. We welcome that and I propose that we accept the Lords amendments. The effect will not be the same as setting up a completely independent and different consumers' body, like the present one.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: I sat on the Committee of the Bill to create London Regional Transport in which we had a similar debate about consumers' interests. At the end of the day some concessions were made to include a representative, for example, of the disabled, and undertakings were given that certain matters would be for the director general to consider. Will the Minister go further and say that people representing groups suffering from fuel poverty, whether on a geographic or demographic basis, will be specifically represented?
      Mr. Spicer: The director general designate will look carefully at what the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members say about the interests that should be represented on the committee. I am sure that he will take these exchanges seriously when assessing who should be represented. That is different from a statutory requirement to include certain groups. The problem with designating specific interest groups, whether regional, poor people or others, is that one can think of many types of groups. It is completely open-ended. We want an effective group to represent consumers and that can best be done by the director general appointing the members in conjunction with the chairmen.
      Mr. Hughes: Will the Minister make it clear that it is his view that the issue of fuel poverty must be properly addressed by the representatives chosen by the director general? That is important because it affects the most vulnerable group of consumers. If the Minister can say that, it will confirm the importance of this exchange.
      Mr. Spicer: I do not want to say anything from the Dispatch Box which gives the impression that the Government are leaning on the director general. Personally, I believe that it is a good idea to accommodate the interests of poor people within the new structure. That
      592
      is why we have taken so much trouble to introduce licensing conditions on prepayment metering systems and why so much effort has been devoted to the licences. Clearly the interests of poor people will be borne in mind by the director general and in the licensing conditions for prepayment meters. The statutory position is clear. This is a discretionary, not a statutory, power. I am sure that the director will listen carefully to these and other exchanges.
      The hon. Member for Gordon wants an annual reporting system. Amendment No. 63 already places a duty on the Director General of Electricity Supply, who will chair the NCCC, to include in his annual report a general survey of its activities during the year. That is in addition to his existing duty to include a general survey of the activities during the year of the regional consumers' committees in his annual report, which will be published. We fully understand the purpose of amendment No. 65(a), but its spirit is accommodated within our amendments and in the Bill.
      Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I hear what the Minister says, but he will recall the debate that we had in Committee, when we said that it was not entirely satisfactory that the director was effectively determining what he put in his report rather than putting in what the consumer committee wanted to be said. Will the Minister at least give an assurance that he will monitor the situation if there is any evidence that the consumers' committees are dissatisfied, and that the Government will review the matter if the feeling is that the consumer interest will not be adequately reported?
      Mr. Spicer: I can speak with authority only to what is in the Bill. I can say authoritatively that we have taken on board many of the arguments made to us in Committee, and that there will be an annual publishing requirement on the various committees and the National Consumers' Consultative Committee as well. The hon. Gentleman has made this good point fairly, but it has been accommodated within the Bill. It would be worthless for me to go further because we are speaking to a future Act of Parliament, and, however many protestations or exhortations I make, that is what will determine what happens. The Bill meets the hon. Gentleman's objection, and I hope that on that basis he will not press his amendment to a vote. However, I urge the House to agree to the Lords amendments.
      Question, That the amendment to the Lords amendment be made, put and negatived.
      Lords amendment No. 2 agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 100 and 62 to 65 agreed to.

    Clause 3

      GENERAL DUTIES OF SECRETARY OF STATE AND DIRECTOR
      Lords amendment: No. 6, in page 3, line 24, at end insert—
      "(bb) to promote research into, and the development and use of, new techniques by or on behalf of persons authorised by a licence to generate, transmit or supply electricity;"
      8 pm
      Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment. [Mr. Michael Spicer.]
      Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendment No. 90, to insert the following new clause——

      PROMOTION OF NEW TECHNIQUES IN NATIONAL INTEREST
      ".—(1) The Secretary of State shall exercise the power conferred on him by section 5 of the Science and Technology Act 1965 (expenditure on research and development in science or technology) for the purpose of promoting such research into, and such development of, new techniques relating to the generation, transmission or supply of electricity as appears to him to be necessary in the national interest.
      (2)The Secretary of State may, if he considers it expedient for purposes connected with the performance of his duty under this section, serve notice under this subsection on any licence holder or any person who is authorised by an exemption to generate or supply electricity.
      (3)A notice under subsection (2) above may require the person on whom it is served to furnish, at a time and place specified in the notice, to the Secretary of State such information about that person's business as may be so specified.
      (4)Subsections (3), (5) and (7) to (9) of section 94 above shall apply for the purposes of this section as they apply for the purposes of that section."
      Amendment (a), in line 15, leave out `(3)'.
      Mr. Malcolm Bruce: As the Minister will realise, the purpose of the amendment is to delete subsection (3) of Lords amendment No. 90. It is an attempt to get some clarification from the Minister about what the other place had in mind when it required the person on whom the notice is served
      "to furnish, at a time and place specified in the notice, to the Secretary of State such information about that person's business as may be so specified."
      The Minister will understand that, to somebody with my background, that is a rather sweeping statement, which gives ill-defined powers to require information, for no clear purpose. To put it in a more populist expression, the purpose of my probing amendment is to assert the importance of freedom of information.
      What information will be sought? Should it not be more clearly defined? What assurances do we have that the notices will not lead to the seeking of information that is not necessary or relevant? There could be an unwarranted interference because the person in question may not wish to disclose the information and may not feel it necessary or relevant. There could be an unwarranted interference because the person in question may not wish to disclose the information and may not feel it necessary to disclose it, but he might be penalised if he does not. This is an attempt to clarify the position. If the Government accept all of the new clause, what does subsection (3) mean? Would not the clause be better without it?
      Mr. Michael Spicer: Amendments Nos. 6 and 90 concern a subject that was discussed at length in Committee—research and development and the impact that the Bill will have on it. The effect of Lords amendment No. 6 is to require the director general and the Secretary of State to take research and development into account when exercising their functions under part I. The essence of the new clause in Lords amendment No. 90, which implements recommendations expressed in another place, is to be found in subsection (1), which places a duty on the Secretary of State to use his powers to support research and development under the Science and Technology Act 1965, for the purpose of promoting research and development of new techniques relating to the generation, transmission or supply of electricity as it appears to him to be necessary in the national interest.
      594
      After privatisation, the electricity industry may focus on near market and operational research and development. The practical significance of the new clause will be limited to long-term research and development. That is the first answer to the point put by the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) about how open ended all this is. It will require the Secretary of State to fill in any gaps that he feels should be filled in in the national interest. In order to discharge this duty, the Secretary of State will need to know what the industry is doing, so subsections (2) and (3) provide a reserve information-gathering power to enable the Secretary of State to get information from electricity licensees, or those exempted from the need to have a licence, about their relevant research and development programmes. Subsection (4) deals with the confidentiality of the information so provided and enforcement.
      The answer to the hon. Member for Gordon is that there has to be a specific reason why the information should be gathered. That reason is where the Secretary of State believes that there might be a gap affecting the national interest in research and development in the privatised companies, and where he may therefore wish to take decisions that might involve future Government funding. The Government would not be able to collect information without cause and would, if necessary, have to prove what the cause was. That cause is specified, and there is a confidentiality subsection attached to the information-gathering process.
      Hon. Members on both sides of the House have said that they are worried about this aspect of long-term research, and the Government are meeting that concern in this way. I hope that I have given the hon. Member for Gordon the assurances that he is seeking and that he will not press what he has already described as a probing amendment. I also hope that he will support the reasons behind the powers that the Government are giving themselves.
      Mr. Malcolm Bruce: This part of the clause is less felicitously worded than some of the amendments and new clauses that I have tabled which could have improved the Bill. Therefore, I am surprised by the readiness with which the Minister is prepared to accept the clause, which is woolly, ill defined and sweeping. I accept his assurances, but, as he said earlier, the final authority is the legislation that we are passing. I am uneasy that we are giving the

      595
      Secretary of State power to secure quite a lot of information that, at least in theory, could be detrimental to the company concerned—in other words, it could be commercial information.
      I note what the Minister said about the confidentiality arrangements. On that basis, I shall let my remarks rest and I hope that I shall never have to refer to them again. I hope that practice does not prove that companies will be asked to divulge information in a way that is not in their interest and is not justified, and that the Secretary of State will not interfere in an unwarranted manner.
      Mr. Kevin Barron: I do not share the optimism of the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) about what the Minister has said about Lords amendment No. 6 and the introduction, at long last in the history of this Bill, of a clause that mentions research and development in this industry or industries. I do not share his optimism that mounds of information will be collected, because the obligation that the clause imposes is only that, in the Minister's words, the director general and the Secretary of State must take account of research and development. I am not sure whether taking such considerations into account will result in a lot of gathering of information about these matters.
      The official Opposition are at least pleased that in the other place the Government decided to amend the Bill to promote research and development. It is a great pity that on Second Reading, in Committee and on Report the Government chose not to accept new clause 7 which went into detail on how research and development could be protected on behalf of the nation for many years to come. In Committee, the Minister told us that it was not necessary to write in a commitment to research and development because the need to provide a secure supply would be pressure enough on the privatised industry. Other similar unsupported assertions were made. I am glad that the Minister has now at least admitted that near-market considerations are more likely to be taken into account by the generators and others in the industry than the long-term research and development interest for which we argued.
      In the same debate the Minister said that the industry should not have to provide information on environmental matters. That was another matter that was to be left completely to regulation. Yet, at this late stage, environmental considerations are being brought into play. Of course they are not the considerations for which my hon. Friends and I argued in the earlier stages of the Bill's passage but the Government are nevertheless admitting at long last that the purely ideological flotation that they planned many months ago is not practicable. The Bill's inadequacies would inevitably have meant that if such matters as research and development were left to the market, Britain's consumers would not have been afforded the protection that they need.
      In moving the amendment in the other place, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State said:
      "The new clause will ensure in an explicit and unambiguous way that after privatisation there will be a clearly defined long-stop responsibility for ensuring that R and D which is essential in the national interest is carried out. It will do that by providing statutory underpinning to the present informal arrangements by which National Power and Power Gen, the two main successor power generating companies, will continue to co-operate with ACORD so
      596
      that the latter can advise the Secretary of State whether there are any research and development gaps which it is essential that he should fill in the national interest. It would then require the Secretary of State to fill those gaps if it appeared to him that they should be filled in the national interest".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 5 July 1989; Vol. 509, c. 123–34.]
      Does the Under-Secretary agree with what was said in the other place; can he give us an unequivocal yes to that statement? If he does agree, we must go on to ask him—given that we are now dealing with the matter in this place—why we ended up with a provision which, it appears to observers, is unlikely to give us the commitment to R and D that was advocated in the other place.
      8.15 pm
      It is always interesting to hear this Government acknowledge that the private sector may not meet the needs of the nation and concede that Governments have to intervene from time to time. We must also note, however, that the Government's record in setting priorities and advancing the development of new design and technology in the energy sector has been dismal. They may recognise that the nation's interests must be looked after, but nothing that they have done in the past 10 years proves that they recognise what those needs are.
      Let me digress for a moment. I happened to read the report of questions to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in yesterday's Hansard. In answer to a question directly related to civil research and development in industry, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs said, I assume speaking on behalf of the Government:
      "We believe, and continue to believe that by having a low tax regime and an environment in which companies can be profitable, we leave the decision on how to invest in their hands, rather than confiscating money from companies through taxation and imposing our decisions on them about how they should invest. That surely makes sense in a vigorous, capitalist economy."—[Official Report, 19 July 1989; Vol. 157, c. 335]
      That may make sense to the Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs, but it does not seem to make sense to Ministers in the Department of Energy who have introduced safeguards, however poor, in relation to investment in research and development in the energy sector.
      The Government have not been able to get the balance quite right and the reason is only too clear. Parliamentary experts have recently commented in detail on research and development in the sectors covered by the Department of Energy. We need only look at the last two reports of the Select Committee on Energy to see that research and development has fallen by the wayside, and has not been promoted by the Secretary of State as the amendment suggests it should. That means that the national interest has not been served as the other place so rightly said it should be.
      The Select Committee's latest report on the greenhouse effect contains an indictment of the way in which the Department has allocated its research budget. Given the urgency of the problem, it is remarkable that the Department's research budget is actually to fall in the near future. Let us compare the sums allocated to research and development by the Department of Energy in the next 12 months, because those figures will affect environmental matters, too. We find that a meagre £2·6 million is to be spent on coal research while a massive £208 million is to be allocated to nuclear research and development. That money is being given to research and development in an

      597
      industry which everyone. including the Secretary of State for Energy, agrees will not produce more electricity until the end of this century, perhaps well beyond. Moreover, when there is a change of Government, there is likely to be a reduction in the amount that the industry produces. Here we are committing millions of pounds to research and development in an industry which at best will remain static for decades to come and a meagre sum to an industry whose effect on our country is massive.
      Is that really setting the priorities of the national interest, given that we use four times more coal than nuclear power in electricity generation and will continue to do so for a very long time to come, if for no other reason than that using coal to generate electricity is about 40 per cent. cheaper than using nuclear power? If the amendment is to mean anything, there must be a realignment of the Department's priorities in relation to the national interest, and of the actions of the Secretary of State for Energy and the director general if the privatisation of our electricity supply goes ahead.
      It seems remarkable that we should have such a lack of investment in the right places given that the Secretary of State said in his evidence to the Select Committee:
      "the country cannot afford to turn its back on its largest indigenous source of fuel".
      Should he not now be saying that we will promote technologies for the clean burning of coal? We have seen clearly that that cannot be left to the private sector. PowerGen, a CEGB successor company, has a stake in the future of coal burn, but the Secretary of State is saying at this stage that it may contribute only £750,000 to the continuation of the Grimethorpe project for clean coal burning. If that is the first indication of the new generators acting in the national interest, we have a long way to go before we can protect the interests of the nation and the environment in years to come.
      Nevertheless, we are still hoping for a positive response from the Government for the continuation of the work on the topping cycle at Grimethorpe. The Government's lack of response to the Select Committee's initial recommendation has prompted an even stronger recommendation in its latest report. I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley), who sits on that Committee, is present in the Chamber. In the latest report, the Committee said:
      "This unique technology may be the only acceptable way forward for coal-fired power production. The Government has a responsibility to help bring it to fruition, and we recommend that it should ensure that the next stage of work at Grimethorpe is completed."
      For months we have been waiting for a decision on the granting of a sum of no more than £10 million, which would be spread over three years, but yesterday, when the Government saw the poll tax coming on the horizon for April 1990, they were prepared to come to the House and satisfy the revolt of their Back Benchers with an offer of £100 million. However, they manifestly failed to cure the problem. We saw the early arrival of the Secretary of State for the Environment at Downing street this morning, which was no doubt to discuss where he is likely to be sitting when we return from the summer recess.
      Mr. Morgan: That explains, perhaps, the difference between R and D, research and development, and B and C, bribery and corruption.
      Mr. Barron: I cannot comment on that. My hon. Friend may be able to get into the debate and expand on that a little later. I do not know whether I should tempt him to do that, but it would be interesting.
      We have a classical situation where for months and months a world-leading area for clean coal burn is waiting for a paltry sum, but the Government are willing to offer large sums when they are trying to keep the peace in the House.
      It is clear that in the national interests we should have a final agreement in relation to the topping cycle at the Grimethorpe plant, so that that technology can be developed. Whether it goes into the public or private sector does not matter, it will be a saleable technology and one that will be acceptable to the environment not just in this country but throughout the world.
      We should also be taking steps to ensure that the generating companies will retrofit their coal-fired power stations. How can the Minister expect the private generating companies to respond to demands for cleaning up their coal-fired stations through the fitting of FGD when the Government are preventing them from negotiating contracts of more than five years for the electricity that they produce? I understand that that is a hot potato at the present time in the contract working party and elsewhere. The generators are under instruction to clean up the emissions from coal-fired power stations—that was an instruction from Ministers well before we began discussing the Electricity Bill in this place—but, because of the short termism of the contract between the generators and the supply companies, the generators are saying that they cannot enter into those investment programmes to clean up the emissions. I hope that the Minister will give us his observations on what will happen to the retrofitting of FGD at coal-fired power stations and whether the Government are able to do anything about that. Is it not the case that, by threatening the progress in cleaning up the environment in which we all live, we are seeing a neglect of the national interest?
      Does it not make nonsense of the assertions made by Ministers in relation to research and development, when we know that the private sector will respond to the short-term interest of its shareholders, not the long-term interests of the nation? I believe the Minister referred to it as the near-market consideration. The Government should step in to ensure that the work is done—by doing it themselves or by sending others to do it. If this technology can be developed and funded for our competitors throughout the world, I do not see why it cannot be done in this country. Other countries recognise the strategic importance of investment in energy research and development and their Governments carry out the necessary long-term research.
      Let us compare the Department of Energy's record for expenditure on research and development with that of the United States. Our expenditure on coal research and development was £2·6 million and for nuclear it was more than £200 million. In the United States next year, their spending will be some $924 million on coal research and development and $791 million on nuclear. They clearly see where research and development is needed if the long-term problems are to be sorted out. Not only are those larger sums than the Government will commit, but they indicate a more rational allocation of resources.
      We are not confident that the amendment will ensure the promotion of research and development in the national

      599
      interest after privatisation when the Government are incapable of it while the industry is in the public sector. Why is the Secretary of State waiting until after the industry has been sold off before taking that action when he could and should be doing it now? It is obvious that a number of state industries that are involved in energy—whether it be British Gas, which was privatised a few years ago, or the electricity supply industry, which is about to be privatised—will not consider the national interest when carrying out their operations in the private sector. Therefore, should we not be ensuring now that we take action so that the benefits of protection for consumers and for the environment can clearly be seen? We cannot take into account the near-market consideration that the Minister mentioned.
      Mr. Eric Illsley: I rise to make a few brief comments on research and development and Lords amendment No. 6. I shall obviously not go into such detail as my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron), but I want to comment on a couple of topics that were considered by the Select Committee on Energy, of which I am a member.
      I have been bashing away at the Department of Energy over the past few months, together with colleagues from around the area and on the Select Committee, about the development of the topping cycle at the Grimethorpe pressurised fluidised bed combustion plant. When giving evidence to the Select Committee earlier this year, the Secretary of State committed himself to saying that a financial package would be put together to fund the topping cycle later this year. Following that, the Select Committee visited the plant at Grimethorpe, as guests of British Coal. We were then told that an £8 million package had been agreed and that the money would be made available to British Coal, together with private investment that had been raised.
      We then returned to London and took evidence from the permanent secretary to the Department, who, surprisingly, informed us that finance for Grimethorpe was still under consideration and a figure had not even been talked about. Hon. Members can imagine the surprise of the members of the Select Committee to hear those words from Sir Peter Gregson, when we had been assured by British Coal that all was well and that all it was waiting for was the signing of the cheque.
      A report has been produced by the Select Committee on the greenhouse effect. I do not intend to go into that report in detail, but it is noticeable that it advocates that national Governments—our own and others throughout the world—take some sort of action now in response to global warming. Their action could either be to reduce some of the carbon dioxide emissions or to fund further research to try to determine more exactly the problems of global warming.
      The Select Committee had the benefit of a seminar earlier this year at which we were informed that part of the climatic research into global warming had not yet been completed, especially in relation to the effect on the oceans. We were told that funding for that research remained to be considered, but that it should be substantial. As a consequence, the Select Committee advocated that the Government should consider spending a percentage of our gross national product on research
      600
      into global warming. We felt that it was as serious as that, and that the Government should take a lead in that direction.
      8.30 pm
      Of course, the Government's research and development programme has been cut in other areas also. Indeed, the Government are looking to the private sector to fund research into all matters relating to energy, such as cold fusion, the fast reactor and the latest one—which is now coming to the fore, but on which there is no commitment to research—super-conductivity at higher temperatures. We were informed as recently as yesterday by the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority that it had discontinued its research into cold fusion because it could not reproduce the experiments of professors Fleishmann and Holmes. If the Select Committee is still in being after the recess, and if there is still a Department of Energy for it to shadow, we shall undertake to look into the funding of the fast reactor programme which is another area in which the Government have cut research.
      To give the House some idea of the way in which the Department regards the funding of research, I conclude with a few figures. The expenditure estimates of the Department of Energy include the sum of £12 million for the refurbishment of the Department's premises and its move from Millbank to Buckingham gate at a time when the Department's future is under question. No one has yet determined whether the Department will be in being after the next few months. In contrast, the spending on research and development for the current year will be £2·6 million. That compares with at least 20 times that amount being spent on nuclear research and development and it explains why we cannot get a couple of million quid for the Grimethorpe topping cycle.
      The estimates paper also contains a section on research and development and on the funds made available to research into the cost of storing petrol rationing coupons. That just about sums up where the Department stands on its allocations of money to its various programmes.
      Mr. Michael Spicer: With the leave of the House, I shall respond to the debate.
      The hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron), who has now come back from the gods, said that we would have a short research and development debate. In fact, we have had a short coal research and development debate—[Interruption.] Yes, it is fine, but that is what we have had.
      The two main contributors to the debate, the hon. Member for Rother Valley and his hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley), made two main points. The first was about Grimethorpe and the research and development expenditure which would be made there. The answer is—[Interruption.] Well, Opposition Members will have to wait and see. It is not just perfectly respectable, it is perfectly normal for Governments to enter a cycle of public expenditure reviews as the summer ends and as autumn begins. That is how the parliamentary year and the Government year work. We start our reviews and we work out——
      Mr. Illsley: I appreciate everything that the Minister has said. He and I have exchanged views on this during the past few months. The point that we have tried to make on behalf of the Select Committee is that by the time the public expenditure round is decided Grimethorpe will have lost all its best scientists and workers. Even now, key

      601
      workers have been lost from the site. They have gone abroad to work on the schemes being operated in Scandinavia. We should like the Government to give some commitment, not in terms of how much money, but simply to end the confusion that has been caused by the Secretary of State, the permanent secretary and British Coal. We have had three different versions of the Government's position on this money. The Government should come out and say, "We do not know how much, but the money will be available", because that would prevent jobs from being lost at Grimethorpe. That is the key point.
      Mr. Spicer: To paraphrase the hon. Gentleman, he is saying that the whole thing is falling apart while we wait. However, as he knows, that is not true. Like his hon. Friends who have been assiduous on this matter, the hon. Gentleman knows extremely well that British Coal believes that the position can be held and that the work can continue. The Government are quite properly deciding whether they can put the money behind the project. A public expenditure round is currently under way—I am glad to see the hon. Member for Barnsley, East (Mr. Patchett) in his place because he has taken a great interest in this matter—and public expenditure rounds are the proper way to go about these things.
      I repeat that it is not true that the project is falling apart. What is true is that those of us who are concerned about the future of the coal industry—as I am, and I know that Opposition Members are also—must accept that the topping cycle is not likely, on the assumptions that I have seen, to have more than a 15 to 20 per cent. effect on CO2 emissions. We must compare that with the 40 per cent. effect that could be made by a modern gas-fired power station. If one is thinking about CO2 emissions, as we are because that is one of the main considerations, one must keep those figures at the back of one's mind. It is perfectly proper that we should assess any expenditure that we make on the topping cycle in that context.
      However, it is wrong to say that the Government are dragging their feet in such a way that the whole project is in danger of coming to a halt. The Government are going through their normal expenditure review processes. That is quite proper. British Coal is clear that the situation can be contained throughout that period and we shall make our decisions at the appropriate moment. We have already said that we are extremely interested in what is coming out of Grimethorpe. I cannot say any more to the hon. Member for Barnsley, Central except that I completely disagree that the position is collapsing and that we have gone beyond——
      Mr. Terry Patchett: Given all that the Minister has said, when does his Department intend making the decision on the Grimethorpe fluidised bed?
      Mr. Spicer: A proper decision will be made in time which involves——
      Mr. Patchett: When?
      Mr. Spicer:—the institution being a going concern. There is no question of our allowing it to run down and then making the decision. The hon. Gentleman is pressing his case, but he is being a little unreasonable. As I have said, it is perfectly proper for the Government, as part of their public expenditure round, to consider whether to spend money on this operation. It would also be perfectly proper for the hon. Gentleman to get excited if the review
      602
      process was automatically destroying what is going on up at Grimethorpe, but it is not. The operation is capable of continuing at the moment. We shall then make a decision in time——
      Mr. Patchett: When?
      Mr. Spicer:—for the operation either to continue or to be closed down, if that were the decision.
      I have already told the House that the topping cycle is an extremely interesting piece of research and development—[Interruption.]Well, I am saying it now if I have not said it before. There is no question at the moment of the research being wound down or out. I must remind the House that this is only one way—and perhaps a more limited way than can be found with other forms of electricity production—of affecting CO2 emission levels.
      The hon. Member for Rother Valley seemed to imply that the Government were dragging their feet on FGD. There is no question but that we shall insist that the industry complies with the EC directive that the United Kingdom should achieve a 60 per cent. reduction in sulphur dioxide emissions by the year 2003 compared with 1980 levels. If one takes into account nitrogen oxide programmes, that will result in expenditure of £2 billion by the industry.
      Mr. Barron: I am saying not that the Minister is dragging his feet but that the generators say that if the longest contract that they can have with the supply boards is five years their investment in reducing emissions will be in considerable danger because of the time that building takes. I do not know whether this is a matter for the Department of Trade and Industry or the Department of Energy, or a mixture of both with No. 10 Downing street. The generators would like contracts which extended over a period which was long enough to enable them to invest in cleaning up the power stations.
      Mr. Spicer: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. We shall ensure that the EC directive and the objectives associated with it in terms of the reduction of sulphur dioxide emissions will be complied with.
      Mr. Barron: Will the Minister ensure that they start building programmes which are designed to do that? That is the assurance that we and the country need. We need to be assured that building for FGD and the power stations can go ahead without interruption.
      Mr. Spicer: We shall not be building any power stations because we are privatising the industry, but it is legitimate for the hon. Gentleman to ask how that will be done. The answer is that the industry will have to comply with the EC directive and with the United Kingdom's policy associated with that objective, and it knows that.
      The hon. Gentleman asks for an assurance that the Government will ensure that the directive is complied with and I give him that assurance. It is our policy that those emission levels will be reduced.
      Mr. Barron: Does the Minister agree with the statement that I read out which was made by the noble Baroness Hooper in the other place?
      Mr. Spicer: My noble Friend's comments in the other place were in line with everything that I have said. My

      603
      noble Friend put her points cogently. I agree with them, and that is why I ask the House to agree with the Lords amendments.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Lords amendment No. 90 agreed to. [Special entry.]
      Lords amendment: No. 7, in page 3, line 29, at end insert
      "and a duty to take into account, in exercising those functions, the effect on the physical environment of activities connected with the generation, transmission or supply of electricity."
      Mr. Michael Spicer: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 119 to 128, 130 to 139 and 141 to 143.
      Mr. Spicer: When the Bill was being considered in Committee concerns were expressed that its environmental provisions were not strong enough. The Government have considered the matter and we have talked to representatives of environmental groups. The result is a package that the Government are bringing forward under this group of amendments to schedule 9 and clause 3. As I am sure hon. Members know, they have been warmly welcomed.
      8.45 pm
      A number of changes have been made in the other place, particularly to schedule 9. Licence holders and exempt generators and suppliers will now be under a duty to do what they reasonably can to mitigate the effects which their proposed developments will have on the natural beauty of the countryside and the other features listed. The duties on generators now apply also to subsequent changes in the operation of stations.
      The Secretary of State will have a duty to have regard to the extent to which applicants for consents under clauses 38 and 39 have complied with the duties under schedule 9. Licence holders are now required, in consultation with specified environmental bodies, to prepare statements setting out how they will perform their environmental duties.
      In response to the strong feeling that there should also be an environmental duty in clause 3, the Government have introduced an amendment which places the Secretary of State and the director general under the duty to have regard, in carrying out their functions, to the effect on the physical environment of activities connected with generation, transmission or supply of electricity. The result is a Bill with rigorous, precise and practical environmental provisions which should commend themselves to the House.
      As has been said a number of times, but it bears repeating, the Bill's environmental provisions do not stand alone. There are 15 Acts of Parliament and 14 EC directives which bear on the way in which the electricity industry impinges on the environment. Giving effect to one of the directives are the regulations issued earlier this year which require environmental assessments to be provided for projects likely to have a significant effect on the environment.
      From the beginning we have maintained that the Bill will benefit the environment. We have explained that
      604
      schedule 9 in particular was a more far-reaching provision than had ever existed before. However, we have further strengthened it by those amendments.
      The electricity industry is often compared with the water industry. The water industry can positively beautify the land, but, whatever hon. Members' view of the beauty of power stations or overhead lines, it is difficult to imagine building a power station which positively beautifies the countryside.
      We have made sure that when power stations are built or overhead lines put up their effect on the environment will be seriously considered. We have gone further than that and said that their effects on the environment should be mitigated.
      We are talking not just about the beautification of the countryside but the way in which the industry pollutes the atmosphere, and that is why we are introducing such tight restrictions, particularly on sulphur dioxide emissions.
      The electricity industry is different from the water industry and any comparison is inappropriate. We think that we have it about right. We have listened carefully to what has been said by hon. Members on both sides of the House, and I hope that they, and especially the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy), will welcome what we have done.
      Mr. Hardy: I am afraid that I cannot offer the Minister the congratulations that he appears to be angling for because the Government have, quite simply, been tinkering. When we debated schedule 9 in Committee, the Government would not accept my amendments, even though Conservative Members made one or two noises of approval. Those noises were not translated into votes, but we hoped that they would encourage the Minister to take a more positive view.
      I warned the Minister that the House of Lords was not so docile or obedient as his Back Benchers. Indeed, it resisted the blandishments of the noble Lady in charge of the Bill. Earlier this evening I referred to her skilful presentation, which was reflected in her approach to the environment. There were echoes of the Minister's speech in her speech, or perhaps it is the Minister echoing the noble Lady. In that debate on 25 April she said:
      "we have a very positive story to tell. I have recently had meetings with representatives of the Nature Conservancy Council, the Countryside Commission, the Council for the Protection of Rural England and Friends of the Earth, and I understand their concerns. I shall of course listen closely to what noble Lords have to say today."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 25 April 1989; Vol. 506, c. 1157.]
      It might be that the tinkering with the Bill following that Lords debate represents an improvement, but if so it is far too modest. Ministers have not made it clear that the conservation bodies in Britain, which they listed in their accounts of consultation, showed an absence of support and enthusiasm for the measure. Indeed, we may be reaching the point where the House is being misled. That reminds me of a week last Monday, when I switched on the car radio and heard comments by the Secretary of State for the Environment, speaking in Newcastle. He boasted that the Government's record on the environment was superb and that all the green organisations and individuals were guilty of distortion or dishonesty in suggesting that their record was less than satisfactory.
      The right hon. Gentleman went even further and announced that the Government were proposing to set up an office to disseminate accurate information about the

      605
      environment. Ministers have been challenged to give one example of dishonesty, inaccuracy or excessively sweeping statements by the responsible conservation bodies and individuals—but so far they have been unable to find even one.
      Because the Government often boast without good reason of a record that is not good enough, we are entitled to be cynical, suspicious and critical of the proposals before us. One reason for my suspicion is that only yesterday I learnt that one large power station intends to cut the number of welders working in teams on a 24-hour shift rotation from 20 to five. That means that four welders will work the day shift, with one working all the anti-social hours. What will happen if something goes wrong? The present publicly owned responsible industry has welders available to deal with any leakage. Very often large power stations are a long way from the homes of its workers—[Interruption.] I hope that the Minister is listening because he must tell us what will happen if there is a problem. Some of the workers may live 40 or 50 miles away from the power stations. My hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) represents people who work in power stations that are far away from their homes. If 15 of the 20 welders are to lose their jobs—[Interruption.] The Minister's parliamentary private secretary, the hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Mr. Howarth), seems to think that I am making an inappropriate comment when in fact it goes to the heart of the problem. If 15 of the 20 welders have to go, there will probably be only one or even no welder working at night. The power station may still be operating and any emission, leakage or pollution could he serious because they will have to call out a welder who has probably already done a great deal of work and is entitled to time off.
      Mr. Haynes: My hon. Friend is talking about safety in the electricity industry. During questions today the Prime Minister was asked about safety in industry and she said that it was the No. 1 priority for the Government. How does that square with what my hon. Friend is saying?
      Mr. Hardy: My hon. Friend will be aware that the incidence of serious injury and fatal accident in the coal mining industry during the past three or four years, per 100,000 shifts worked, has risen substantially. It is not just the safety factor that is important. My point is that currently Britain's power stations have a sufficiently skilled staff immediately available to deal with any problem, malfunction or breakdown. Under privatisation, they will no longer be available.
      I recall that a group of hon. Members, under my chairmanship, visited Hinkley Point power station a number of years ago. An incident occurred during our visit, and I and one or two of my colleagues were castigated by one or two newspapers because we refrained from making any scathing comment. Some equipment had malfunctioned, but we were satisfied that it had nothing to do with the nuclear aspect of the operation. A simple machine broke down and released some non-noxious gases. Having established those facts, we refused to make any public comment—although one or two newspapers wanted us to make some scare talk.
      Perhaps the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), who now leads the Social and Liberal Democrats, would have welcomed the opportunity to make such comments. We felt that it would be
      606
      unreasonable to make such comments because the electricity industry dealt immediately with the minor malfunction. It would have been both wrong and impertinent to make some cheap, speculative comments. My point is that at that time we could afford to decline to become involved because we knew that skilled staff were readily available to deal with the problem. We now know that the work force, including fitters and welders, is to be substantially reduced, and that outside the normal day shift there will be only a skeleton staff—if that.
      We are surely entitled to be particularly concerned about environmental risks. If a pipe fractures or a machine breaks down, the plant may have to contact a worker in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield or perhaps even in mine. There are living in my constituency power workers who are employed miles and miles from their homes. They will have to travel a great distance to deal with a breakdown at a time when they are supposed to be off duty.
      The Government are clearly embarking on the same course that is followed in the steel industry, of relying increasingly on contract labour. The CEGB has a proud record of training, but I suspect that the level of training and the number of apprentices are already falling. In their place, contract labour will grow and the training function will diminish. The labour skills available to the industry will then contract.
      With that in mind, the conservation bodies are justified in being highly suspicious of the Government's attitude. The Government know very well that just as privatisation of the electricity industry is particularly unpopular in green and environmental circles, it is not commanding much public support either—despite the blandishments of the Government's very expensive television advertising campaign.
      9 pm
      Consequentially, the price of the industry's shares may be much lower than the Government originally hoped. It is not only that which worries me. As the flotation approaches, and as the City grows increasingly worried about being left with shares on its hands, City interests and underwriters will run to the Minister to say that the shares are not moving quickly because the Government tightened environmental controls rather more than the City wanted—even though the rest of us realise that those controls are grossly inadequate.
      The Minister, in his brief and complacent speech, seemed to suggest that the House should feel grateful to him for his generous and thoughtful consideration of environmental issues. In truth, the Bill is bad, and it has not been improved nearly enough. It is bitterly resented by conservationists. The Minister should have something to say to the people who cannot even wait for the House to complete its consideration of the Lords amendments before telling the skilled workers who made the industry as clean as possible, within the limits of the industry's investment policy, that there will be lots and lots of job losses.
      The Minister may think that I am oversuspicious. He may recall that some months ago I spoke in the House about the fears held by many of substantial job losses. I echoed the anxieties and suspicions of the unions representing workers in the industry when I said that I was fearful of substantial redundancies and that the corners of

      607
      safety and of environmental protection would be cut. The Secretary of State assured me that, far from there being fewer jobs, there would be more.
      Where are those jobs to come from, when fitters and welders are already being made redundant? Is one contract worker to count as 10 skilled artisans? The situation is such that suspicion is certainly justified. I am still waiting for the Secretary of State to tell me that he made a mistake when he gave an assurance that many more people would be employed in the industry.
      The information reaching me even before we complete the first of the two days set aside to consider the Lords amendments leads me to believe that I am entirely justified in expressing our unhappiness at the Minister's proposals and that the changes he makes, and which he believes are of a salutary nature, are mere tinkerings. Certain aspects of the Bill have been given insignificant and grossly inadequate priority. I only wish that the Chamber was completely full, so that I could divide the House and express my opinion more forcibly in that way.
      Mr. Morgan: My comments are aimed at supporting and amplifying the comprehensive account of the Opposition's considerable concerns for the environment given by my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy). He was reasonably fair to the Minister, who told us of his pride in the amendments presented in the other place, which together write certain environmental protections into the Bill. However, we do not entirely share the Minister's pride.
      We have always felt a good deal of respect for the diligence of the junior Minister. We were always able to tell whether it was dinner time by whether the Secretary of State was absent, in which case the "parliamentary Charlie"—as we used to call them when I was a civil servant—had to man the boat, sinking or otherwise.
      Mr. Haynes: He was manning the boat all the time.
      Mr. Morgan: As my hon. Friend says, the hours put in by the junior Minister at the Dispatch Box were phenomenal—which clearly implies that those put in by the Secretary of State were not.
      Are the powers granted in Lords amendment No. 7 really so great? Let us take a difficult environmental issue such as the decommissioning of a nuclear power station. Is it reasonable for National Power and the Scottish subsidiary company to decide to top it up with concrete and leave it for 100 to 150 years, preferring that course to the Swedish method of de-irradiating and disassembling the thing so that it turns into farmland within 25 to 30 years—that being the shortest period compatible with the safety of the workers who would have the job of removing it? That is probably the largest single job related to the physical environment that the industries will have to face over the next half century, century, or century and a half.
      Let us suppose that the Secretary of State, or the director general, suddenly decides that he is not happy with National Power's proposals. Under Lords amendment No. 7, the Secretary of State has a duty to take into account
      "the effect on the physical environment of activities connected with generation, transmission or supply".
      Will the Secretary of State have the power to say, "I am not happy to allow a power station with a concrete cap and
      608
      a bit of grass topping to be left for 150 years; I want you to use Swedish technology to get rid of it in a shorter time so that it can return to its previous use"?
      We must also consider indirect effects on the physical environment. We have already heard a good deal—today and, from time to time, from the Prime Minister via the usual megaphone—about global warming. Let us say that the global-warming threat, as foreseen by some scientists, turns into a near-market threat confirmed by the vast majority of scientists. If Britain and other advanced industrialised and industrialising countries continue to expand electricity generation at the same pace, the physical environment may be damaged in a way that we can hardly imagine today, with sea levels rising by 7ft or 8ft.
      Under the amendment, would the Secretary of State have to deal with that? Would the Government say, "We must do something drastic about carbon dioxide emissions. There must be an international treaty, and Britain must contribute its share"? The Prime Minister has implied that she would almost welcome the opportunity to lead such a crusade, and clearly, if the scientific evidence is corroborated over the next decade, the entire country—indeed, the globe—must face up to the problem.
      The Minister has already implied that the powers in the amendment are of huge significance in the context of water privatisation, but are not worth a row of beans when it comes to the electricity industry—which, by its very nature, does not possess the up-country land holdings held by the water industry. It has only lines of pylons and a small number of power stations. The Minister is being terribly static in his thoughts.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) has already mentioned the immense amount of interest around the world in research and development into superconductivity. As this is probably our only opportunity to consider the reorganisation of the industry over the next 10 or 20 years, if superconductivity were to become a financial reality it is a practical proposition to ask whether we want pylons in our national parks and pleasant countryside or whether we should bury them underground. That would be feasible if the more optimistic views of superconductivity become true. Overhead pylons would no longer be necessary as superconductivity does not need the cooling power of the air and it would be quite possible to put them underground.
      Is this the power under which the Secretary of State and the director general could call together those in the industry and say, "Supercondutivity is now an option and we are under pressure from walkers, ramblers and so on"? A practical example which could arise in the next few years, even if superconductivity did not become a reality, involves an issue that has been heavily touted by the Minister and his ministerial colleagues—the Minister of State, Scottish Office is in his place—that of greater Scottish exports of electricity south of the border. I am informed that that can be done by expanding the interconnector where the Scottish and English systems meet, and that a major increase in the north-south line would be needed, and that to avoid brownout there would have to be cross-bracing lines across the famous, or infamous, Harker Stella route around Hadrian's wall. That issue arises every time the legislation has the side effect of expanding the commercial attractiveness of direct export from that massive Scottish surplus of electricity generating capacity, which we keep hearing about, to the

      609
      power-hungry regions of central and southern England. It cannot be done without cross-bracing lines to cover the north-south lines, otherwise brownouts become a danger as it will be difficult to maintain system stability. All those cross-bracing lines will cross the Pennines and then there will be trouble from the environmentalists.
      Is it under Lords amendment No. 7 that the director general and the Secretary of State and his ministerial collegues at the Scottish Office would have to scratch their heads and ask, "What is the price on the environment in the Pennines? How many additional power lines and how much environmental opposition are we willing to brook to facilitate greater Scottish exports?" Would they have to consider how to balance the environmental interests with the economic interests of free trade in electricity between Scotland and England under Lords amendment No. 7?
      Finally, I shall make one small point about Wales, as I could hardly discuss Scotland and England without mentioning Wales. Is Lords amendment No. 131 already out of date by virtue of an announcement that has been made since the Lords amendments were printed? The Secretary of State for Wales announced the merging of the regional Nature Conservancy Council, which is part of the Nature Conservancy Council for England and Wales, and the Countryside Commission for Wales which was probably a regional branch of the English organisation, into one separate statutory body which is not mentioned in Lords amendment No. 131. Will the Minister require further to amend the legislation to take account of the alterations that have been announced but obviously have not taken effect yet? Obviously Ministers will have to consider whether the Welsh element now needs a separate mention in Lords amendment No. 131.
      The Minister will have realised that we have considerable worries as to exactly what Lords amendment No. 7, of which the Minister is inordinately proud, is intended for, apart from trying to win a few Green votes on the cheap. We should be grateful for any illustrations or any light that he can put on the matter this evening.
      9.15 pm
      Mr. Michael Spicer: I will write to the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) on the final point he made about Wales—unless I discover the answer during the evening—because it is a technical and specific issue.
      The hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy), who has been interested in the campaign on this subject for a long time, should learn to recognise good news when he hears it. He is familiar with the bodies that are concerned with environmental matters. For example, I have before me a letter written to my noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy by Mr. David Astor, the chairman of the Council for the Protection of Rural England, in which he said:
      "We are delighted that you have now accepted the underlying thrust of our arguments."
      The deputy chairman of the Nature Conservancy Council, Sir John Burnett, wrote:
      "It is excellent news that nature conservation requirements are now being given statutory force."
      There is clearly a difference now—perhaps there always was—between the hon. Member for Wentworth, who is normally very much in touch with these events, and those who are directly responsible for representing the interests of nature conservancy and the countryside. The hon.
      610
      Gentleman might take note of, and place more emphasis on, what is being said outside the House about the amendments.
      The hon. Member for Wentworth spoke at length about safety. The amendments with which we are now concerned are about the environment. There is a lot in the Bill about safety and I urge the hon. Gentleman to consider, for example, clause 3(3)(c) and (d). Those provisions explain the duties that the director and Secretary of State must take into account in terms of the safety of employees and, in subsection (3)(c).
      "to protect the public from dangers arising from the generation, transmission or supply of electricity".
      That came about as the result of an amendment made on Report, following much discussion on the issue in Committee. The hon. Gentleman should have recognised that.
      Mr. Hardy: I have not seen the letters to which the Minister referred, from Mr. Astor or from the deputy chairman of the Nature Conservancy Council. People from the conservation bodies who spoke to me on many occasions at earlier stages of the Bill have not been back to me to express the more approving views to which the Minister referred. I am not casting doubts on the hon. Gentleman's integrity, but he might care to read the remainder of those letters to satisfy himself—and perhaps eventually the House—that the words, which may appear to be complimentary, used at the beginning of the letters are not later qualified by expressions of regret about continuing inadequacy. I did not wish to raise the question of safety. That note was injected into my speech as a result of an intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes).
      Mr. Spicer: Leaving the final part aside, I regarded that as a noble intervention by the hon. Gentleman. He admitted that he was not completely up to date with the latest thinking on the part of those organisations. That was frank and honest of him and there seems to be little between us.
      The hon. Member for Cardiff, West spoke in particular about amendment No. 7, which says that in conducting their duties under the Bill the director and the Secretary of State shall take account of the effect on the physical environment of their actions. It means precisely that, and to appreciate the effect of it one needs to consider the duties that they must perform and then read the entire Bill to see how those duties are carried out. As they wade through the Bill carrying out their duties—doing the various things that they can do under the measure—they will have to bear in mind the effects on the environment of those duties. That is not to say that the amendment introduces some great new interventionist facility. The points that the hon. Gentleman made about that come under the normal planning procedures. For example, the question whether Hinkley Point, as against some other construction, is to be built is a matter of detail and planning, and those planning laws are not affected by the Bill.
      Mr. Morgan: I do not know whether the Minister misheard me or whether my direct questions threw him completely. I was not talking about the building of new nuclear power stations. That is clearly determined by normal planning inquiry procedures.

      611
      I asked about the decommissioning of nuclear power stations. Will the Secretary of State or the director general have the power to question and then to determine whether he is satisfied with a particular form of decommissioning and its effect on the environment? If it is proposed to cap a reactor with a concrete dome for 150 years, could he say, "I am not happy with that" and insist that it be taken away within 25 years? I was talking not about the building of Hinkley Point but of the removal of Berkeley.
      Mr. Spicer: The hon. Gentleman should read the Bill. I know that he has. I think I have the answer here.
      Mr. Morgan: What does it say?
      Mr. Spicer: Well, it does not say an awful lot. I will read it out in a moment. It says that this is for the nuclear installations inspectorate, but I think that I can do better than that.
      The hon. Gentleman knows that the regulator, when he carries out his duties under the terms of the Bill, has to consider the price formula. We all have to consider that. When carrying out those assessments, the regulator, if the amendment is accepted, will have to bear in mind—and he can be challenged about it, because it will be in the Act if the House agrees to it—the impact of his decisions and actions on the environment. I think that that gives the hon. Gentleman a precise answer. We would have to debate and discuss the entire Act to see how it would impinge on the decommissioning that the hon. Gentleman raised.
      This is an important amendment, which pervades the Bill. Every time the director general considers what he is doing he has to bear in mind the environmental impact.
      I think it is perfectly right that the hon. Gentleman should ask these questions, but I think that Opposition Members have been, for want of a better word, churlish. The hon. Member for Wentworth has accepted that he is a bit out of touch with the latest thinking of conservation bodies. It was generous and proper of him to declare that. As I have now informed the House of the latest thinking of the conservation bodies, I hope that it will welcome these amendments with open arms and with approbation. They have been welcomed widely outside the House.
      Mr. Morgan rose——
      Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The House is on consideration of Lords Amendments, and the hon. Gentleman has already spoken.
      Mr. Morgan: With the leave of the House, I did not want to allow the word "churlish" to pass without some comment. There is a fundamental difference between writing a note to the Countryside Commission asking for a pylon to be moved half a mile to the left, which is one interpretation of the clause, and saying, "No, I am not happy with that nuclear power station being left under a concrete dome for 150 years, even if it costs an extra £1 billion on your cost formula to remove it after 25 years." Nor is that the same as saying that we must take account of the global warming threat, that we are worried that London will be under 6 ft of water and that the only solution is to try breast stroke. Those are quite different considerations.
      Mr. Spicer: With the leave of the House, I unreservedly withdraw the word "churlish." Perhaps the word "reserved" should be inserted instead.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 119 to 128, 130 to 139, 141 to 143, 11 to 13, 15 to 20, 115 to 117, 53, 54, 57 and 58 agreed to.

    Clause 45

      GENERAL FUNCTIONS
      Lords amendment: No. 59 in page 35, line 33, leave out from "activities" to second "and " in line 34 and insert
      "to which this subsection applies"
      Mr. Michael Spicer: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 60 and 61.
      Mr. Spicer: The effect of Lords amendments Nos. 59 to 61 is to ensure that, in keeping under review activities connected with the generation, transmission and supply of electricity, the director general should also keep under review, in particular, activities connected with combined heat and power. This will help him in carrying out his other duties under the Bill, such as the duty in new clause 3 to promote competition in the generation and supply of electricity.
      Placing the interests of combined heat and power in the Bill must be seen in the context of what the Government are also doing for combined heat and power. We are funding a number of research projects up to £750,000 in total and are giving statutory undertaker powers to CHP operators comparable with other forms of electricity generation. We are putting the rating of CAP on the same level as others. Above all, the Bill is making fundamental changes, taking away the grid from a single generator and giving CHP free and fair access to the system.
      The Bill is doing a tremendous amount for CHP, but, to underscore that, we thought that we would accept the Lords amendments. I ask the House to accept them.
      Mr. Barron: I do not intend to prolong the debate, but we should discuss these amendments for a few minutes. The Opposition are pleased that these provisions are to be included in the Bill. There were lengthy debates in the House, in Committee and on Report about the future of combined heat and power. I was fascinated also to see how the constitution could be so elastic in terms of the ability of the other place to carry on debating changes in our legislation.
      Although we do not have combined heat and power in the Bill specifically, as Lord Ezra wanted, I am pleased that there is a reference to cogeneration:
      "heat produced in association with electricity and steam produced from and air and water heated by such heat".
      That is exactly what has happened in this cycle. I do not want to go into the technicalities, but it is important to note that the Government are moving in the direction sought for many years by people working in the industry.
      It will be one of the general functions under clause 45 that the director should "keep under review" the development of combined heat and power. That takes us no further forward than we have been since the Energy Act 1983, when the Government decided to review the

      613
      development of combined heat and power. Any advance since then has been despite the Government and not because of them.
      9.30 pm
      The amendment will not alter the position. I do not share the Minister's confidence that combined heat and power projects will have wide opportunities of getting into the system and being able to take part in the so-called "competition" that we have at present. CHP developments are at a critical stage, yet the Government still take little action. Despite their professed support for CHP, they have not taken the opportunity presented by the Bill to remove the blockages that exist and they have even invented new ones, such as the problem of CHP projects in getting electricity into the system. The electricity boards have failed to negotiate adequate purchase prices for combined heat and power schemes and the Government show no signs of taking effective action to ensure that the blockage is removed.
      On Report, the Minister told us how much money was spent on the Leicester combined heat and power scheme, yet the Government have not removed the blockage that could threaten the existence of the CHP scheme in Leicester. The other major threat to CHP from the privatisation of electricity is through the Government-sanctioned secrecy currently surrounding the contracts working party, which looks set to form a cartel. Many people in the Combined Heat and Power Association and people who have been working on CHP schemes for years believe that it will be designed to keep them out, as cartels were designed to keep them out after the 1983 Act had said that we would have the development of CHP schemes in Britain.
      The Government's failure to make their intentions clear for CHP is not surprising. In the debates on CHP during the passage of the Bill, I have not been convinced that the Minister understands the issues involved. On Report, the Minister said:
      "The Bill will not only give those wishing to engage in this form of technology free access to the system, but there will now be a duty on public electricity supply companies to buy from the most economic sources. Therefore, if CHP is the most economic source, that duty will take effect."
      I am pleased to see that the hon. Member for Erewash (Mr. Rost) is in his place. During the debate, he brought up the point that had been argued for many years by people trying to get combined heat and power into the market place. He argued that the case for CHP was made not on the basis that it would generate electricity cheaply, but that:
      "By using hot water from electricity production instead of throwing it away, we create more diversity, more energy efficiency and we reduce the greenhouse effect."—[Official Report, 6 April 1989; Vol. 150, c. 443–46.]
      That argument is right, but we must recognise that the hot water is normally taken away from the generation before it would have been if one was just generating electricity. On that basis, the generation of electricity is likely to be more expensive than it would be from conventional plant. That is where the problems lie for CHP in breaking into a competitive market which does not understand the uniqueness of the technology we are proposing to use. As the hon. Member for Erewash rightly said, CHP has an effect on the environment as well. By the more efficient use of energy, it can go some way to help us in dealing with environmental problems.
      614
      The Energy Select Committee's recent report on the greenhouse effect highlighted the benefits that efficient power generation by combined heat and power could bring. According to the CEGB, some CHP plants could reduce greenhouse emissions by up to 60 per cent. British Coal is already showing the way forward. The planned circulating fluidised bed CHP schemes at Slouth Estates is a pathfinder. That commitment is far in advance of anything that the electricity supply industry seems prepared even to discuss.
      Not too many years ago, I had discussions with the chairman of the CEGB on this unique method of using energy in our communities. I shall never forget his remark that if British Gas were taken out of a place like Leicester, he would go in because he could sell not only electricity but water for space heating and domestic use. For years CHP has had problems getting a foothold in the market. Until we understand that and make special provisions for CHP schemes, we shall have problems developing it.
      It is a great shame that the Government have failed to take the opportunity presented by this massive change in the electricity supply industry to give CHP the boost that it needs. I urge the Minister to turn his professed support into practical action in the not-too-distant future. The Bill says nothing more about this technology than was said in the Energy Act 1983. I hope that a future Secretary of State or director general will look seriously at CHP and find a place for it in the market so that it can develop as the amendment proposes.
      Mr. Rost: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) for his references to my contribution to debates on this Electricity Bill, and in previous years.
      The hon. Gentleman referred to the Leicester combined heat and power schemes. He may not be aware that this afternoon I received by fax—telecommunications technology seems to be moving even into this place—the most alarming news that work on the Leicester project has been suspended. The 110 MW scheme by Leicester Energy has been the showpiece of CHP development. Apart from the Sheffield scheme, it is the only scheme going ahead. It involves a private enterprise consortium of six major companies and I declare an interest as a consultant to one of them. The project has progressed for the past 16 months and negotiations have now come to a conclusion. The talks have collapsed and work on the project has ceased because of the uncertainties surrounding the privatisation of the electricity industry, particularly the contract for the sale of electricity.
      I shall not bore the House with the technical details of why the negotiations have broken down, but I use this example to compare what is happening in this country with developments in towns and cities in western Europe. Over 300 already have CHP district heating schemes and many others are being developed. Such schemes have made a huge contribution to reducing fuel consumption and global greenhouse warming. Thermal efficiency has, been doubled by using the hot water as well as the electricity from combined production.
      I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will look at the letter that he will have received a couple of days ago from the Leicester combined heat and power company explaining the difficulties that it is having in getting this project further progressed because of the uncertainties of the electricity contract. I hope that he will use this as a reason for giving further thought to the amendment that

      615
      my hon. Friends on the Front Bench have proposed to the Bill. I welcome the amendment because it at least opens the door and obliges the director general to monitor progress on combined heat and power. However, monitoring will not be enough when one of the two major projects has come to a halt. What will he monitor? We need a stronger amendment. I regret that none of the three efforts of the other place to change the Bill in this respect have been accepted by the Government. I regret, with a personal interest, that the amendment that I moved on Report was not accepted either.
      The Government will have to come back to this, simply because the contribution that the more efficient generation of electricity can make to electricity prices and the environment will oblige them to assist in solving the major problems affecting large-scale city combined heat and power projects. These projects are marginaly economic, but they are more economic than nuclear power. Nuclear power is getting a special and open-ended subsidy in the Government's strategic policy, as is renewable energy. I do not complain about the special help to these two sources of energy, but, like energy efficiency, combined heat and power can make an important contribution not just to strategic diversity of supply but to the relief of environmental pollution and the greenhouse effect, as it is doing increasingly in other countries. It should have been given a more important promotional opportunity in this legislation, as it needs Government help to help it to overcome the high up-front infrastructure costs of laying district heat mains.
      Industrial combined heat and power projects are going ahead fast, and all the projects that were held up previously are suddenly taking off. The Government deserve full credit for that because it would not have happened without the privatisation of electricity. This is giving industry the power to set up its own combined heat and power generation by allowing it to get a fairer price for the surplus electricity. These projects are going ahead with a pay-back period on the investment of about three years.
      There are still enormous problems with the larger scale schemes, and I hope that the Government will either take note now, or accept that these problems will have to be solved with their help if we are to make a contribution to energy efficiency and the global warming effect.
      While I welcome the Lords amendment, it would have been more beneficial if the Government had gone a little further and accepted one of the three amendments that the other place tried to introduce, as they would have given more power to the promotion of this most important technology, which other countries have adopted, which is economic and cost effective and which needs a stronger market stimulus than it is getting at the moment.
      9.45 pm
      Mr. Michael Spicer: My hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Mr. Rost) has been persistent and effective in arguing the case for combined heat and power. Perhaps my hon. Friend was temporarily away from his place when I explained why the Government wished to accept the amendment which will introduce into the Bill the interests of combined heat and power. That is an important addition.
      616
      My hon. Friend mentioned the Leicester scheme. The Government invested £250,000 of taxpayers' money in the initial preparations for that scheme but it would appear that the scheme is not now to go ahead because the contracting parties find that they cannot contract at an economic level. There is nothing much that the Government can do about that.
      We certainly believe that—the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) quoted me correctly—combined heat and power should compete fairly with other forms of electricity production. At the beginning of my opening speech I listed the things that the Government have done to ensure that CHP can compete fairly, which it could not do hitherto because of rating, statutory undertaker arrangements and the way in which the industry was structured to inhibit new entrants such as CHP.
      Part of the case for CHP must be that it is competitive and economic. That is why it has been so successful in industry, and why it currently produces 2 GW of electricity. We know of a number of schemes for the industrial use of combined heat and power which may result in its producing twice that amount in future.
      CHP ought to be able to compete freely and fairly and stand on its own feet——
      Mr. Rost: My hon. Friend referred to the Leicester scheme and suggested that work had been suspended because the economics were not proving as good as had been expected. I assure my hon. Friend that that is not the case. The brief sent to his Department by Leicester Energy will confirm that. The problem is not that the econonics are not robust but that Leicester Energy needs a long-term contract to make the scheme bankable. The area board is not prepared to offer a long-term contract based upon an escalation clause in respect of the price of gas, although it is a gas turbine scheme. The problem arises from the lack of a long-term contract.
      Mr. Spicer: My hon. Friend has made the point that I sought to make. The contractual arrangements and negotiations have broken down on the basis of the price that was being requested. The area board took the view that the price was unacceptable. That must be a matter for the contracting parties. If the Government went along with every single proposal put to the area board successor companies, ultimately they would increase the price to the consumer, and the Opposition would be the first to groan and complain and, in this case, they would be right to do so. The industry must take into account the economics of producing energy.
      Mr. Barron: Will the Minister tell us why he is prepared to ringfence electricity and to guarantee billions of pounds of taxpayers' money, not just in the flotation but in years to come, to clean up the mess that it creates, but he is not prepared to help protect the Government's investment in the combined heat and power scheme in Leicester? The Minister must know that the cost of electricity on a CHP scheme is more expensive than if the industry were just using steam turbines to generate electricity per see. Does he not understand the technology?
      Mr. Spicer: It is precisely for the same reason that we ringfenced coal at the cost of £10 billion over the past few years. We believe that nuclear power is a fundamental addition to the range of energy supplies which we wish the country to have in order to ensure that the consumers'

      617
      interests will not be put at risk, as they have been on previous occasions through disruptions in the coal industry——
      Mr. Barron: Arthur Scargill.
      Mr. Spicer: The hon. Gentleman made the point himself—Arthur Scargill. I was not going to mention him today to save the hon. Gentleman's blushes. As he has said that, I am quite happy to agree with him when he says that Arthur Scargill is part of the history of the matter, as are some of the disruptions to our oil supplies and the price of those supplies from other countries.
      The question of the security of energy supply in this country is fundamentally a different question. That is why we have protected the coal industry so heavily for so many years and why, as a result of protecting it and putting so much money into the industry, it is now, for the first time, able to face competition with some confidence. That is good and something that we have achieved for the coal industry.
      I understand the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash. He has made them coherently and cogently over many months and years. His labours have borne fruit because the Bill has on its face the recognition of the importance of CHP, not to mention the panoply of actions that we have taken to ensure that CHP competes fairly in the future in a way that may not have happened up to now. I hope that my hon. Friend and others will accept these Lords amendments.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 60 and 61 agreed to.
      Mr. Speaker: I understand that it is the desire of the House to take Lords amendments grouping No. 66 to the grouping No. 163 formally. Is that correct?
      Mr. Hardy: Would you give me some advice, Mr. Speaker? You were kind enough to select my amendment to Lords amendment No. 155. I would like to say a word or two about that.
      Mr. Speaker: In that case it would be convenient if we took Lords amendments Nos. 66 to 77 formally.
      Lords amendments Nos. 66 to 77, 144 to 153 and 174 agreed to.

    Schedule 11

      TAXATION PROVISIONS
      Lords amendment: No. 154, in page 112, line 23, leave out second "of".
      Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.——[Mr. Michael Spicer.]
      Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendment No. 155, in page 114, line 29, at end insert—

      TAXATION PROVISIONS

        Transactions effected in pursuance of section (Transfer Schemes under sections 63 and 64) ( 2 ) ( c)
        4A.—(1) Sub-paragraph (2) below applies to any disposal (within the meaning of the Capital Gains Tax Act 1979) which is effected, and sub-paragraphs (3) and (4) below apply to any lease which is granted, in pursuance of a provision included in a transfer scheme by virtue of section (Transfer schemes under sections 63 and 64)(2)(c) of this Act.
        (2) A disposal to which this sub-paragraph applies shall be taken for the purposes of the Capital Gains Tax Act 1979
        618
        to be effected for a consideration of such amount as would secure that on the disposal neither a gain nor a loss would accrue to the disponer.
        (3) Subsection (6)(a) of section 37 of the Finance Act 1978 (capital allowances; long leases) shall not prevent the application of that section in any case where the lease is a lease to which this sub-paragraph applies.
        (4) Where, in the case of any machinery or plant which is a fixture and on the provision of which for the purposes of the transferor's trade the transferor incurred capital expenditure, a lease of the relevant land (with or without other land) is a lease to which this sub-paragraph applies—

        (a) the lessor shall not be required to bring the disposal value of the machinery or plant into account in accordance with section 44 of the Finance Act 1971 (writing down allowances and balancing adjustments); and

        (b) so far as relating to the bringing of disposal values into account, that section and Schedule 17 to the Finance Act 1985 (capital allowances for fixtures) shall have effect as if—

        (i) the capital expenditure incurred by the transferor had been incurred by the lessee on the provision of the machinery or plant wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the lessee's trade; and

        (ii) the machinery or plant had become a fixture, immediately after the grant of the lease.

        (5) In sub-paragraph (4) above "the transferor" means the transferor under the transfer scheme in question and expressions which are used in Schedule 17 to the Finance Act 1985 have the same meaning as in that Schedule; and in construing that sub-paragraph the provisions of section 511(2) of the 1988 Act and the corresponding earlier enactments shall be disregarded."
        Amendment (a), to the Lords amendment, to leave out sub-paragraphs (1) and (2).
        Lords amendments Nos. 156 and 157.
        Mr. Hardy: I shall not detain the House for long, Mr. Speaker, but, as you know, I am interested in the protection of the rare species. When I saw the word "disponer", which I had never seen in a Bill before, I thought it reasonable to table an amendment to the Lords amendment to give the Minister the opportunity of explaining it.
        However, I also have a suspicious mind and the other day I asked a supplementary question when the Minister told the House that he had saved the public a lot of money by prosecuting people who had disgracefully and fraudulently falsely claimed unemployment benefit. I suggested that the same resources and the same energy would have yielded a greater harvest if the Government had gone after the tax dodgers. When I read Lords amendment No. 155 and saw a reference to capital gains and the proposal that the disposal should produce
        "neither a gain nor a loss",
        it occurred to me that sometimes a capital gains loss is an asset.
        I hope that the Minister will find my illustration interesting. Let us suppose that a writer of modern novels manages to produce one which is sufficiently salacious as to become a best seller. That property may be purchased for film rights, in which case there is a substantial capital gain. If the writer is allowed to set that capital gain against a loss, which could be an entirely notional loss, as a result of this privatisation exercise, he could be a considerable gainer, whether he were a disponer or not.
        I shall not seek to press my amendment to a vote, but the Minister should offer us some reassurance and explanation. I have tabled the amendment partly because I want to know why the word "disponer" is included in Lords amendment No. 155 and partly because I want the Minister to give the House an assurance. Since those who

        619
        have wished to evade income tax or many other forms of sometimes burdensome taxation have received a great deal of assistance during the past 10 years, I want to be absolutely sure that the privatisation of electricity will not also be possibly helpful in the longer term to those who are fortunate enough to select the small number of boards that might be successful and make a capital gain at the same time.
        As I have said, I do not wish to detain the House or to force a Division on this matter, but we are entitled to a degree of reassurance and explanation from the Minister, which I am sure that he would wish to offer in view of the possibility of self-interest arising.
        Mr Michael Spicer: It is perfectly fair game for the hon. Gentleman to start picking up words with junior Ministers at this time of night and to ask what they mean. That is a well known and legitimate game, and it is fine. The answer to the hon. Gentleman's questions may be coming from the Box, but I think and hope that I know it before it does.
        These provisions are all about the transfer of assets and about disposals. They relate to people receiving new assets because of the schemes that will be coming forward. Through these technical and very neutral amendments, in which there is no question of tax breaks or of anybody gaining, the Government are allowing the transfer schemes made by the Central Electricity Generating Board, the Electricity Council or the Scottish boards to impose on one successor company an obligation to enter into agreements with another. In the case of the CEGB, I refer, for example, to a long-term lease in respect of land within the perimeter of a power station. The purpose of the amendment is simply to ensure that the fulfilment of such an obligation is tax neutral. The implications of that are dealt with in detail. If the hon. Gentleman is worried that gains could be set off against some future losses, the answer is that that could not happen. There is no question of any clever tax manipulation being permitted. The total effect is tax neutral.
        Mr. Hardy: I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation.
        It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
        Ordered,
        That, at this day's sitting, the Electricity Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. John M. Taylor.]
        Question again proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
        Question put and agreed to.
        Lords amendments Nos. 155 to 157, 80, and 163 to 167 agreed to. [One with Special Entry.]
        Lords amendment: No. 91, before clause 99, insert the following new clause—Amendment etc. of Electricity Supply Pension Scheme—
        ". The provisions of Schedule (The Electricity Supply Pension Scheme) to this Act (which provide for amending the Electricity Supply Pension Scheme and for giving special protection to certain persons who have or may acquire rights under that scheme) shall have effect."
        Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment—[Mr. Lightbown.]
        Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take amendments Nos. 92, 168 and Government amendment (a).
        Mr. Frank Doran: The amendments relate to pension and superannuation schemes, which, at the moment, are on a statutory basis. It is unfortunate that pension arrangements did not receive much consideration in Committee. However, I appreciate that that was partly due to the fact that negotiations were continuing with the electricity boards' employers and trades unions and the amendments are the result of those negotiations.
        The points that I am about to make relate to this and the subsequent group of amendments. What protection is there for members of existing pension schemes after privatisation? Paragraph 1(5) of new schedule 13 provides that regulations under that paragraph which provide some form of protection can be made only up to the new vesting day. Exactly the same applies to the pension schemes of the Scottish boards. We shall have to see those regulations when they are published, but what protection will there be after vesting day?
        My constituents have already raised with me their fears in relation to the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board pension fund which is already embarking on a contributions holiday. I should declare an interest because I am still a member of that fund, having worked for the board for about five years.
        Contributors to that board's pension fund and others are worried that employers are taking a contribution holiday. I have had experience of private employers who have tended to see the pension fund almost as an asset of the business rather than as an asset of the members of the fund, and I should like some clarification and assurances from the Minister of exactly what protections are on offer once those industries are privatised.
        Mr. Michael Spicer: The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Doran) is right to say that the amendments have been brought forward at this stage as a result of consultations with those concerned. My hon. Friend the Minister of State, Scottish Office will answer his specific point on Scotland when he deals with the next group of amendments.
        During our discussions of clause 99 in Committee, I gave an undertaking to bring forward an amendment to protect the pension rights of employees transferred to successor companies, in the event of the electricity supply pension scheme being wound up. This provision would replace the existing "no worsenment" protection under section 54 of the 1947 Act. My officials subsequently had long and detailed consultation with the industry and the electricity supply trade union council on the formulation of the no worsenment protection, which was the subject of a great deal of debate in Committee.
        As a result of those discussions, the Government tabled amendments in another place to provide the framework for the continuing pension protection for existing employees, pensioners, dependants and frozen-benefit-holders on the transfer date. The Secretary of State is empowered to make regulations to place a duty on employers that such protected persons shall not be placed in any worse position because of the winding-up of the electricity supply pension scheme or through other specified circumstances, including transfers within the industry with continuity of employment. The regulations will enable any disputes arising in respect of the no worsenment provisions to be referred to arbitration.

        621
        Because the provisions became so long and so complex, they were transferred into a schedule, together with the original contents of clause 99.
        I hope that hon. Members are satisfied that that meets our commitment given in Committee to introduce protections for pensions.
        Question put and agreed to.
        Lords amendment No. 92 agreed to.
        Lords amendment No. 168, as amended, agreed to.
        Lords amendment: No. 93, before clause 100, insert the following new clause—
        ". The provisions of Schedule (The Scottish Pension Schemes) to this Act (which provide for amending the Hydroboard Superannuation Fund and the South of Scotland Electricity Board's Superannuation Scheme and for giving special protection to certain persons who have or may acquire rights under those schemes) shall have effect."
        Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Lightbown.]
        Mr. Speaker: With this we can discuss Lords amendments Nos. 94 and 169.
        Mr. Doran: I should like the Minister to tell me about protection for the pension funds of Scottish boards.
        The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Mr. Ian Lang): It might be helpful if I said a brief word about the amendments. They transfer the contents of clause 100, which gives the Secretary of State power to amend the Scottish pension schemes, into a new schedule. They also introduce into the schedule new provisions relating to the protection of pension rights for certain persons. They have been prepared along similar lines to the amendment just introduced in relation to the electricity supply pension scheme in England and Wales. Like that amendment, it has two effects. First, it gives the Secretary of State for Scotland power to make regulations amending the two Scottish schemes. Secondly, it gives him the power to make regulations for protecting certain persons against any deterioration of their pension rights under the schemes.
        622
        The amendments were introduced with the agreement of the Scottish boards and the trade unions in the industry in Scotland.
        As I heard the question asked by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Doran) in the last debate, I can save him from having to get to his feet. I understand his anxiety on behalf of some of the employees of the hydro board about the security of their pensions under the new arrangements. Privatisation brings no change to the arrangement; the trustees are still subject to the same obligations. If any trustees act fraudulently they will be subject to prosecution. Obviously, trustees must take decisions about investments in funds, and in so doing they take professional advice. Regular actuarial reviews are required by law to ensure that the trustees are aware of the value of the funds in relation to their liabilities. The hon. Gentleman mentioned trustees taking a contribution holiday, but that practice is by no means unusual—especially in recent years. Pension funds have substantial surpluses, and for that reason trustees feel able to take a holiday.
        Paragraph 2(1) states:
        "The Secretary of State may make regulations for the purpose of securing that …
        (a) no person to whom paragraph 3(1) or (2) below applies"—
        which, for the purposes of the provision, is an employee—
        "is placed in any worst position by reason of … (ii) any amendment of a relevant scheme which results in benefits under that scheme being reduced, or contributions by employees being increased, and is made otherwise than in such circumstances as may be prescribed".
        In other words, the purpose of that paragraph is to protect employees' rights, and the trade unions are well content with those arrangements.
        Question put and agreed to.
        Lords amendments Nos. 94, 169 to 173, 175 to 181 and 96 to 99 agreed to. [One with Special Entry.]
        Further consideration of Lords amendments adjourned.—[Mr. Lightbown.]
        To be further considered tomorrow.

  Education (Assisted Places)
  10.11
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. John Butcher): I beg to move,
  That the draft Education (Assisted Places) Regulations 1989, which were laid before this House on 26th June, be approved.
  The draft regulations consolidate with certain small amendments, which I will describe, the Education (Assisted Places) Regulations 1985 as amended in 1986, 1987 and 1988.
  The assisted places scheme was established in 1981 for the purpose of widening the educational opportunities of able children from less well-off families. It provides their parents with assistance towards the fees of some of the best independent schools in the country. The assistance is on a sliding scale based on parental income, and the principal changes embodied in the consolidating regulations are concerned with the annual revision of that scale.
  In past years there have also been technical amendments to keep the definition of "total parental income" for the purposes of the scheme constant as tax legislation changes. This year, one such amendment takes account of the position of assisted places scheme—APS—parents who either receive or pay maintenance payments. But I venture to suggest that all of the amendments, which I shall describe in a moment, are straightforward.
  Part I of the draft regulations deals with citation, commencement, application and interpretation. By virtue of draft regulation 1, the regulations are to come into force on 12 August 1989. Part II of the draft regulations deals with eligibility for assisted places, and is unchanged from earlier years.
  Part III deals with remission of fees. Draft regulation 11 of part III has been amended to increase from £950 to £1,000 the amount that may be deducted from the relevant total income of an assisted place holder's parents in respect of each child or dependent relative other than the assisted place holder. Parts IV and V cover administrative arrangements and miscellaneous requirements and are unchanged.
  Schedule 1 provides for parents' income for the purposes of the scheme to be computed on the basis of their "total income", as defined with reference to tax legislation in regulation 11. The provisions of paragraph 5 of schedule 1 ensure that, despite changes in the taxable status of maintenance payments introduced in the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988, APS parents making maintenance payments will continue to be able to offset them against their "relevant income". The provisions also ensure that APS parents receiving such payments will continue to count them as part of "relevant income". The provisions, however, only preserve the status quo as far as the assisted places scheme is concerned.
  Draft schedule 2 sets out the income scale used for assessing parents' contributions towards fees. As usual, this has been uprated to take account of movements in the retail prices index. The threshold at or below which parents pay nothing towards fees is raised from £7,258 to £7,584. Draft schedule 3 revokes the 1985 regulations and the regulations amending them
  624
  The provisions and amendments that I have described will ensure the continued smooth running of the assisted places scheme, and I trust that they will find favour with hon. Members on both sides of the House.
  10.15 pm
  Ms. Hilary Armstrong: This debate gives us an opportunity to review the workings of the scheme that the Government brought into effect during the passage of the Education Act 1980. It has given me a chance to read some of the Hansard reports of the time, and very interesting reading they made. I have been able to re-examine the Government's intentions in introducing the scheme. The Secretary of State said in October 1980 that the scheme would lead to a greater social mix within independent schools. I have tried to find evidence of the fulfilment of that criterion, but I have to say that the evidence is very thin. It is true that each year almost exactly 40 per cent. of APS pupils have been entitled to free places, and over half have come from families with incomes below the national average. We must, however, ask ourselves whether that constitutes a social mix.
  A research project funded by the Economic and Social Research Council showed that over 50 per cent. of pupils had fathers from professional and managerial occupations: only 7 per cent. came from families with manual working backgrounds. The research also found that 68 per cent. of pupils' mothers and 51 per cent. of their fathers had attended selective or independent schools. Very few represented the kind of able working class child whom, according to the initial publicity, the scheme would rescue from inadequate inner city comprehensives.
  That is the problem with which we are dealing: those whom the scheme has helped are those who would probably have attended such schools in any case, and whose parents—despite having fallen on hard times, often through divorce—wanted to ensure that their children went to the kind of schools that they had been to.
  My predecessor in the constituency of Durham, North-West said in the 1980 debate:
  "It is unique to this country that we seem to believe that our top civil servants, top management, those who are to be leaders of the community have to be educated in separate schools, having been taken away from the rest of society and moved into a secluded quarter."
  So many people who have aspirations towards independent schools see themselves as separate—and wish to separate their children—from the ordinary, everyday stream of life. That is a sad indictment of our society. The assisted places scheme has not led to a greater social mix in independent schools; it has enabled the existing mix to continue.
  The Government's second intention was that the scheme would increase the number of working-class children going on to higher education. It is well known that I have been a strong advocate of providing such opportunities. However, the figures and what has happened under the scheme show that the take-up of sixth-form places has never risen much above 75 per cent. and some 60 schools have consistently recruited below their quota. Almost two thirds of those taking up places under the scheme for the first time at 16 are already fee-paying pupils in independent schools. The regulations, in spirit if not in letter, provide that more than 60 per cent. of assisted pupils should be recruited from the maintained sector. It is clear from recruitment to sixth forms that

  625
  assisted pupils are coming from the rest of the independent sector. Those two factors mean that the scheme is not providing access to higher education for working-class young people.
  A recently published general household survey carried out in 1986 shows that the daughters of unskilled workers proved to be testimony to the belief. It shows that the number of daughters of unskilled workers going to university was less than 0·5 per cent.
  The Government's third aim was that the scheme would not be aimed at sustaining the independent sector. That has made the Labour party somewhat cynical. How can a school continue to call itself independent when 40 per cent. of its pupils are there because of public funding through the assisted places scheme? The estimated cost of the scheme in the current financial year is £59 million. That is a substantial public contribution to the so-called independent sector. Clearly and inevitably many schools would be in great difficulty if that money were withdrawn from them. However, they need to prepare for a Labour Government withdrawing that money from them.
  The fourth aim that the Government had in mind was to provide academic training for working-class young people. The implication was that the Government did not believe that such academic training could be provided in the maintained sector. Let us consider the criteria for what is academic. This year, the Government are adding another 52 schools to the list of schools to which the assisted places scheme will apply. That is partly to redress the regional imbalances. Of the 470 schools that made provisional offers of places on the scheme in 1981, its first year, more than 200 were discarded by the Department of Education and Science as unsuitable for such an academic scheme.
  The 1989 newcomers to the list include several schools that were accepted by the DES then, but changed their minds about participating in the scheme. Clearly there are others that would have been acceptable had they applied. But the list includes a number that would almost certainly not have met the 1981 criteria. More than half the new schools have fewer than 400 pupils. How can the Government reassure anyone that those schools would be likely to offer the wide range of A-level subjects taught to viable groups in the way that the 1981 criteria required? Some lack any proven record of achievement in sending pupils forward to higher education. The Government have clearly abandoned the initial aims of the scheme as described to us.
  I return to the subject of regional inequalities. The Government said that the scheme could be regarded as a national scholarship scheme for bright children from modest backgrounds. Indeed. the measure refers to the desirability of securing an equitable distribution of assisted places throughout the country and between boys and girls.
  It does not need great brain power to appreciate that there is an uneven distribution nationally in the independent sector, particularly of schools that are called academically excellent, to which the scheme was supposed to relate. There is certainly an uneven distribution among those willing to offer substantial numbers of assisted places.
  In 1988, for example, there were 464 new places available in Greater Manchester, 346 in the Liverpool and Birkenhead area and 225 in Bristol and Bath. By contrast, there were 70 in Nottingham, 55 in Leeds, 16 in Sheffield and none in Leicester. I give those figures simply to
  626
  demonstrate that the Government have failed, even on their own criteria, to ensure an equal distribution of resources.
  As I have shown, the Government have failed to meet the intentions of which they spoke when they introduced the scheme in 1980. In addition, the costings have been startling. We are lectured daily by the Government on the need for economy. We are now being lectured about the need to be careful with public spending because, they say, high public spending is the cause of rocketing inflation.
  If that is so, we must look carefully at the rising costs in the assisted places scheme. In 10 years, Government expenditure per pupil has increased by 275 per cent., which is certainly more than the rise in Government expenditure in the maintained sector. Indeed, if public spending in that sector had gone up by 275 per cent., we would probably not be suffering now from some of the problems that exist, but I will not embarrass the Government by dwelling on those problems.
  It is clear from the figures that in the last four years 50 additional pupils have been covered by the scheme, for an extra £1,700,000. I appreciate the problems that the Government are facing in relation to inflation, but figures of that sort go beyond reality and sensibility.
  Where is the public accountability in those rising costs? Who is in control of the expenditure? Who are, and where are, those publicly elected people who are determining fees? We are witnessing inefficiency. How can the Government guarantee value for money when they do not know what is happening and when they have no involvement in the setting of fees or in the development of the nature of schools? They have even opted out of any responsibility for the curriculum. We return to a point that we have talked about before. When the House was considering the Education Reform Bill, the Opposition were bemused that the Government could talk about a national curriculum yet exclude independent schools. Are they saying that people in independent schools are not part of the British nation?
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: The hon. Lady does not understand how the system works. In the independent sector, parents vote with their feet and, if the curriculum is inadequate, they take their children away. In the maintained sector, until the reforms introduced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, people had no choice. No choice is the Labour party's policy.
  Ms. Armstrong: It is late at night, so I will forgive the hon. Gentleman for his inaccuracies. We are talking about public money. It is not a matter of parents making an automatic choice. All they can do is send their child to a school that is part of the assisted places scheme. Conservative Members know that parents do not move kids around as though they were pounds of butter and that they have consideration for their children, even if Conservative Members have not. Whatever the arguments about choice, this is public money and there should be public accountability. Those young people have the right to be treated as part of the national curriculum.
  It is interesting that this legislation comes at the end of a week in which hon. Members and people outside the House have been much concerned about the Government's education policy and where it has taken children. People have talked about the massive problems

  627
  for children who cannot get a place in any school because there is no teacher. When will the Government take the education of all Britain's children seriously? When will they take their commitment to children in Tower Hamlets, who have no access to school because there is no teacher, as seriously as they take throwing money at the independent sector?
  This week, there has been public criticism of the money that the Government have thrown at city technology colleges, a system which is meant to create different groups of children. The Government are doing that with public money. It is used to justify the Government's ideological dogma. The Government are denying opportunities to children and know that they cannot deliver the national curriculum to some children this September.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman rose——
  Ms. Armstrong: They are making families pay for children—
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman rose——
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett rose——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. It is clear that the hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Ms. Armstrong) is not giving way.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman rose——
  Ms. Armstrong: The hon. Lady was not present at the beginning of my speech. Therefore, I am not prepared to give way.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is clear that the hon. Member for Durham, North-West is not giving way.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was not asking the hon. Lady to give way; I was raising a point of order. Is it in order for her to say that this is public money, when it is money raised from industry?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is a matter for debate, not a point of order.
  Ms. Armstrong: The hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) should examine the amount of capital investment that the Department of Education and Science puts into city technology colleges.
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett: When the hon. Lady was challenged by my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Mr. Howarth), who asked her whether Labour was in favour of the assisted places scheme, she did not answer the question. Will she not come clean and admit that the Labour party intends to get rid of choice altogether? The Labour party does not believe in the assisted places scheme. It has said that it will remove the charitable status of the independent sector, and that it will get rid of the city technology colleges and the grant-maintained schools. The Labour party proposes a statist education system with no choice at all, in which everyone has to be educated under the control of the state.
  628
  Why does she not come clean on that and admit that the consumerism in which the Labour party pretends to believe does not really exist?
  Ms. Armstrong: I know that it is late. The hon. Gentleman understands what I am saying, although he pretends to misunderstand. I am in favour of choice, but I am as much in favour of choice for those kids in Tower Hamlets as I am for those who get into Cheltenham ladies college. Those children in Tower Hamlets, who are going into primary schools in which teachers have had no opportunity to update themselves in science, deserve choice as much as children whose parents decide that they want an independent education for them. I am not against people having choice, but I want choice for all people and not just some.
  Mr. Michael Jack: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Ms. Armstrong: No. I promised the Minister that I would speak for only 15 minutes.
  Mr. Jack: Will the hon. Lady give way on that point?
  Ms. Armstrong: No, because the hon. Gentleman was not here at the beginning of the debate.
  The Government are denying opportunity to the majority of children. They are demonstrating that they care about the few and that they believe that one can give a good education only to a few. We do not believe that, and we are not prepared to accept that. As a result, we will oppose the regulations.
  10.37 pm
  Mr. Bob Dunn: I am delighted to take part in this short debate, and I welcome the Government's determination to continue to support and extend the assisted places scheme. I recollect that the last occasion on which I spoke as a Minister, on 5 July 1988, was in support of changes in the regulations on assisted places. I remember quoting the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) and I think that it is worth repeating his words today. He said in The Guardian on 23 March:
  "First, we must recognise that a nation of consumers enjoying relatively high living standards becomes literally much more choosy, much more interested in choice and variety."
  He said that then, and as far as I know, for he is an honourable man, he has not rescinded that comment or changed the interpretation I chose to give those words at the time.
  It was clear from the speech of the hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Ms. Armstrong)—and I welcomed her comments about her distinguished predecessor, thereby reminding us of her commitment to the hereditary principle—that we have been debating over some eight years this scheme which gives many young people from disadvantaged backgrounds an opportunity to seek and benefit from an education in good schools in the independent sector.
  When the education spokesmen of the Labour party, starting with the hon. Member for Blackburn and going on to the hon. Members for Durham, North-West and for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith), talk about the needs of working class children, I want to reach for my political gun. There they sit, products of the British middle class, trying to dictate to the House what they believe are the needs and

  629
  aspirations of working class children. The truth is that the Labour party has always regarded members of the alleged working class as political pawns in the sense of being members of the tied cottage culture. When we decide to extend the chance to create a ladder of opportunity, for children who in themselves——
  Mr. Frank Haynes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Dunn: I will give way in time, but not in the middle of my best point. I will determine the debate when I have the floor. I certainly do not intend to give way to the middle class Members of Parliament sitting on the Opposition Front Bench who tell the House what needs to be done for children who, until now, had access only to that neighbourhood school that their local authority had dictated that they should attend.
  The hon. Member for Durham, North-West asked why the Conservative party believed in the principle of the assisted places scheme.
  Mr. Haynes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Dunn: I will give way in time, but the hon. Gentleman must learn to be patient. Patience is a virtue seldom exercised by the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) and, in the dying time that he is in the House, he should learn it. He has become an institute—the parliamentary foghorn of the Labour party—but he is now to hand in his bell and retire to Derbyshire, or some place like that.
  The hon. Member for Durham, North-West asked why we were in favour of the scheme. The answer is simply because it provides a ladder of opportunity that was destroyed by the consensus of both Governments in the past, which destroyed many excellent schools in pursuit of the peculiar notion of egalitarianism.
  The hon. Member for Ashfield has been extremely virtuous, so I shall now give way to him, but let me remind him that I am not deaf.
  Mr. Haynes: Earlier today I told Mr. Speaker that he called me last in business questions because I am the most patient of hon. Members. I have a thick skin, and the hon. Gentleman can throw whatever he likes at me. He spoke about the middle class Members on the Opposition Front Bench, but I was born in poverty and worked for 35 years in the pit before I came to this place. He can put that in his pipe and smoke it.
  Mr. Dunn: As I understand it, the hon. Gentleman is not a Labour party spokesman on education. I was referring to those who exercise that peculiar privilege at the moment.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Had the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) lived in Lancaster, whatever background he came from, he could have gone to the Lancaster Royal grammar school, had he the ability, which many of my hon. Friends have. The Labour party destroyed the chances of people like the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Dunn: There is no doubt that my hon. Friend has made an important point.
  I was speaking about the logic behind setting up the scheme in 1981. I welcome the extension of choice, and I welcome the decision of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to extend into the list a further 52 schools. I also
  630
  welcome regulation 18 in part V, which deals with the publication of information. I hope that in time the Government will give us some idea of how those children who started off in the scheme in the early 1980s and who must now be entering higher and continuing education have been performing, given the good start that they received.
  The point of the debate is simply to remind the House that the scheme exists and that the scheme is working. Of course, I believe that we should do more to make it more accessible to many more children in other parts of the country. I welcome the support of the hon. Member for Durham, North-West, implicit in what she said about the denial of places in the city of Leicester. If the hon. Lady asks us for assisted places in Leicester, who are we to deny that opportunity to the people of Leicester?
  I will say to the hon. Lady that it was a good try, but that she has remained wholly unconvincing in the case that she has set out. She has continued to be an ideologue I—think that it is an insult to be called an ideologue—in what she seeks to achieve. Self-congratulation is the prerogative of the Labour party, and every July when we debate the assisted places regulations Labour Members prove that they know nothing about working class aspirations and that they care even less.
  10.46 pm
  Mr. Simon Hughes: The hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) was on his best form, berating the Labour party from a position of small influence, just as he used to do as a former member of Southwark council—a council of 64 on which the Tories have but seven members.
  I want to say two main things about the regulations, as the latest in a succession of my hon. Friends who have spoken in these debates since 1980. The first is that the Government's scheme is unprincipled and the second is that it is inconsistent.
  The assisted places scheme is unprincipled because it denies the proper priorities that there should be in the education of our young people.
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett: What about John Stuart Mill?
  Mr. Hughes: John Stuart Mill would be completely at one with my argument.
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett: No, he would not.
  Mr. Hughes: Yes, he would. I shall deal with that point and a point made earlier by the hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Mr. Howarth) in a moment.
  The Conservative party's analysis is flawed for one obvious reason. The lack of principle manifests itself in the evidence that it is a greater Government priority to spend public money on supporting a few—in a system in which it is hoped they will become privileged—than it is to spend more on the public sector, in which lack of funding results in many children's education not moving from the bottom rung. [Interruption.] I stress—to the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) and others—that those of us in whose constituencies education is most in crisis as a result of Government policy and failure to fund see the results clearly. The money is not being spent where it should be spent—to assist needy schools, children and

  631
  teachers. If it were not spent on the assisted places scheme, there might be more money available out of the public purse to help more people.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hughes: I shall give way in a second. The hon. Lady's belated arrival was compounded by——
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I arrived later than I intended.
  Mr. Hughes: Yes, I know. The hon. Lady's late arrival was compounded by the ignorance displayed in her intervention.
  On CTCs, the Government declared that they wished the majority of money to come from industry and the minority from the Department or the Treasury. That has not happened. The Government did not find more than a few people in industry who were prepared to fund CTCs.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Oh yes, they did.
  Mr. Hughes: No, what I have said is factually correct, and Ministers would be unable to deny it.
  The majority of money has come from the Department of Education and Science—80 per cent. to 20 per cent., the exact opposite of what was the original Government plan. There are two reasons for that. First, much of industry—I have spoken to several people—is not supportive of what they see as a divisive scheme. Secondly, this latest Government initiative that seeks to fund other things rather than the general education system is perceived to be what it is—a tokenist attempt, which, in its tokenism, deprives others of considerable resources where the greater priorities are and the greater money should be spent.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Having been a social worker in the east end of London, I was well aware of the ability of youngsters who really tried in those areas to get away from their schools and have wider educational opportunities in grammar schools. It is a tragedy that those youngsters are now denied that chance. I believe firmly that the assisted places scheme is giving back to those youngsters from disadvantaged homes the chance of which the Labour party, with the connivance of the Liberal party, deprived them.
  Mr. Hughes: Last night I was at a farewell party for the head teacher of a primary school in my constituency, where the children speak at home 28 different mother languages. One of the former pupils of that primary school is now at Cambridge, having gone entirely through the county sector, and is expected to get a first-class honours science degree. There is no reason why to have excellence in education one has to perpetuate a system which divided children at 11 years on the basis of a single test which was shown academically to be often inaccurate in assessing people's ability, and cast children into two groups—the sheep and the goats—for good, to the great detriment of many of those who went into the secondary modern as opposed to the grammar school sector.
  It is also inconsistent, this year above all, for Government Ministers to argue in favour of a continuation of the assisted places scheme. It is inconsistent because, if the Government are to be believed,
  632
  their education policy over the past 10 years has been successful—by their argument, the standards have gone up and good reforms have been made. If the county system is so much better now than it was 10 years ago, so much less is there a case for paying people to leave it to go into the independent sector. Even less so for the reason that this year, as a result of the Education Reform Act 1988, we will see the national curriculum in place. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear".] I agree entirely—hear, hear—and I am supportive of the objectives of a national curriculum. However, I hope that the Minister of State at the Home Office who assented to the support for the national curriculum will agree with the hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Ms. Armstrong) and me that it is entirely inconsistent that it should not also apply to certain schools—those very schools to which the Government fund children to go. The private sector, which is free from any national curriculum and which can sometimes teach very poorly, is funded by the taxpayer and the public purse to ensure that certain children get on to what clearly is a ladder, not necessarily of opportunity for academic excellence, but of opportunity to become more privileged because of the result that the private education system often produces.
  The inconsistency is that in the year when we have the introduction of the national curriculum, instead of saying, "Our education reforms have been so good and we now have the national curriculum which will be so much better, so we do not need the assisted places scheme any more", the Government are saying, "We still need and we still want to encourage more and more people to leave the public sector and to go into the private sector of education, funded by the public purse".
  The hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood said that the merit of the market place was that the parents, in choosing independent schools, vote with their feet. They do not—they vote with their wallets. The difference is that many people do not have anything in their wallets with which to vote. By picking just a few of the many hundreds of thousands of children whose parents do not have anything in their wallets, one is not changing the fundamental inequality that exists. One is not changing that inequality if some people can buy their way into the private sector and if the private sector is supported by a few others who have their places provided out of public funds when that is not an option for the majority of people in this country.
  I am not in favour of a monopoly of county or state education; I am in favour of independent schools—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—but I am not in favour of independent fee-paying schools in which some people have the right to buy their way into a position of advantage for their child when another child has no such advantage.
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: The hon. Gentleman must realise that the downward pressure on fees in the independent sector is due to the fact that parents do not have unlimited wallets. If the hon. Gentleman took the time to study the parents who send their children to independent schools, he would find that they are not often "rich"; they are simply parents who are making the most enormous sacrifices to send their children to such schools because they believe them to be better. The fact that it is their money—and that they are careful about how they spend their money—means that they do vote with their feet. If a school is inadequate they will not send their child to that school,

  633
  they will withdraw the child and send him or her somewhere else. It is wholly untrue that independent schools are acting in a vacuum; they are subject to the schools inspectorate like the whole of the maintained sector, so there is some kind of supervision.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: Of course, there is some kind of supervision. However, I am very aware that, as the hon. Gentleman well knows, it is not the same kind of supervision. I am also aware of the pattern of and the trends in the people who send their children to private schools. In constituencies such as mine where, in general, the secondary education provided by the local authority is poor, some parents make great sacrifices to buy their children out of that system—and I understand that. Often those parents do so because they think that it will give their children an advantage. Sometimes it does, but sometimes it does not. However, those parents do not do so necessarily or normally because the private system provides better educational standards, but because they believe that, all things taken together, it will give their children an advantage at the end of their schooling.
  A far better system would be to ensure that there is indeed choice, but choice that is not determined by whether one can pay to exercise it and that is not precluded from those who cannot pay but still wish to exercise it, and choice across a whole range of options in which money is not the object.
  I had hoped that when introducing the debate the Minister would say how the assisted places scheme was achieving the objectives that he and his predecessors had set for it. He explained the changes in the regulations, but, as the hon. Member for Durham, North-West said at the beginning of her speech, over the eight or nine years that the system has been operating, there is no evidence that it has achieved the objectives originally set for it. The only evidence that exists is that the Government have continued to spend a proportion of taxpayers' money when increasingly over that time the greater priorities have been elsewhere. When a Government do not have the courage to put their money where their priorities should be, it is a sad day for education.
  10.58 pm
  Mr. Butcher: First, I give my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) the assurance that we shall be looking at the outcome of the scheme. It is right that we should follow up and examine the achievements of those who pass through the assisted places scheme as they move into higher education or careers.
  The speech of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) was pretty mixed up. There was a time when the Liberal party was committed to pluralism and believed in choice, but the moment the hon. Gentleman was tested on that point, he implied that he believed in independent schools, but not in fee-paying independent schools. If that is his position, I assume that he really means that he likes independent schools which have free places. Therefore, can I assume that the hon. Gentleman is in favour of grant-maintained schools?
  Mr. Simon Hughes: There should be plurality and diversity in education in all sorts of schools, but the criteria for getting there should not be the ability to pay.
  Mr. Butcher: That is, I think, an interesting commitment from the Liberal party to grant-maintained
  634
  schools, and I am grateful for that. If the hon. Gentleman is to stay true to his logic, I hope that he will declare his commitment to city technology colleges. I understand that he runs with both the hare and the hounds in his constituency on that matter.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: I think that the hon. Gentleman knows that I am a governor of a school in Southwark that is going through the process of deciding whether it should be a CTC. I voted against the proposal because for the Government to refuse that school £1·5 million to be relocated and rebuilt on a different site and then to bribe the school by offering it £10 million to become a CTC was completely inappropriate and against the wishes of the community, the parents and all locally-elected representatives. I do not believe in that sort of selective pressure on the local education system.
  Mr. Butcher: The Liberal party is clearly all over the place and that explains why it is no longer concerned about policy formation and is descending into the sort of agitprop irrelevancies which now pose as policy in that party.
  Mr. Derek Fatchett: Let me provide the Minister with some information because he did not take part in the debates last year on the Education Reform Bill and he will have missed the strong and fundamental opposition to grant-maintained schools offered by the then education spokesperson for what was then the Liberal party who is now the leader of the Social and Liberal Democrats. When the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) says that the SLD believes in pluralism, he really means that he has one policy and his leader has another.
  Mr. Butcher: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. It is at this point that the cross-party consensus comes into question.
  The hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Ms. Armstrong) began by talking about the social mix in independent schools which take pupils under the approved places scheme. I thought that she was leaning towards the proposition that in order to improve the social mix in her terms, and even in the Government's terms, to get more young people from low-income families into those schools, we should increase the number of assisted places available. If she is true to her logic she should support us in increasing the number of places and we shall then only have to agree by how many the current number of 35,000 places must be increased. Then we would get the sort of social mix for which I thought that she was arguing.
  But matters get much worse. We are fortunate tonight in having all the members of the Labour party's education team on parade on the Opposition Front Bench. The hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) went to Reading grammar school, a selective school. The hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) went to Lincoln school, a selective school in his time. The hon. Member for Durham, North-West is the only one, consistent with her principles, who went to a non-selective school. The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) attended Brentwood school, now in the assisted places scheme. So far so good. In his time it was a direct grant school, which he attended from 1957 to 1964. I wish that I had had that advantage. I went to a common or garden grammar school.
  Mr. Jack Straw: It shows.
  Mr. Butcher: Under the direct grant arrangements a capitation fee was paid by the DES on behalf of every pupil. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman, laugh as he may at the moment, was the beneficiary of state assistance to attend a selective school. Why is it that tonight he and his privileged team of colleagues, who are perched on the Opposition Front Bench like starlings, wish to say to Brentwood school, the old school of the hon. Member for Blackburn, "You can't do it under the APS"? Why is the hon. Gentleman saying that parents on low incomes should not have the same opportunities that his parents had? It seems that they are not to have that choice if he has his way. If he is to be consistent with his philosophy, he should support the Government.
  Mr. Straw: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for informing the House of what could be read in any of the reference works of the past 15 years. I am not in the least ashamed of where my parents happened to arrange for me to go to school. None of us is responsible for where we went to school. Instead we are responsible for where our children go to school. When we went to school, there were no comprehensive schools. All schools were selective. As the Minister wishes to trade family histories, he should be made aware that my youngest sister failed the 11-plus. It was only because comprehensive education was available in the adjoining education division that she had the chance to take advantage of higher education. The Labour party is concerned that there should be real choice for everyone and not merely for a privileged few. That is why we have pushed for the comprehensive principle throughout the country.
  Mr. Butcher: The hon. Gentleman has done nothing to persuade me or, I think, the House that the inconsistency embodied in his own career does not remain strong. The privileged bunch on the Opposition Front Bench is saying that it will deny opportunities to children of poor and less well-off families through the APS. It is a scheme which benefited one of the bunch directly. Two more of its members enjoyed privilege with state funding in a selective system. I find its position difficult to contemplate.
  Why do we help children whose parents are on low incomes? I shall use some real examples. The Labour party has been pretty good of late—let us pay it the compliment—of taking individual cases and making general points from them. I shall take the opportunity of taking some individual cases and making general points from them. I shall present real examples of pupils who have done well against the odds through the APS. There was the girl suffering from cystic fibrosis whose widowed mother put her through an APS school in Surrey. Last year, she left that school with one A and two B grades at A-level and she is now studying law at university.
  Ms. Armstrong: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Butcher: Let me finish.
  There was the Coventry boy whose four A grades and one B at A-level won him a place at Oxford, where he is now reading mathematics. I am sure that his father, an unemployed labourer, is rightly proud. There was the London assisted pupil who achieved two As and a C at A-level last year. Both parents are blind. I am sure that with that handicap bringing up children can be a monumental struggle. If the assisted place gave those parents the reassurance that their child was being educated
  636
  according to their wishes, who would begrudge them that? We believe that they should have that choice. If the local neighbourhood comprehensive school is not to their choice, they should have the opportunity to send their child elsewhere.
  Ms. Armstrong: Is the Minister really saying that that opportunity should be available only to those on the assisted places scheme? Is he saying that such an opportunity could not be made available in the local comprehensive? Is he saying that he is not committed to ensuring that that opportunity is available in every comprehensive school in the country, for every child?
  Mr. Butcher: No, I am not saying any of those things. The hon. Lady has just dug herself a very deep hole. If she examines the Education Reform Act 1988, which she opposed root and branch, she will find that a theme runs through it. It will be seen that in the case both of grant-maintained schools and CTCs the Government will be giving the independent sector real competition and a real run for its money—because we have expectations of the state's free system that are the same as those that we have in respect of the independent system. The Government are giving real choice in those terms.
  The examples I gave related to people who opted for a certain ethos. We say that that same ethos can come through in our state systems, through the grant-maintained schools and through the CTCs. We are the friends of the underprivileged in that regard.
  Mr. Dunn: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Opposition's contribution is quite bizarre? They are saying that because something cannot be available to all, it should not be available to anyone. Presumably the same applies, in the Opposition's view, to those people who cannot afford to buy their own house—and the Opposition would argue also that because some people cannot afford to buy a car, no one should own a car. That is the logic of the politics of envy.
  Mr. Butcher: My hon. Friend the Whip advised me not to prolong the debate, and in order to put Labour out of its misery we should not do so. We have been given enough material tonight to keep us going until the next general election.
  Labour has been exposed as the party not of equality and opportunity but of dull uniformity and mediocrity. That is Labour's game. It believes in equality—full stop. We believe in true equality of opportunity. I shall sit down and challenge the Opposition to undertake a little research. They have not done much, and they ought to do more.
  We know which schools the members of the Shadow Cabinet attended. My estimate is that one third of them attended independent schools. I say to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) that they are a tough bunch, are they not? They are a privileged lot. One third of their number attended independent schools, and another third attended selective schools—and only one third of them shared the hon. Lady's lonely new tradition of attending a comprehensive school.
  Ms. Armstrong: I am amazed at the Minister's ignorance of educational history. It took Labour Governments to introduce comprehensive education. I confess to attending a selective school after I took the 11 plus. My predecessor as Member of Parliament for my

  637
  constituency was chairman of the education committee and took that school out of selectivity and made it a comprehensive school, which was an enlightening and uplifting experience for me.
  The Minister should know and understand that it took legislation in this House to move towards non-selective education, and that his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, when Education Secretary, took more schools out of selection than any previous Secretary of State for Education.
  Mr. Butcher: I have had quite enough fun tonight, and I commend the regulations to the House.
  Question put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 93, Noes 17.

  Division No. 314]

  [11.14 pm

  AYES

  Amess, David

  Couchman, James

  Amos, Alan

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Arbuthnot, James

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

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Day, Stephen

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Dover, Den

  Baldry, Tony

  Dunn, Bob

  Bellingham, Henry

  Durant, Tony

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Fallon, Michael

  Boswell, Tim

  Forman, Nigel

  Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Bowis, John

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Burt, Alistair

  Gill, Christopher

  Butcher, John

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Butterfill, John

  Gregory, Conal

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Carrington, Matthew

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Cash, William

  Harris, David

  Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Chapman, Sydney

  Hind, Kenneth

  Chope, Christopher

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

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Cope, Rt Hon John

  Irvine, Michael

  638

  Jack, Michael

  Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Steen, Anthony

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Stern, Michael

  Knapman, Roger

  Stevens, Lewis

  Knowles, Michael

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Summerson, Hugo

  Lightbown, David

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Lilley, Peter

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Tracey, Richard

  Lord, Michael

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Maclean, David

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Mans, Keith

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Miller, Sir Hal

  Waller, Gary

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Mitchell, Sir David

  Warren, Kenneth

  Neubert, Michael

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Wilkinson, John

  Norris, Steve

  Wilshire, David

  Patten, John (Oxford W)

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Wood, Timothy

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Shelton, Sir William

  Mr. David Heathcote-Amory and Mr. John M. Taylor.

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  NOES

  Armstrong, Hilary

  McWilliam, John

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Pike, Peter L.

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Straw, Jack

  Fatchett, Derek

  Wallace, James

  Foster, Derek

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Hood, Jimmy

  Howells, Geraint

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Mr. Frank Haynes and Mr. Dennis Skinner.

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Resolved
  That the draft Education (Assisted Placed) Regulations 1989, which were laid before this House on 26th June, be approved.

  Mr. Jens Soering
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Fallon.]
  11.25 pm
  Mr. Teddy Taylor: I wish to raise an important constitutional issue and, as is the case with so many important constitutional issues—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. Will hon. Members who are not staying for the Adjournment debate please leave the Chamber quietly?
  Mr. Taylor: The matter that I raise tonight is important and fundamental for British sovereignty. Sadly, many of these issues arise late at night when few people notice them. It is, however, important that I get the facts of the case on the record.
  I am grateful for this opportunity to raise the implications of an instruction from the European Court in Strasbourg that the United Kingdom should not fulfil its extradition arrangements with the United States and return Mr. Jens Soering to Virginia to face charges of his involvement in a horrific double murder.
  The decision of the court appears to involve an astonishing extension of the powers of the court, a major insult to the free democracy of the United States and dangerous implications for our national security and for the rights of Parliament. It is obvious that the European Court in Strasbourg has been extending its power, as is invariably the case with European institutions. The scope of its present jurisdiction seems to go far beyond the tight and specific articles which were laid down in the convention of 1953.
  In this case, hon. Members will recall that, because the original signatories were determined that the court should have no power to interfere with capital punishment authorised by national Parliaments, article 2(1) of the convention stated:
  "No-one shall be deprived of his life intentionally, save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which the penalty is provided by law."
  Nothing could be clearer. If it was a question of capital punishment, the court could not interfere. But despite that clear statement and guidance, the court has instructed Britain not to extradite a person who was to face a charge of involvement in one of the most brutal, evil and monstrous murders ever committed.
  The facts of the murder are abundantly clear. Jens Soering is accused of slashing Derek Hayson, aged 72, and his wife, Nancy, in the throat in March 1985 and then of stabbing them repeatedly in their Virginia home in circumstances with black magic overtones. The walls of that elderly man's house were daubed with blood and the number 666, which is allegedly the sign of the devil, was gouged out of the floorboards. Bloody footprints suggested that the alleged killers danced in the couples' blood.
  After the killings, M r. Soering and the couple's daughter, Elizabeth, left America and arrived in Britain in January 1986 with false documents. They were arrested and gaoled for 12 months at Kingston Crown court. Police found wigs, false moustaches and bogus driving licences in their bedsit.
  640
  After her sentence, Miss Hayson returned to Virginia, where she was sentenced to 90 years' imprisonment as an accessory to a double murder. She did not fight extradition but simply went back to America to face the charge.
  However, rather than face similar charges, Mr. Soering has been experiencing the judicial delights of the European Court in Strasbourg and, in consequence of its astonishing generosity of spirit, can presumably now remain in Britain or elsewhere in Europe for the rest of his life and not be required to return to the United States to face the charge of bloody murder.
  The British courts require him to return to the United States of America, although, for reasons which I hope that the Home Secretary will explain, it was made clear that the United Kingdom did not wish Mr. Soering to face capital punishment in the United States of America if he were found guilty. I hope that the Minister will say why that was said. Capital punishment has always been a free vote issue in this House and I do not believe that there is any Government policy to communicate on such matters.
  Do the Government intend to accept the European Court's decision? Are they worried about what seems to be a huge extension of the powers seized by the court? The court has argued that the time taken in the United States of America for appeals could be so lengthy that it would inflict unreasonable degradation and inhumanity on Mr. Soering if he were found guilty.
  The Government have the power, if they wish to use it, to tell the European Court to jump in the lake. It is not part of the Common Market and it is not the European Court of Justice, but the European Court of Human Rights. When the court made another remarkable decision last year on the rights of alleged terrorists to appear before a judge at an early stage in the tension, the Home Secretary made it clear in Parliament on 6 December, as reported in column 211 of Hansard, that we could decide to derogate under article 15. More fundamentally, he suggested that we could decide to withdraw from the court's jurisdiction.
  The Home Secretary should be aware that, if he goes along with the court's decision, he will inflict a massive injury and insult on the United States of America, which is a democratic ally which never fails to help Britain in the battles against international crime and terrorism. It would also be a moral crime inflicted on the relatives of the murdered elderly couple to fail to send to the courts in Virginia a person accused of the killings.
  What will the Government do? The European Court judgment also affects the rights of Parliament. If Parliament decided in future to reintroduce capital punishment for murder or terrorism the decision would be an ineffective joke, unless we could satisfy the European Court of the acceptability of our appeal mechanism.
  There is a rising tide of concern in the Conservative party, in Parliament and in Britain generally about the extent to which non-elected European bodies are seizing the rights of our elected Parliament, elected Government and respected courts of law. At some stage we must make a stand. I believe that the time has come in the shameful case of the Strasbourg decision on Jens Soering.
  What will happen to Mr. Soering? Can he stay in Britain for the rest of his life and, presumably, with our European Community arrangements, go to Germany or anywhere and live on social security for the rest of his life, if he wants, and no doubt be the first of many? What are the rights of Parliament'? What is our attitude to the European Court if it constantly extends its powers? The

  641
  Minister must be aware that the European Court of Justice is extending its powers as well as the European Court in Strasbourg.
  I can think of no issue more serious for our constitution or relations with our friends in the United States of America. I hope that the Minister will bear in mind the fact that they help us enormously, for example, to deal with terrorism and the IRA. This is a serious case. I know the Minister's conscientious attitude to justice and of the great work that he does at the Home Office. I hope that he will give some hope to those who are acutely worried by this dreadful case.
  11.33 pm
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. John Patten): I hope that I can give some hope to my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) and to others who are worried about this case. I congratulate him on bringing it to the attention of the House.
  I listened extremely carefully and take my hon. Friend's comments seriously. He described the dreadful murders so graphically that they bear no repetition by me, and he spoke of the constitutional powers of courts outside the United Kingdom. My hon. Friend and I take the constitutional issue seriously, as I hope the whole House does, as it affects the powers of this place. We must keep it in mind. My hon. Friend does the House a service by keeping it before us.
  I hope that I shall be able to reply directly to every question that my hon. Friend asked, but if he feels that I have missed anything, I shall be only too pleased to give way to him at the end of my speech. I shall not trouble the House further with the detailed background to the case except to say that one person involved returned of her own free will to the United States and is now serving a 90-year gaol term in the state of Virginia.
  The background is contained in the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, a copy of which is in the Library of the House. The salient facts should, however, be brought to the House's attention. Soering's extradition was sought, in 1986, by the United States authorities on a capital murder charge. Soering is a German national. The German authorities have also sought his extradition as they have jurisdiction over offences committed by their nationals abroad. They have rather more jurisdiction than United Kingdom courts, although our courts have such powers in the case of murder and one or two other offences.
  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, having received requests from the United States and a request from the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany, has taken the view that the proper course is to continue with the United States extradition request although the German request is still extant. If he so decides, my right hon. Friend can at any time act on that request.
  My hon. Friend is concerned to know why we had any inhibitions about returning someone, provided that the facts of the case were clear and justice was done, to a jurisdiction where a person might face a capital sentence. The extradition treaty between the United Kingdom and the United States of America provides for a discretion on surrender if the relevant offence is punishable by death under the relevant United States law. For better or for worse—I dare say that my hon. Friend feels that it is for
  642
  the worse—that is written into United States treaty. It also provides for the giving of assurances satisfactory to the requested party that the death penalty will not he carried out.
  In this case, the Virginian authorities gave an undertaking that, if Soering were convicted of murder, a representation would be made in the name of the United Kingdom to the judge at the time of sentencing that it was the wish of the United Kingdom that the death penalty should not be imposed or carried out. What has happened since then is a process of appeal.
  Soering sought first to challenge the decision to extradite him to America. He did that in the domestic courts in Britain and then by application to the European Commission of Human Rights. Before the Commission, Soering's principal contention was that, if he was surrendered to the United States, there was serious reason to believe that he would be subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment in contravention of article 3 of the convention. This would arise, he suggested, from the exceptional and inordinate delay before carrying out the death penalty in Virginia. In a number of cases in that state's jurisdiction, delay has been substantial—five to eight years.
  The Government acceded to the request of the President of the Commission not to remove Soering while it considered his application on this ground.
  What happened is now history and is in the judgment, which is in the Library. The Commission decided by a narrow margin that the extradition of Soering to the United States of America would not give rise to a breach of the convention. The case was then referred to the court by the Commission and subsequently by the United Kingdom Government and the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany. The judgment of the court was delivered on 7 July. The court held unanimously that Soering's extradition would violate article 3 of the convention.
  It is worth spending a brief moment on the court's judgment. In reaching its conclusion, the court was at pains to make it clear that the death penalty as such was not contrary to the convention—the court said that in its judgment—nor was it seeking to apply the convention to a state that was not a party to the convention. The court explicitly acknowledged the democractic character of the Virginian legal system and stressed that Virginian trial, sentencing and appeal procedures were beyond doubt. The machinery of justice to which Soering would be subject in the United States was in itself neither arbitrary nor unreasonable. Additionally, and happily from the point of view of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General and myself, the court acknowledged the good faith of the United Kingdom Government in their approach to this case.
  The court considered, however, that the nature of the assurance received in this case were open to doubt. The court found that it was not open to it to conclude that there were "no substantial grounds" for believing that the applicant faced a real risk of a death sentence. That led the court to consider what has become known as the "Death row phenomenon". It accepted that some delay between sentence and its execution was inevitable—up to 90 days when we had the capital sentence—but it had regard to the very long period likely to be spent awaiting execution in Virginia, which could be five to eight years, with the ever-present and mounting anguish of awaiting execution.

  643
  The court took account also of Soering's personal circumstances—his age and mental state at the time of the offence and so on.
  In the light of this, it concluded that there would be a real risk of exposing him to treatment going beyond the threshold set by article 3. A further consideration was that in this particular instance the legitimate purpose of extradition could be achieved by another means which would not involve suffering of such intensity and duration—his return to Germany for trial.
  Since receipt of the judgment earlier this month, the Government have been seriously considering its implications and the courses of action that are now open to us. While that process is continuing, I hope that my hon. Friend will appreciate why I cannot predict what the outcome of this case will be.
  I want to respond, however, to the specific points raised by my hon. Friend. He suggested in particular that the United Kingdom should simply ignore the views of the European Court of Human Rights—tell it to "jump in the lake" was his graphic phrase. But we are talking of international obligations binding upon the United Kingdom. Each of the parties to the European convention of human rights has undertaken to abide by the decision of the court in any case to which they are parties. The House will recall that this country took a leading role in the evolution of the convention, and successive Governments have been scrupulous in complying with the judgments of the court.
  My hon. Friend also referred implicity to a recent case in which the United Kingdom felt obliged to derogate from the convention, following a judgment of the court. I want to point out why derogation was correct in that case and would not be correct in the case that my hon. Friend has raised. The circumstances were very different. That case concerned detention in Northern Ireland under the Prevention of Terrorism Act 1974. In that case, we derogated from our obligations under article 5 of the convention. Derogation in respect of particular articles of the convention is expressly provided for in article 15, which states:
  "in time of war or other public emergency threatening the life of the nation."
  We believe that there is an emergency in the Northern Ireland case. That is not the position in the case we are discussing tonight.
  I must also point out to my hon. Friend that no derogation is permitted from certain articles of the convention, including article 3 on inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Under the convention, we cannot derogate in the same way as we are able to derogate in the case to which my hon. Friend referred.
  Having made those points and answered those questions, I want to underline certain key issues raised by the case. The first is the importance that the United Kingdom attaches to its extradition agreements. They are a major factor in our responses to serious crime and we are committed to the principle of co-operation between jurisdictions. We welcome the strong and close co-operation that we have with the United States, to which my hon. Friend referred so warmly and which will be greatly appreciated by the United States Goverment who,
  644
  I am sure, will pay attention to our proceedings tonight. A key objective throughout our handling of these issues has been to maintain the integrity and effectiveness of our extradition arrangements with the other countries concerned. That is clearly in our best interests.
  Secondly, I want to stress that the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights centred on the fact that Soering was at risk of experiencing the "Death row phenomenon" if he were to be extradited to the United States in the present circumstances. That is to say, it is extradition while the threat of a death sentence remains that led the court to declare a breach of the convention. I ask my hon. Friend to reflect on what I am about to say. It follows from that that if the threat of a death sentence were to be removed, no question of a breach of the convention would arise from extradition to the United States.
  Thirdly, I can tell my hon. Friend and the House tonight that Her Majesty's Government remain committed to ensuring that Soering should stand trial for the offences that have been alleged against him. If the threat of a death sentence in the United States cannot be removed, there remains the clear option of returning Soering to stand trial in Germany—rather than maintaining his freedom in the United Kingdom—in the way in which my hon. Friend thought might have been possible under certain circumstances.
  I assure my hon. Friend, whom I hold in great respect because of his strong and passionate interest in law and order and the constitutional integrity of the kingdom, that we have not been idle since receiving the Strasbourg judgment three weeks ago and we have not ignored the importance of this case to our relationship with the United States and the Federal Republic, and to the integrity and good working of our extradition arrangements with those two countries. We have been in discussions with the American and German Governments since the judgment, although the House will appreciate why it would not be appropriate for me to go into details of those exchanges tonight.
  I hope that what I have said will convince my hon. Friend that we are treating this case as one of the utmost seriousness. We are faced with allegations of very serious offences and our objective has been to honour our international obligations and to ensure that the case comes to trial.
  Mr. Teddy Taylor: With the leave of the House. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for the serious reply that he has given to my questions. I am delighted to hear that it is his intention that Soering should face trial. In view of the importance of the relations between Britain and the United States, I ask him to send a copy of the Hansard that includes his excellent speech to the governor of Virginia, or some other similar person, with his fraternal good wishes and the respect of Parliament.
  Mr. Patten: With the leave of the House. I shall certainly ensure that as soon as they are available, copies of Hansard are sent, through the usual channels, in the direction that my hon. Friend has suggested.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at eleven minutes to Twelve o'clock.

TRANSPORT

  White Papers
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if, for each of the last three White Papers issued by his Department, for which legislation has been started, he will state the time elapsed between their publication and the First Readings of any Bills connected with them; and if he will do the same for the last three White Papers issued by his Department prior to 1979.

  Mr. Channon
  The last three White Papers published by my Department, in which legislation was proposed and has been subsequently started or completed, were: Airports Policy (Cmnd. 9542), Channel Fixed Link (Cmnd. 9735) and Merchant Shipping (Cmnd. 239). These were published on 5 June 1985, 4 February 1986 and 2 November 1987 respectively and the First Readings of the Airports, Channel Tunnel and Merchant Shipping Bills resulting from them took place on 16 January 1986, 17 April 1986 and 18 January 1988. It is not for me to answer for the record of the last Government in this matter, but the information requested should be available in the Library of the House and the Official Report.

  London River Bus Service
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will consider making a further grant to the London river bus service in order that it may accept London Regional Transport tickets and passes.

  Mr. Portillo
  An arrangement for Riverbus to accept London Regional Transport's tickets and passes would be a matter for negotiation between the operators in the light of their commercial interests. I do not consider that it would justify a further grant.

  Summer Time
  Mr. Thornton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are the equivalent figures for the years 1968–69 and 1970–71 to correspond with those from the transport and road research laboratory, illustrated on page 9, paragraph 28 of the Government's Green Paper, "Summertime", Cmd. 722.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The estimates for the winter of 1968–69 and 1970–71 that correspond to those contained in paragraph 28 of the Green Paper are:

  1968–69

  1970–71

  Reduction in:

  fatalities

  239

  226

  serious casualties

  908

  866

  slight casualties

  1,234

  1,211

  Mr. Thornton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport with reference to the transport and road 244
  research laboratory calculations illustrated in the Government's Green Paper, "Summertime", Cmd. 722, what would be the estimated effect on figure 3 on page 10, tables 1 and 2 on page 1I and table 3 on page 12 of an extra 1·5 million workers joining the morning and evening commuter rush hours.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  When roads are congested, accidents occur at lower speed, leading to lower risk of injury, and less serious injuries. Thus, transferring substantial numbers of trips to the peak periods could lead to fewer—and less serious—casualties among these travellers. While there could be more casualties in the less congested pre-peak period, the net effect on the results quoted in the Green Paper is likely to be negligible.

  Orange Badge Scheme
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will initiate a pilot survey to investigate the extent and nature of the abuse of the orange badge scheme;

  (2) if he has made any estimate of the extent to which abuse of the orange badge scheme has contributed to any overloading and ineffectiveness of the scheme.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Any research into abuse of the orange badge scheme, no matter how carefully handled, could well be seen as questioning the parking concessions which many genuinely disabled people quite properly enjoy. That could spread unjustified alarm and lead to allegations of harassment of disabled people.

  Advice from organisations representing disabled people and letters to the Department by members of the public show that abuse of the scheme is widely perceived to be a problem.

  It is at present difficult for police and traffic wardens to spot misuse of orange badges by able-bodied people.

  We have proposed that the orange badge should be redesigned in the form of a personal passport-type document. There would be space for a photograph of the holder. We believe that this will do much to deter abuse and aid enforcement.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make it an offence for non-disabled drivers to display an orange badge whilst driving, unless the person to whom it was issued is in the car, and whilst parking, unless the car is being used to pick up or drop off the badge holder.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  It is already an offence for an able-bodied person to misuse an orange badge. The maximum penalty is £400.

  We believe that our proposal to redesign the badge with space for a photograph of the holder will deter misuse.

  We do not rule out further changes to the operation of the scheme should they be necessary to preserve its value to severely disabled people.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport approximately how many people now possessing an orange badge were awarded it at the discretion of the local authority; and what is the estimated number of these who would lose entitlement if the recommendations of the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee were implemented.

  Mr. Bottomley
  Information on the criteria under which local authorities issue badges is not held centrally.
  245
  Soundings of a number of local authorities in 1986 suggested that about three quarters of badges were being issued under regulation 5(d) of the Disabled Persons (Badges for Motor Vehicles) Regulations 1982.

  We do not want to restrict badges only to those who receive mobility allowance. We propose to tighten the criterion in regulation 5(d). We shall consult widely on detailed proposals.

  There is no proposal to withdraw existing badges. Our aim is to ensure that in future only severely disabled people who most need badges will qualify for them.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) how many people currently receive mobility allowance; how many of them also have orange badges; and if any study has been made of the reasons why those with the mobility allowance who do not have the orange badge have not claimed it;

  (2) if his Department has collected evidence on whether people without mobility allowance, who have an orange badge awarded under the discretionary powers of the local authority, might be eligible for mobility allowance were they to apply.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Some 580,000 people currently receive mobility allowance.

  We have no reason to find out how many mobility allowance recipients hold orange badges; why those recipients without badges have not claimed them; or how many people with badges might be eligible for mobility allowance were they to apply.

  We do not propose to restrict eligibility for orange badges only to those who receive mobility allowance.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has received any advice regarding the maximum and minimum number of orange badges that would give a fair balance between the needs of severely disabled people and the requirement to have a scheme that is not so overloaded that it becomes unworkable.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Our proposals for the eligibility criteria are designed to ensure that people with severe mobility problems continue to qualify for a badge in accordance with the original aims of the scheme.

  We have no quota or target in mind for the number of badges on issue. There will be no rationing of badges.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will consider the proposal that all applications for orange badges to be issued under the discretionary powers of local authorities should be accompanied by a medical note from a doctor who is not the applicant's personal general practitioner nor from the same practice.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The introduction of independent medical assessments was considered in the Department's 1986 consultation paper which looked at possible changes to the orange badge scheme. Opinions on this idea were divided.

  We shall in due course be considering with interested bodies how eligibility criteria could be framed and how assessments could be handled.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if there has been any investigation of the contribution to the variation in the number of orange badges per capita issued by local authorities that is made by(a) variation in the local incidence of disability and (b) local authorities' differing interpretations of the guidelines.
  246
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The different issuing rates of certain comparable and neighbouring local authorities provide a strong indication that authorities do not apply the rules uniformly.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what evidence he has regarding the proportion of the people receiving an orange badge issued by local authorities under their discretionary powers, who supply a medical note from their own general practitioner with their application; and what proportion are examined by or supply a note from a doctor who is not their own general practitioner.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  It is for local authorities to decide how to assess applications for orange badges.

  This information is not held centrally.

  National Bus Company Subsidiaries
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Workington of 10 July, whether he will list the 18 properties in which mortgage charges were placed as part of the sale of 14 National Bus Company subsidiaries; and whether he will state at what price each of the National Bus Company subsidiaries was sold.

  Mr. Portillo
  Details of such properties are regarded as commercially sensitive. For similar reasons the proceeds of individual sales are not being disclosed, although details of the overall proceeds from NBC's disposal programme were provided to the House on 25 January in response to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw).

  Driving Licences
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he is taking to improve the acceptability abroad of British driving licences; and if he will take steps to press for an extension of the validity of international driving permits.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  From next april DVLC will begin issuing a new-style pink driving licence which will in due course show all of an individual's driving entitlement—motor cycles, cars, lorries and buses—on a single licence. The vehicle categories on the driving licence will broadly conform to the categories used on international driving permits (IDPs), and the design of the licence will correspond very closely to the Community model prescribed in the first directive on driver licensing. Although we are unaware of any significant problems with international recognition of the current pink driving licence, the new licence should be even more acceptable and intelligible to overseas authorities.

  The maximum period of validity of an IDP is laid down in the international conventions governing their issue. It is not within the United Kingdom's competence to extend the validity of IDPs unilaterally.

  A1-M1 Link
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give the average daily flow of vehicles for the A1-M1 link road projected for its first year of opening and the comparable current and projected figures for the M45.
  247
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The required estimates, in terms of annual average vehicles per day, are:

  (a) projected flow on A1-M1 link in 1991–92–19,000.

  (b) projected flow on the M45 in its year of opening (1959) was 16,000.

  (c) the estimated flow on the M45 in 1987 was 7,900.

  The projected figure for the M45 was made before the opening of the M6, after which the traffic flow on the M45 declined considerably.

  Airports
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what study his Department has made of the agreements reached between the United States Government and other European states on access to their airports for United States carriers; when he now expects negotiations with the United States Government on access to Manchester airport to be re-opened; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  We understand that some European states' bilateral agreements automatically give United States carriers wide access to their airports. But our agreement requires the maintenance of balanced opportunities for the parties. The United States Government have indicated that they will soon propose a package of new rights for their carriers, including rights into Manchester. They are unlikely to be ready to negotiate before October, however.

  Scottish Lowland Airports
  Mr. Allan Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he intends to revise the traffic distribution rules for Scottish lowland airports before the House rises for the summer recess.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The Government are appealing against the recent ruling in the Scottish Court of Session, and understand that, pending the outcome of that appeal, the effect of the judgment is suspended. Scottish lowland airports policy remains as set out in the 1985 White Paper "Airports Policy" and confirmed by my right hon. Friend in his parliamentary answer of 8 May 1989, at column 343.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what have been the total costs incurred by his Department resulting from court action in relation to the implementation of Scottish lowland airports policy.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The Government have yet to be advised of the legal costs they have incurred in relation to the proceedings in court.

  South Circular Assessment Study
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport on how many occasions since 1 August 1988, his officials have met Travers Morgan to discuss the south circular assessment study.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Officials have held monthly progress meetings and other meetings as necessary.

  Used Vehicles (Roadworthiness)
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will outline the steps taken by his Department to empower trading standards officers to inspect used vehicles for sale on garage forecourts for roadworthiness.
  248
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The Director General of Fair Trading has submitted proposals on these lines on behalf of a number of organisations. These are being considered in the light of existing responsibilities and powers of the Department's vehicle examiners. Any purchaser of an older second-hand car, whether from a forecourt or elsewhere, would be well advised to seek a recent MOT certificate and consider employing a qualified independent third party to inspect the vehicle.

  HGV Wheel Loss
  Mr. Roger King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if, following the talks with the Institute of Road Transport Engineers, future funding of research into heavy goods vehicles wheel loss has now been determined.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  [holding answer 17 July 1989]: The principal reason for heavy goods vehicle wheel detachment is ineffective maintenance. The Department supports the initiatives being taken by the IRTE to remedy this including advice to operators.

  Further research into wheel and fixing design is a matter for the industry and is being considered by the appropriate BSI committee.

ENERGY

  Pressurised Water Reactor, Wylfa
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy why the standard consultation period of six months prior to a public inquiry has not been provided in the case of the application to build a third pressurised water reactor at Wylfa in North Wales; if he will reinstate a consultation period of six months; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  My right hon. Friend needs to set time periods in which objectors can make their views known to him. The statutory obligation on him is to give a period of not less than 21 days in which objections from the public can be made to him. I believe that the three months period which he has set in this case provides ample time for anyone who wishes to object to the proposal to do so.

  In the light of all the representations he receives, my right hon. Friend will then decide whether a public inquiry is necessary. If he calls for an inquiry to be held all objectors, registered pursuant to section 34 of the Electricity Act 1957, will be sent details of the inquiry, including the procedures to be followed if the objector wishes to give evidence.

  Mining Subsidence
  Mr. Heddle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (1) if he will publish in the Official Report details of the recommendations of the Waddilove committee on coal mining subsidence which have so far been implemented and the timescale in which he expects the remaining recommendations to be implemented, together with details thereof;

  (2) when he proposes that British Coal's code of practice in respect of compensation for coal mining subsidence will be brought into statute.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere
  249
  Port and Neston (Dr. Woodcock) on 12 January, at columns 739–41. This lists those recommendations of the Waddilove committee which have been implemented wholly or in part by British Coal. The Government's proposals for legislation to deal with the remaining recommendations were set out in a consultation document circulated in April 1988, copies of which are in the Library of the House. These proposals, which include putting British Coal's code of practice on a statutory footing, will be implemented as soon as the parliamentary timetable permits.

  Fiddlers Ferry
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what information he has on when the Central Electricity Generating Board is going to install a flue gas desulphurisation plant at Fiddlers Ferry; and what is its estimated cost.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  This is an operational matter for the CEGB, and I have asked the chairman to reply to the hon. Member.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the campaign to promote energy efficiency in the public sector.

  Mr. Parkinson
  The Government are leading a campaign to improve energy efficiency within the public sector.

  The campaign will start with Government Departments and then extend to the public services. The aim for Government Departments is to achieve savings rising to £45 million per annum—15 per cent. of the current total bill—over five years.

  A Minister within each Department has been given specific responsibility for energy efficiency. A list of these Ministers will be placed in the Library. My Department's Energy Efficiency Office is creating a small team to brief each Minister, enabling them to set targets for their Departments and agree plans for achieving these targets. This team will monitor progress and report to me, and targets and measures of performance will be published.

  Departments will be able to count these new gains towards their targets for efficiency improvements in three year running costs management plans.

  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether he has given further consideration to the requirement for electricity suppliers to promote energy efficiency.

  Mr. Parkinson
  I have today placed copies of a revised condition 18 of the public electricity supply licence in the Library.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  ODA Videos
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will give the print run, production and distribution costs of the Overseas Development Administration publication, "British Overseas Aid, Anniversary Review 1989" and the two associated videos with details of their distribution.
  250
  Mr. Chris Patten
  On the Anniversary Review I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis) on 14 July at column 648.

  The two new videos form part of the Overseas Development Administration's annual information programme. With supporting material the videos cost a total of £175,000 to produce and, like the Anniversary Review, were given the ODA's usual distribution for such publicity material.

  Africa
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the recently published African alternative framework and structural adjustment programmes endorsed by the United Nations Economic Commission for Africa.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  We agree with the ECA's objectives to ensure that economic growth in Africa proceeds hand in hand with the development of Africa's human resources and the alleviation of poverty. Spending in these areas should not be made the scapegoat in times of fiscal austerity.

  However, some of the policy measures and instruments recommended in the report would not, in our view, help the cause of "growth with equity". They would have the effect of slowing growth down and perpetuating distortions. They appear to represent a partial return to the kind of dirigiste policies from which increasing numbers of African countries have been successfully moving away.

  It must remain a matter of priority to bring down the excessively high levels of inflation and unsustainable budgetary deficits in many African countries which only hamper growth prospects and the ability to tackle longer-term issues—including poverty alleviation—in a sustainable manner.

  Nicaragua
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the total of bilateral aid given to Nicaragua by Her Majesty's Government in the year 1988–89.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  Final figures of bilateral aid for 1988–89 are not yet available. Provisional figures indicate that our aid to Nicaragua in that financial year was £260,000. This does not include our contribution through the European Community or to development projects jointly funded with British voluntary agencies.

  EC Budget
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will be taking steps to try to secure an increase in the total expenditure under line 941 of the Community budget and in the percentage share of that expenditure going to United Kingdom non-governmental organisations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  Member states are at present considering allocations under the 1990 Community budget
  251
  including line 941 which has increased substantially in recent years. We shall keep in mind the popularity and success of this programme during budget discussions.

  There are no set percentage shares for member states' NGOs, but United Kingdom NGOs have consistently received more support than those from other member states.

CIVIL SERVICE

  Child Care Facilities
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service, pursuant to the answer of 7 July,Official Report, column 321, to the hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) concerning child care facilities, if he will publish in the Official Report the total number of whole-time equivalent child care places currently organised in Government Departments and the percentage of Government Departments offering full-time child care facilities.

  Mr. Luce
  [holding answer 18 July 1989]: The information is not held centrally as Departments have discretion to set up and support child care schemes. As far as I am aware, there are currently 42 full-time home-based child care places directly supported by the Department of Social Security in Newcastle. There are firm plans for three value-for-money nurseries at Home Office (Croydon), Ministry of Defence (London) and Civil Service college (Sunningdale). Fifteen departments are running holiday schemes for school-aged children for between three and 10 weeks a year and the number of schemes is increasing. In February this year, Government Departments were given the freedom to provide ongoing financial support for child care schemes where these offer good value for money. Real progress is now being made to expand child care arrangements to help our recruitment and retention needs in the 1990s.

WALES

  Quangos
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the female chairpersons of quangos appointed by him in Wales.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  Since taking office in June 1987 I have appointed the hon. Mrs. Lindy Price to chair the advisory group for breast cancer screening and Mrs. Sara Reeve to the Glamorgan agricultural dwelling house advisory committee panel of chairmen. I have reappointed the following:

  Mrs. Edith M. Herbert—Dyfed family practitioner committee

  Lady Crawshay—Local Government Boundary Commission.

  I also extended Ms. G. L. Thomas' period of office as chairman of the Powys agriculture dwelling house advisory committee's panel of chairmen for a further year

  Name

  Employer

  Occupation

  Expiry date of appointment

  Professor G. Owen (Chairman)

  Retired

  Former Principal, University College, Aberystwyth

  31 March 1991

  Mrs. E. Colwyn Foulkes

  Self Employed

  Architect

  31 March 1990

  Mr. J. Elias

  Self Employed

  Environmental Consultant

  31 March 1992

  252
  from 1 January 1989. I appointed Prof. C. M. Chapman to the Welsh national board for nursing, midwifery and health visiting in September 1988. The members subsequently elected her as their chairman.

  I also concurred with the proposal of my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to re-appoint Rhiannon Bevan as chairman of the Welsh Consumer Council in April 1988.

  Skill Shortages
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he proposes to publish his asessment of skill shortages in Wales and the impact of the single market; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  As part of my Valleys programme, a skills survey is being undertaken by the Training Agency, and my Department will be in close touch with the agency and with the Welsh Development Agency to ensure that appropriate action is taken to meet any training requirements which are revealed. This is part of a continuing review of the situation throughout Wales under which my Department maintains close liaison with the Training Agency on the range of Government training measures designed to provide young people, the unemployed and existing employers with the skills which employers need, taking account of the move towards the single European market. The greater involvement of employers, through the establishment of training and enterprise councils, will ensure that training is even more responsive to the needs of local labour markets.

  House Renovation Grants
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects to be able to inform local authorities about their capital allocation in respect of house renovation grants for 1990–91.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  Subject to the enactment of the Local Government and Housing Bill, capital allocations for 1990–91 will be replaced by credit approvals and capital grant. On present plans, I expect to notify individual local authorities of their share of resources shortly after the publication of the 1989 autumn statement. Resources are not generally hypothecated. It is for individual authorities to decide the balance between home improvement grant and their other spending.

  NCC Advisory Committee
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the names of members of the Nature Conservancy Council's advisory committee for Wales, giving in each case their occupation, employer and nominator, and the date upon which their term of office is due to expire.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  The information is as follows:
  253

  Name

  Employer

  Occupation

  Expiry date of appointment

  Dr. W. A. Evans

  Dyfed County Council

  Headmaster, Comprehensive School

  31 March 1992

  Dr. B. A. Haines

  Self Employed

  Freelance writer, Editorial Consultant Partner in agricultural consultancy

  31 April 1991

  Mr. J. M. Harrop

  Self Employed

  Farmer

  31 May 1990

  Dr. W. R. Howells

  Self Employed

  Consultant in pollution control, fisheries and conservation

  31 March 1991

  Dr. B. S. John

  Self Employed

  Geographer, Author, Publisher

  30 April 1991

  Professor G. R. Sagar

  University of Wales

  Vice Principal and Professor of Agricultural Botany, University College, Bangor

  31 March 1990

  Professor D. Taylor Smith

  University of Wales

  Head of School of Ocean Sciences, University College, Bangor

  31 March 1992

  Members are appointed by the Nature Conservancy Council following the approval of my right hon. Friend and are not nominated to represent particular organisations.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Remote Sensing
  Mr. Michael Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how much public funding was provided for research and development work related to the processing and application of remote sensing data in 1988–89; how much will be provided during 1989–90; and through which agencies such funds are distributed.

  Mr. Jackson
  Funds from the science budget amounted to about £5 million in each of the years 1988–89 and 1989–90. These are distributed through the Natural Environment and the Science and Engineering Research Councils.

  Mr. Michael Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what plans the National Economic

  Evening-only further education course enrolments: Bolton Education Authority

  Position at 1 November of year shown

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  Leading to a qualification

  1,398

  1,670

  1,696

  1,932

  2,352

  2,438

  Not leading to a specified qualification

  5,808

  5,956

  5,149

  5,839

  5,790

  4,541

  Source: Further Education Statistical Record.

  Ethnic Minorities
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many staff from ethnic minorities are employed in his Department in grade 5.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Three.

  Osteoporosis
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he expects the Medical Research Council to report on the criteria and techniques of screening for osteoporosis.

  Mr. Jackson
  The Medical Research Council has set up an expert group on osteoporosis, under the chairmanship
  254
  Research Council has to expand its work in the field of satellite remote sensing; and what would be the financial implication of any such expansion.

  Mr. Jackson
  The Natural Environment Research Council's published corporate plan for the period 1990–91 to 1994–95 states that the council plans developments in the use of remote sensing techniques and will seek to promote applications development in preparation for satellite programmes in the 1990s. It will be for the council to decide its specific research priorities within the overall resources available.

  Adult Education (Bolton)
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the number of students currently enrolled on adult education courses in the Bolton education authority area; what was the comparable figure for each of the previous five years; and what is the cost to the education authority for the current year and each of the previous five years.

  Mr. Jackson
  The number of students enrolled on evening-only further education courses, which will include most adult education courses, is shown in the following table. Corresponding cost data are not available centrally.

  of Professor D. L. Hamblen, to consider methods for detecting women at particular risk of fracture associated with osteoporosis. Screening methods based on measurements of bone density are regarded by the group as promising, and a trial is currently being designed to evaluate such techniques. It is not possible to predict when the outcome of these studies will be known.

  Social Work Courses
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science why his Department proposes to place social work courses on the lowest funding band for higher education; and what representations have been received regarding this matter.
  255
  Mr. Jackson
  The proposals in the consultation paper "Shifting the Balance of Public Funding of Higher Education to Fees" reflected available information on teaching costs. Before drawing up more detailed plans, we shall be considering the view of the Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work that social work degree courses should be in one of the higher bands. However, the majority of social work training is provided through courses which fall outside the scope of the fee proposals.

  Secondary Education
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many young people aged 19 years are currently in secondary education; and what is his estimate of the numbers of young people who will be in secondary education beyond the age of 19 years in 1990–91 and in each of the three years thereafter.

  Mr. Butcher
  In January 1989 there were some 1,260 pupils aged 19 or over in English maintained secondary schools. The Department projects that the corresponding numbers will be 1,200 in 1989–90 and 1990–91, 1,100 in 1991–92. and 1,000 in 1992–93 and 1993–94.

  A-Level (Replacement)
  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he has any plans to hold talks with relevant interested parties on a possible replacement for the existing A-level examination for school leavers.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  My right hon. Friend has no plans to consider the replacement of A-levels, and therefore no plans for holding talks on any such replacement. He hopes very shortly to reply to advice from the School Examinations and Assessment Council regarding the development and rationalisation of existing A-level provision and the promotion and further development of the associated AS examinations.

  Midland Examining Board
  Mr. Michael Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will direct the School Examination and Assessment Council to call for a report as to who at the midland examining group was responsible for the appointment of a probationary teacher as a moderator for the GCSE in technology, and as to what safeguards are to be instituted to prevent a recurrence.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  We look to the independent examining groups to ensure fairness and consistency in examination assessment. Officials have been in contact with the midland examining group which stressed that all moderation work is checked. I have asked the School Examinations and Assessment Council to verify that the group's moderation arrangements are adequate and that candidates' interests are safeguarded.

  Aluminium Toxicity
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what funding the Government are proposing to make for research into the toxicity of aluminium and the long-term consequences of ingestion of aluminium in(a) small and (b) large quantities.
  256
  Mr. Jackson
  [holding reply 13 July 1989]: The Medical Research Council, which receives a grant-in-aid from this Department, is the main agency through which the Government support medical research. The council, which itself determines the allocation of the funds at its disposal, is supporting research on the possible link between aluminium and Alzheimer's disease at its environmental epidemiology unit at Southampton and at its neurochemical pathology unit in Newcastle. It is also supporting research on the absorption of aluminium from soya-based infant foods at its Dunn nutrition unit in Cambridge. The council is not currently supporting work on the effects of ingestion of large amounts of aluminium.

  The council is always willing to consider soundly based proposals for new research programmes in competitlion with other proposals.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Interest Rates
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list in the Official Report the current level of base, or equivalent, interest rates in all European Community countries.

  Mr. Lilley
  There are no direct equivalents to United Kingdom base rates in the other European Community countries. The table below shows short-term interest rates in the EC countries on 18 July.

  Short-term interest rates in the European Community countries1

  Rates

  Germany

  7·1

  France

  9·1

  United Kingdom

  13·9

  Italy

  12·6

  Spain

  15·7

  Netherlands

  7·2

  Belgium

  8·5

  Portugal

  12·5

  Greece

  20·5

  Denmark

  9·5

  Ireland

  9·6

  Luxembourg2

  8·5

  1 3 month interbank rates for all countries except Portugal (3 month Treasury bill rate).

  2 No separate interest rate data is available for Luxembourg. Figure given is Belgian rate.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list every change in the rate of interest since 1979(a) by date of change and (b) by percentage change.

  Mr. Lilley
  The information requested is published in table 13.10 of Financial Statistics and table 200 of the Economic Trends annual supplement.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the average annual rate of interest every year snce 1979.

  Mr. Lilley
  The information requested is published in table 13.15 of Financial Statistics.

  Retail Price Index
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will show, using 100 as the base, the increase in the retail price index in each European Community country from May 1979 to the most recent date for which figures are available.
  257
  Mr. Lilley
  The information is as follows:

  Published Consumer Price Indices of the European Community Countries (May 1979 = 100)l

  EC Country

  Index

  Germany

  134

  France

  205

  United Kingdom

  211

  Italy

  293

  Spain

  267

  Netherlands

  133

  Belgium

  161

  Portugal

  496

  Greece

  588

  Denmark

  198

  Ireland

  241

  Luxembourg

  158

  1Figures are for June 1989 for the United Kingdom, Germany, Italy, Spain and the Netherlands; May for France and Belgium; February for Ireland and April for the other European Community countries.

  Foreign Exchange
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the current figure for total foreign exchange reserves held by Her Majesty's Government.

  Mr. Lilley
  At the end of June, the United Kingdom official reserves stood at $43,665 million, which is equivalent to £28,167 million when converted at the closing market rate on 30 June of £1 = $1·5502.

  Chemical Fertilisers
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make it his policy to impose a tax on chemical fertilisers equal to 100 per cent. of the nitrogenous content; and what estimate he has made of the revenue yield from such a tax based on estimated sales to United Kingdom farmers in 1988.

  Mr. Lilley
  No, and none.

  OECD Statistics
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he supplied the information for the figures for gross and net operating surplus published in tables 7·1 of OECD Historical Statistics 1960–86; and if he will provide comparable information for 1987, 1988 and a forecast for 1989.

  Mr. Major
  The percentages for the United Kingdom given in the OECD publication are based on data supplied to the organisation by the Central Statistical Office and are compatible with the 1987 edition of "United Kingdom National Accounts". Later estimates, which will extend only to 1987, are currently in preparation, based on data in the 1988 edition of the CSO publication.

  Entitlement for 1989–90 cash limits resulting from the carryforward of capital underspends

  Class

  Vote

  Department

  Description

  Amount (£'000s)

  I

  2

  Ministry of Defence1

  Defence procurement

  435,690

  II

  1

  Foreign and Commonwealth Office

  Overseas representation

  4,518

  II

  3

  Foreign and Commonwealth Office

  External broadcasting and monitoring

  1,823

  Bank of England (Staff)
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many staff are employed by the Bank of England to undertake the bank's money market operations; and if he will list their grades and salaries.

  Mr. Lilley
  The information requested is a matter for the Bank of England. Some information on Bank of England staff numbers and salary levels is published in the Bank of England report and accounts.

  VAT
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total income raised by value added tax in 1988.

  Mr. Lilley
  The revenue yield from value added tax was £26·6 billion in 1988.

  Capital (Rate of Returns)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will publish in the Official Report the net rate of return on capital employment in manufacturing industry each year since 1959 and his forecast for 1989 together with the return on trading assets.

  Mr. Major
  Official data for the current cost net rate of return on capital employed in manufacturing companies are published in "British Business", 30 September 1988. A copy is available in the Library. No official forecast is available.

  Capital and Running Cost Underspends
  Mr. Jeremy Hanley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the entitlements for 1989–90 resulting from the carry forward of capital and running costs underspends allowed under the end-year flexibility schemes.

  Mr. Major
  A list of entitlements totalling £620,595,000 for capital expenditure and £19,217,000 for running costs is shown in the following table.

  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimates, the individual cash limits and running costs limits will be increased when entitlement is taken up.

  The total increase in cash limits resulting from the take-up of end-year flexibility will be charged to the reserve and will therefore not add to the planned total of public expenditure.
  259

  Class

  Vote

  Department

  Description

  Amount (£'000s)

  IV

  4

  Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  Other agricultural and food services and support for the fishing industry

  2,000

  V

  3

  Department of Trade and Industry

  Administration, regulation of trade and industry and consumer protection

  813

  VII

  2

  Department of Employment

  Employment programmes and central services

  2,931

  VIII

  1

  Department of Transport

  National roads, England

  22,832

  VIII

  2

  Department of Transport

  Administration and transport services

  2,000

  VIII

  4

  Department of Transport

  Driver and vehicle licensing

  1,913

  X

  2

  Department of the Environment

  Central environmental services, etc.

  1,599

  X

  4

  Department of the Environment

  Royal palaces, royal parks, historic buildings, ancient monuments and the national heritage

  927

  X

  5

  Department of the Environment

  Administration

  864

  XI

  2

  Home Office

  Prisons, England and Wales

  905

  XI

  3

  Home Office

  Administration, immigration and police support services, England and Wales

  183

  XII

  1

  Department of Education and Science

  Schools, research and miscellaneous services

  3,412

  XII

  2

  Department of Education and Science

  Higher and further education

  391

  XII

  4

  Department of Education and Science

  Administration

  177

  XII

  5

  Department of Education and Science

  Science

  1,607

  XIV

  1

  Department of Health and Social Security

  Hospital and community health and other services, England

  17,340

  XIV

  3

  Department of Health and Social Security

  Administration, miscellaneous health and personal social services, England

  1,003

  XVI

  2

  Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland

  Agricultural services and fisheries for Scotland

  2,000

  XVI

  3

  Industry Department for Scotland

  Regional and general industrial support, Scotland

  101

  XVI

  6

  Scottish Development Department

  Roads, transport and environmental services, Scotland

  1,673

  XVI

  11

  Scottish Courts Administration

  Administration of justice, Scotland

  1,685

  XVI

  14

  Scottish Home and Health Department

  Prisons, hospitals and community health services, etc. Scotland

  4,747

  XVI

  15

  Scottish Education Department

  Education, Arts, Libraries and Social work, Scotland

  750

  XVI

  19

  General Register Office

  General Register Office, Scotland

  637

  XVII

  5

  Welsh Office

  Tourism, roads and transport, housing, other environmental services (including civil defence), education and science, arts and libraries, and health and personal social services, Wales

  2,140

  XVII

  9

  Welsh Office

  Administration

  317

  XVIII

  1

  Northern Ireland Office

  Law, order, protective and miscellaneous services, Northern Ireland

  420

  XIX

  2

  Customs and Excise

  Administration

  2,171

  XIX

  7

  Inland Revenue

  Administration

  3,985

  XIX

  11

  Her Majesty's Treasury

  Administration

  661

  XIX

  13

  Her Majesty's Treasury

  Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency

  2,000

  XX

  7

  Ordnance Survey

  Ordnance Survey

  1,788

  260 261

  Class

  Vote

  Department

  Description

  Amount (£'000s)

  XX

  12

  Office of Fair Trading

  Office of Fair Trading

  125

  XX

  14

  Office of Telecommunications2

  Office of Telecommunications

  1

  XX

  15

  Office of Population Censuses and Surveys

  Office of Population Censuses and Surveys

  323

  Total voted

  528,135

  1 The five cash limited Defence votes are each separate cash limits but, by agreement with the Treasury are managed as Underspend on expenditure eligible for the scheme in these cash limits has been carried forward to Class I, Vote 2.

  2 This vote is a token one. Carryforward will be taken in the form of increased appropriations in aid of £88,000.

  Entitlements for 1989–90 cash limits resulting from the carryforward of capital underspends.

  Non voted cash limits

  Cash block

  Department

  Description

  Amount (£000's)

  NID1

  Northern Ireland

  Services broadly analagous to Great Britain services covered by cash limits including family practitioner services.

  2,059

  SO/LA1

  Scottish Office

  Capital expenditure in Scotland by local authorities on roads and transport, water and sewerage, general services, urban programmes, police and social work, schools further education, teacher training and arts and libraries.

  12,000

  SO/LA2

  Scottish Office

  Capital expenditure in Scotland by local authorities, new towns, and the Scottish Special Housing Association, on schemes financed by the Housing Corporation and commercial investment by new towns.

  24,900

  DOE/UA1

  Department of the Environment

  External financing requirements of urban development corporations and capital expenditure by local authorities and other bodies on the urban programme, the derelict land reclamation programme and other expenditure (including some inner cities initiative).

  26,251

  DOE/HC1

  Department of the Environment

  Capital expenditure in England on housing financed through the Housing Corporation.

  3,250

  DOE/NT1

  Department of the Environment

  Capital expenditure in England by new towns on housing, roads, commercial and industrial investment and certain water services.

  24,000

  Total non voted

  92,460

  Total carryfoward of capital underspends

  620,595

  Entitlements for 1989—–90 running costs limits resulting from the carryforward of running cost underspends

  Department

  Amount (£'000s)

  Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce

  89

  Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  1,182

  Department for Trade and Industry

  1,251

  Department of Employment

  3,018

  Department of Transport

  1,288

  Scottish Courts Administration

  114

  Scottish Office

  975

  General Register Office (Scotland)

  50

  Welsh Office

  205

  Northern Ireland

  2,547

  Customs and Excise

  2,320

  Inland Revenue

  5,405

  Her Majesty's Treasury

  302

  Ordnance Survey

  279

  Office of Population Censuses and Surveys

  192

  Total carryforward of running costs underspends

  19,217

  Pay and File System
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any changes are planned to the rules for claiming reliefs when the new system of pay and file for companies comes into operation.
  262
  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The new arrangements for the assessment and payment of corporation tax by companies, known as corporation tax pay and file, are due to come into force in 1993 on present plans. The Inland Revenue has been discussing with a group of representatives of companies and professional practitioners details such as the design of the new corporation tax return and the way in which claims to relief would be made under pay and file. They will be reporting the outcome of these discussions to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer for his decisions.

  Fixed Investments
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the increase in 1988 of fixed investments expressed as a percentage of total fixed investments.

  Mr. Major
  Total gross domestic fixed capital formation is estimated to have increased in volume by 12 per cent. between 1987 and 1988. In current prices, the increase was 18 per cent.

  Delors Report
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he last met the Governor of the Bank of England to discuss the Delors committee report; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lilley
  My right hon. Friend has regular discussions, on a wide range of subjects, with the Governor of the Bank of England.

  Junk Bonds
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the effects upon the United Kingdom economy of the development of the junk bond market; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 19 July 1989]: There is at present no junk bond market in the United Kingdom in the usual sense of that term.

  Hoylake (Bermuda) Ltd.
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what consequences he anticipates for(a) the gilts market, (b) the shares in privatised companies and (c) foreign exchange levels arising from the recent Hoylake hid for BAT; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 19 July 1989]: It is not my policy to comment on takeover bids.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Computerisation
  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what will be the minimum period needed for administrative purposes between the announcement of upratings and the beginning of the benefit year when the computerisation of his Department's records is complete;

  (2) what would be the minimum period needed for administrative purposes between the announcement of upratings and the beginning of the benefit year when the computerisation of his Department's records is complete if all social security benefits were paid by ACT.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The minimum period needed for administrative purposes between the uprating announce-ment and the beginning of the benefit year is 23 weeks. The 20 week renewal cycle for order hooks, and the three week period required for the selection of order books, will not be affected by the full computerisation of the Department's records. This renewal process is already fully computerised for pensions.

  There are no plans to make payment by ACT compulsory. Therefore, while order books remain in use, the minimum period needed between the uprating announcement and the beginning of the benefit year will continue to be 23 weeks.

  Nursing Homes
  Dr. Goodson-Wickes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if he will assess the impact of the uprating of nurses' salaries on the costs of providing nursing home care;
  264
  (2) what evidence he has that the fees paid through income support are sufficient to allow voluntary nursing homes to meet the costs of providing appropriate care;

  (3) whether he will consider making more frequent upratings of income support levels for people in residential nursing homes.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The level of charges in a home is primarily a matter between the residents and the owners of the home to agree on based on the services being provided.

  The Government receive evidence on the adequacy of income support, the level of fees and the factors governing costs in homes from a number of sources, including home owners and their representatives; and review the limits annually.

  More frequent upratings are not necessary. The Government take account of annual changes in reviewing the limits.

  Dr. Goodson-Wickes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the number of voluntary nursing homes which have closed because of difficulties in meeting the costs of care through fees paid by income support.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The Department does not collect figures on the closure of independent nursing homes.

  Dr. Goodson-Wickes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what evidence he has received from the Brendoncare Foundation of the financial difficulties in providing nursing care for elderly residents.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  We have received representations from a number of hon. Members who have forwarded correspondence from the Brendoncare Foundation about the levels of help available through income support for people in nursing homes. The foundation has also been in direct correspondence with us.

  Incomes
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage of total average weekly household income in the northern region came from social security benefits in(a) 1975 and (b)

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The available information, which is drawn from "Regional Trends", is as follows. In 1975–76, some 10·9 per cent of total household income in the north came from social security benefits. In 1986–87, the corresponding figure was 16·2 per cent. These estimates exclude the contribution made by housing benefit to household incomes.

  Employment Training
  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what guidelines are issued to his Department's staff reviewing the benefit eligibility of disabled people leaving the employment training programme; whether these guidelines are available to the public; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Disabled people who are not taking up full-time employment and who remain incapacitated may again receive sickness benefit, invalidity benefit, or severe disablement allowance provided that they produce medical evidence to substantiate their condition.
  265
  Departmental staff are instructed to this effect. Disabled claimants who were receiving an incapacity benefit immediately before starting their employment training course are sent a letter advising them that if they are sick within a period of eight weeks after their training course ends they may be entitled again provided that they make a fresh claim.

  The relevant guidelines for determining income support claims are set out in income support circular No. 15/88, and in the adjudication officers' guide paragraph 25495, both of which are published. Most disabled people receiving income support immediately before they start employment training continue to do so throughout their course. Although termination of training constitutes a change in status from employment trainee to unemployed

  Budgeting loans and community care grants for Leeds West ILO and nationally, percentage by client group 1988–89

  Per cent.

  (00)

  (01)

  (02)

  (03)

  (04)

  (05)

  (06)

  (07)

  (08)

  (09)

  (10)

  (11)

  (12)

  (13)

  (14)

  (15)1

  Leeds West ILO

  Budgeting Loans

  0·5

  0·6

  0·6

  4·3

  0·2

  2·5

  2·9

  48·4

  0·8

  2·4

  14·9

  17·2

  1·0

  3·6

  0·0

  n/a

  Community Care Grants

  0·5

  4·2

  0·9

  12·0

  0·5

  2·8

  4·2

  35·2

  0·0

  0·0

  8·3

  17·1

  4·6

  5·1

  0·0

  4·6

  Great Britain

  Budgeting Loans

  0·5

  0·3

  0·6

  3·9

  0·4

  3·6

  3·6

  43·9

  0·7

  2·1

  16·7

  18·8

  1·0

  3·8

  0·0

  n/a

  Community Care Grants

  0·4

  4·5

  3·7

  14·3

  0·9

  3·4

  10·0

  25·2

  0·7

  1·5

  9·5

  16·4

  2·0

  6·3

  0·0

  1·1

  n/a = not available

  1
  Key to client groups

  Code

  Meaning

  00

  unallocated or unidentified

  01

  over 80—with Income Support higher pensioner premium

  02

  aged 60–79—disabled with higher pensioner premium

  03

  aged 60–79—with ordinary pensioner premium, or over 60 without pensioner premium

  04

  lone parent with Income Support disability premium

  05

  family with disability premium

  06

  other with disability premium

  07

  lone parent without disability premium

  08

  signs at UBO quarterly with Income Support family premium

  09

  signs at UBO quarterly without family premium

  10

  signing unemployed or with training allowance with family premium

  11

  signing unemployed or with training allowance without family premium

  12

  others with family premium

  13

  others without family premium

  14

  involved in trade dispute

  15

  applicant not in receipt of Income Support—not applicable for budgeting loans

  Benefits
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Leeds, West of 6 July,Official Report, column 247, on income support totals; what is the imputed proportion of income support which his Department used in its calculation of the total amount payable to cover food costs under normal circumstances.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Income support is paid as a total amount intended to cover all normal day-to-day living expenses. There is no specific proportion included to cover individual items such as food.

  Medical Appeal Tribunals
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many medical appeal tribunals have been held in Edinburgh for each of the past five years; and how many of these found in favour of the applicant and how many against.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I regret that the Department does not hold the information requested. However, the office of the
  266
  or sick and/or disabled, payments of income support can normally continue provided the claimant re-registers as unemployed at the unemployment benefit office or submits suitable medical evidence.

  Grants and Loans
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the percentages of(a) budgeting loans and (b) community care grants which were awarded to each of the 15 client groups defined by his Department for (i) the Leeds, West area and (ii) nationally, for the financial year 1988–89

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The table provides the information available for the year 1988–89.

  President of Social Security and Medical Appeal Tribunals keeps certain statistics and the hon. Member may care to contact it direct.

  Residential Homes
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the current minimum and maximum difference in Nottingham between charges levied by private residential homes in Nottingham and the maximum weekly payment made by his Department; and how many elderly people have been evicted from residential homes in Nottingham in the last 12 months.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The level of charges in a residential care home is a matter between the residents and the owners of the home. Information on the fees charged by individual homes or on evictions is not collected centrally.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the maximum weekly payment made by his Department in Nottingham to support elderly people in private residential and private nursing homes.
  267
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The maximum weekly payments towards fees in residential care and nursing homes from income support are:

  Residential care homes

  Nursing homes

  £

  £

  Elderly

  140

  190

  Elderly and blind or elderly and entitled to the higher rate of attendance allowance

  155

  —

  Physically disabled and the disability began under pension age

  200

  235

  Suffering from a terminal illness

  —

  235

  Retirement Allowance
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of the numbers of people who retired on or after 10 April 1989 who no longer receive the reduced earnings allowance but receive the retirement allowance; what is the maximum loss of income which this change causes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  It is estimated that 1,200 people who retired on or after 10 April 1989 are in receipt of retirement allowance. For virtually all recipients, the maximum possible benefit loss would be £21·36 a week. For a very small number of beneficiaries, fewer than five, who have two awards at the maximum rate of reduced earnings allowance, the maximum loss would be £49·84 a week.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the estimated saving in public expenditure in each of the next five years from replacing the reduced earnings allowance with the retirement allowance for people who retired on or after 10 April; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  It is not feasible to give firm estimates of future savings from this change. The estimated savings for the next three years are as follows:

  £ million

  1989–90

  2·0

  1990–91

  5·6

  1991–92

  9·7

  Social Fund
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make it his policy to create a right of appeal against refusals of social fund applications to independent social security appeal tribunals; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  No. Arrangements for review of decisions by social fund officers, first by a senior manager in the social security local office and, secondly, if the applicant remains dissatisfied, by an independent social fund inspector, are already provided for in social security legislation. These arrangements are more in keeping with the discretion-based social fund scheme than the appeal system which applies to other social security benefits where entitlement depends upon a person satisfying specific conditions or rules set out in regulations.
  268
  Mr. Favell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he proposes to publish his annual report on the social fund.

  Mr. Moore
  The report has been published today. It contains detailed information about the first year's operation of the social fund. I am happy to report that, despite the early fears expressed regarding the operation of the scheme, the figures speak for themselves; over 1 million people have received help from the fund, which has operated flexibly and in a way not previously possible under the old single payments scheme.

  Over half a million people on income support have received interest-free budgeting loans averaging £214, nearly 400,000 have received interest-free crisis loans averaging £45, an 153,000 people in vulnerable groups or families under stress have been helped with non-repayable community care grants averaging £271. There have been many examples of imaginative use of discretion by social fund officers which has enabled them to direct help to where it was most needed.

  The staff and management of my Department accepted the new challenge which the social fund presented. It is evident that those involved have worked hard to master the very different principles of this new scheme. It is a significant achievement by all concerned, all the more so when set against a background of hostility and scepticism from some quarters. And we are now seeing the tremendous experience gained in the first year being put to good use in the second.

  Copies are available in the Library.

  Mr. Pietro Camerino
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when his Department intends to pay Mr. Pietro Camerino of 298 Harnall lane east, Coventry, the arrears of sickness and invalidity benefit that his Department's overseas branch has acknowledged are owed to Mr. Camerino since November 1984; if he intends to make any compensatory payment to Mr. Camerino; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Benefit has been paid to Mr. Camerino by his local social security office since 24 March 1989. Urgent arrangements are being made for the arrears of sickness benefit and invalidity benefit due from November 1984 to be paid to Mr. Camerino and payment should arrive shortly. A compensatory payment is being considered and I shall write to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

  Child Benefit
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he will make it his policy to extend payment of child benefit in respect of young people over 19 years who are required to remain in secondary education.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  No.

  Access Committee for England
  Mr. Gregory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether the Minister responsible for the disabled is yet in a position to make a statement on the future of the Access Committee for England.

  Mr. Scott
  I have written to the retiring chairman of the Access Committee, Mr. Arthur Goldthorpe, and to the
  269
  chairman of the Centre on Environment for the Handicapped, the body which, at the Government's request, hosts the Committee, Mr. John Penton, to announce my decision on the future arrangements for the committee. In making my decision, I have taken account of the views I have received from the members of both the Access Committee and the CEH management committee. I have accepted the majority view that it would be best to retain a link between the committee and CEH. Their differing but complementary roles means that they can be more effective if they work together on access issues.

  However, I recognise that the Access Committee needs a more clearly defined independence of policy and finances, and that it needs a stronger direction. These needs have been provided for in the letters I have today sent to Mr. Penton and Mr. Goldthorpe, and will be fully reflected in the terms of reference for the committee which the Government will issue later in the summer.

  I hope to announce the appointment of the new chairman of the Access Committee shortly. Following that appointment, I hope that the Committee will be able to resume full effectiveness in the autumn.

  I am very grateful to all those concerned for their help and patience in the resolution of the difficulties of the Access Committee. I believe that we have now found a positive and constructive way forward.

  A copy of my letter to Mr. Penton has been placed in the Library.

  Disability
  Mr. Ron Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he has received recent representations from the British Council of Organisations of Disabled People about public funding; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  I have been asked to reply.

  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mrs. Barnes) on 14 July 1989 at column 658.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Bread (Northern Ireland)
  Mr. Kilfedder
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will set up an inquiry into the high cost of bread in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Maude
  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 on the price of a large loaf in Northern Ireland published on 29 June, 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.

  Insurance Brokers
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many brokers are registered under the Insurance Brokers Registration Act 1977.
  270
  Mr. Maude
  As at 13 July 1989, 18,270 individuals, and 3,145 bodies corporate, were registered.

  Investment
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement about the level of investment in industry during the period 1979 to 1988.

  Mr. Atkins
  The latest estimates show that investment in the manufacturing, construction, distribution and financial industries in 1988 was at a record level of £34·2 billion at 1985 prices. This was around 60 per cent. higher than the level in 1979.

  European Single Market
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what plans his Department is making to mark the arrival of the open market of 1 January 1993 with exhibitions, exchanges, media campaigns or similar events.

  Mr. Newton
  [holding answer 17 July 1989]: We will be considering how to mark the occasion in due course. My Department's "Europe Open For Business" campaign is already alerting the business community to the opportunities and challenges the single market will bring, recognising that many of the measures to complete the single market will of course have been implemented well before 1 January 1993.

  Credit Cards
  Mr. Michael Morris
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when the report of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission on the supply of credit card services in the United Kingdom will be published; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  The report will not be published before the recess.

  Film Industry
  Mr. Hanley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what plans he has for future funding of the British film industry.

  Mr. Atkins
  My Department is already committed to providing support of £2 million a year through British Screen Finance Ltd. for the five years 1986–90. I am pleased to announce that we have decided that this should continue at the same level for a further three years, until the end of 1993. I hope this clear indication of further Government support for United Kingdom film-making will help BSF to build on its achievements to date and that industry will also extend its own commitment.

  Shipbuilding and Ship Repair
  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1) if he will give the total amounts of the grants applied for by his Department from the European Commission for assistance under the Renaval programme for(a) Plymouth, (b) Gibraltar and (c) Strathclyde;

  (2) if he will list the information supplied by his Department to the European Community in support of the applications for assistance under the Renaval programme for (a) Plymouth, (b) Gibraltar and (c) Strathclyde;
  271
  (3) if he will supply the following information required under the terms of the Renaval regulation in respect of (a) Tyne and Wear, (b) Cleveland, (c) Merseyside and (d) Plymouth (i) the average rate of unemployment and the European Community average in the last three years and (ii) the percentage of industrial employment in total employment and the European Community average;

  (4) what information he has on the total number of redundancies in the shipbuilding and ship repair industries in Gibraltar since 1 January 1984;

  (5) what is the total number of redundancies in the shipbuilding and ship repair industries in Plymouth since 1 January 1984;

  (6) what is the total number of redundancies in the shipbuilding and ship repair industries in (a) Wearside, (b) Tyneside and (c) Tyne and Wear county since 1 January 1984;

  Total job losses shipbuilding and ship repair since 1 January 1984

  Average rate of unemployment 1986–88

  Industrial employment (standard industrial classification 1 to 5) in total employment in 1984, the latest available year

  percentage

  percentage

  Tyne and Wear of which:

  9,375

  17·3

  34·3

  Wearside

  2,775

  Tyneside

  6,600

  Cleveland

  1,680

  19·7

  36·6

  Merseyside

  20·1

  31·0

  Plymouth

  5,675

  12·8

  33·8

  Gibraltar

  580

  European Community average (estimate on comparable basis)

  —

  11·9

  35·0

  Sources:

  United Kingdom data—Department of Employment. Figures exclude self-employed.

  EC data—Statistical Office of the European Communities.

  Eligibility also depends on the shipbuilding and ship repair proportion of industrial employment.

  NESL
  Mr. Clay
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many letters his Department(a) received from the Anglo-Greek bidders for NESL between 1 January and 30 June and (b) sent to the Anglo-Greek bidders for NESL between 1 January and 30 June.

  Mr. Newton
  One letter was sent and a reply received. The Department also received copies of certain correspondence between the bidders and British Shipbuilders.

  Mr. Clay
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on how many occasions during(a) 1988 and (b) 1989 (i) the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) and (ii) himself met representatives of interests bidding for NESL.

  Mr. Newton
  The only such meeting was between myself and one of the interests in bidding for the yards, at their request, on 11 May 1989.

  Mr. Clay
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould), 13 July,Official Report, column
  272
  (7) what is the total number of redundancies in the shipbuilding and ship repair industries in the county of Cleveland since 1 January 1984.

  Mr. Atkins
  The European Commission has stipulated that grants can be based on up to 3200 ecu for each qualifying job loss in shipbuilding or ship repair. At prevailing exchange rates this would amount to £13·25 million for Plymouth, £1·34 million for Gibraltar and £14·5 million for Strathclyde.

  The information supplied by the Government in support of the applications related to the criteria for eligibility set out in the Renaval regulation, (EEC) No. 2506/8.

  The information requested on unemployment rates and industrial employment is as follows:

  1151, if he will specify (a) on what day in May a second shipbuilding bid was received for NESL and (b) whether this bid was in writing at that time.

  Mr. Newton
  British Shipbuilders received a formal offer in writing on 3 May.

  Mr. Clay
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould), 13 July,Official Report, column 1151, on what day an approach was made by officials of his Department to the Commission concerning a shipbuilding bid for NESL.

  Mr. Newton
  My officials saw Commission officials on 10 April following British Shipbuilders receipt of the first offer concerning shipbuilding on 6 April.

  Mr. Clay
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what were(a) the terms of credit agreed by his Department for the contract for two vessels to be built at the Govan yard for the Cosco company of the People's Republic of China and (b) the terms of credit requested by Cuban shipping interests in connection with their inquiries for NESL for 10 SDIS King cargo ships.

  Mr. Newton
  The credit terms for the two ships presently being completed at Kvaerner Govan Ltd. on behalf of British Shipbuilders for Cosco are financed under the £300 million financial arrangement relating to development loans signed between Her Majesty's
  273
  Government and the Government of China in May 1986. Under this arrangement 20 years' credit is available for the whole value of a transaction at an interest rate of 5 per cent. with a five-year moratorium. Acemex on behalf of Mambisa was looking for standard OECD shipping terms of 8 per cent. for 80 per cent. of the price of 10 ships with credit stretched from 8½ to 15 years. It was also looking for credit for the 20 per cent. deposit on the best terms available.

  Cuban Shipping Interests
  Mr. Clay
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on how many occasions between 1 April 1988 and 31 March 1989(a) he, or the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) and (b) his officials, met representatives of Cuban shipping interests.

  Mr. Newton
  My officials met representatives of the Cuban shipping company Mambisa in Havana in July 1988. They have had other meetings with financial advisers to Acemex, a company which provides certain services in Mambisa.

  British Shipbuilders
  Mr. Clay
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on what date the Government formally decided to wind up British Shipbuilders Ltd. as a publicly owned corporation.

  Mr. Newton
  The Government decided to proceed with the disposal of British Shipbuilders' remaining facilities in April 1988. There are no plans at present to bring before the House proposals for legislation to wind up British Shipbuilders as a public corporation.

  Enterprise Zone, Sunderland
  Mr. Clay
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on what date he informed Tyne and Wear urban development corporation that preparations for an enterprise zone in Sunderland were to be suspended.

  Mr. Newton
  I announced to the House on 7 June that elements of the proposed remedial package not yet implemented, including designation of an enterprise zone, would be held in abeyance until decisions had been taken about the expressions of interest in NESL. The Tyne and Wear urban development corporation was informed the same day.

  Manufacturing Investment
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what was the amount of net manufacturing investment in new buildings, machinery and plant in the period 1980 to 1988; and what was the comparable figure for 1971 to 1979.

  Mr. Major
  I have been asked to reply.

  The latest estimates of net domestic fixed capital formation by manufactured industry for 1977–87 appear in the 1988 edition of the Central Statistical Office publication "United Kingdom National Accounts", table 13·5. Estimates for earlier years may be obtained from the CSO Databank, a collection of macroeconomic time series in computer readable form to which the House of Commons Library has direct access. Estimates for 1988
  274
  are not yet available. Separate estimates of net investment in new buildings and works, and plant and machinery are not of publishable quality.

  The published figures do not include capital goods leased from financial sector lessors. Furthermore, there are difficulties in measuring net domestic fixed capital formation since the national accounts estimates of the economic lives of fixed assets, used to estimate capital consumption, are very broad brush.

  Balance of Trade
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1) if he has made an estimate of the balance of trade with Germany in 1992;

  (2) if he has made an estimate of the United Kingdom's balance of trade with the European Community in 1992.

  Mr. Major
  I have been asked to reply.

  No.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Proceedings of the House (Telephone Relay)
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what progress has been made on the proposal that a live relay of the proceedings of the House be made available to telephone subscribers as part of British Telecom's range of specialist call services.

  Mr. Wakeham
  A proposal from BT Citicall for a live telephone relay of the 1988 Budget speech lapsed, as the House had not nominated the Select Committee on Sound Broadcasting, to which it would have fallen to consider this application for the use of the sound feed. On 26 May this year the House agreed that the relevant responsibilities of that Committee should be transferred to the Select Committee on Televising of Proceedings of the House. I understand that BT is now considering the submission of a fresh application once legal and regulatory problems have been resolved. Any such application would raise important questions of principle about the way in which the sound feed is used, which the Committee would have to examine very carefully along with other proposals of a similar type which have been submitted. In addition, as was recognised by the Select Committee on Sound Broadcasting in its first report of Session 1986–87 (HC 281), the approval of the House as a whole would be required before a service of the kind suggested could proceed.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Lord President of the Council (1) if he will consider seeking a change in Standing Orders automatically to unstar all oral questions drawn below 30th place;

  (2) if he will consider seeking a change in Standing Orders to provide for a tabling limit of 10 written questions per Member each day.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I have no plans to do so.

  Phone Calls
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what is the total cost per annum of telephone calls made from the Palace of Westminster.
  275
  Mr. Wakeham
  A breakdown of all telephone charges is shown at appendix 1 of the first report of the Select Committee on House of Commons (Services) of this Session (HC(1989–90)143).

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Security
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the security situation in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the security situation in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Flannery
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the security situation in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Molyneaux
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the security situation.

  Mr. Tom King
  I refer the right hon. and hon. Members to the answer I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy).

  Local Government
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will report on progress on the talks to improve democratic representation in local government in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Tom King
  Over recent months we have been exploring with politicians and others their ideas about how local elected representatives might be more fully involved in the administration of Northern Ireland. These discussions are continuing and I hope that the political parties will also discuss their ideas together.

  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what inquiries into the efficiency and powers of the local government of the Province have taken place since the MacCrory report.

  Mr. Adams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he intends to proceed with changes in the operation of local government in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on his plans for local government in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Needham
  Two efficiency studies covering energy management and the provision of leisure services have been undertaken recently. Proposals for improving the general efficiency and effectiveness of local government were published last November. We are now considering 60 or so responses.

  Crime Statistics
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the recorded crime statistics in Northern Ireland for the most recent period for which figures are available.
  276
  Mr. Ian Stewart
  As stated in the chief constable's latest annual report, the level of recorded crime in 1988 fell for the second year in succession. The downward trend in the level of reported crime is encouraging, especially in the light of the improving crime detection rate.

  Planning Applications
  Mr. Clifford Forsythe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many planning applications were approved in 1988(a) in Newtownabbey borough council area and (b) in Antrim borough council area.

  Mr. Needham
  The figures are 448 and 426 respectively.

  General Practitioners
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about the trend in the number of general practitioners since 1979.

  Mr. Needham
  The number of general practitioners has risen from 738 in 1979 to 934 in 1989.

  EEC (Communications)
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps he is taking to improve communications between Northern Ireland and the rest of the European Economic Community.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  Plans to improve transport and communication links have been included in the regional development plan submitted to Brussels on 28 March under the star programme and the transportation programme.

  Payments for Debt
  Mr. Galloway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he last met groups seeking a repeal of the Payments for Debt (Emergency Provision) Act (Northern Ireland) 1971.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  There have been no such meetings on this subject recently.

  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the operation of the Payments for Debt (Emergency Provision) Act (Northern Ireland) 1971.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  The provisions of the Payments of Debt (Emergency Provisions) Act (Northern Ireland) 1971 continue to make an important contribution towards the objective of reducing the high levels of public debt in Northern Ireland.

  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what representations he has had seeking to repeal the Payments for Debt (Emergency Provisions) Act (Northern Ireland) 1971.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  In the last year there have been a number of questions from hon. Members on this subject.

  Handicapped Children
  Mr. Buckley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the level of funding for services for handicapped children in the Province.
  277
  Mr. Needham
  Services for handicapped children are provided by a wide range of Government Departments and statutory and voluntary agencies. It is not possible to identify separately the total expenditure committed to meeting the needs of these children.

  Homes
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many homes in Northern Ireland are privately owned; how many are in the privately rented sector; how many are owned by(a) local authorities, (b) the Northern Ireland Housing Executive and (c) other public bodies; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Needham
  In October 1988, 322,000 dwellings were privately owned and 29,600 were in the private rented sector, including housing associations. The Northern Ireland Housing Executive is the sole public sector housing authority within the Province and owns 171,000 houses.

  Statistics on the total number of houses owned by local authorities and other public bodies are not available but the number is small.

  Student Loans
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the estimated cost of the introduction of student loans.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The estimated total costs for introducing the top-up loans scheme were given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science in his statement to the House on 19 June. The Northern Ireland component of these costs will be related to the Northern Ireland share of total costs which are still being discussed.

  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what annual level of inflation has been used to calculate the projected cost of the student loan scheme.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  In Northern Ireland the top-up loan scheme for students will operate on a parity basis with the rest of the United Kingdom. Details of the costs are outlined in annex E of the White Paper (Cm. 520) where the level of inflation is assumed to increase by 3·5 per cent. in 1990–91 and thereafter to run at 3 per cent. annually.

  Government (Province)
  Mr. Gow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proposals he has for the better government of the Province.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  We should like to achieve arrangements for the government of the Province which more fully involve local elected representatives. Steps towards that goal can be achieved only as the result of discussion and agreement between political representatives of both sides of the community. Meanwhile, the Government will continue their efforts to defeat terrorism, strengthen the economy, improve the public services and seek to ensure that Northern Ireland is a fair society for all.

  Transport Policy
  Mr. John P. Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on transport policy.

  Mr. Needham
  The Government's policy on transport in Northern Ireland is to ensure that effective, safe and convenient transport services are provided to meet the needs of the travelling public. This policy is being pursued by continuing support within the financial resources available for public transport services and by a programme of investment in roads and related infrastructure.

  Secular Education
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much has been spent on the development of secular education in each of the years since 1979; and if he will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The law requires that religious instruction is given in all grant-aided schools other than nursery schools.

  Disaggregation of costs in the form requested cannot be provided.

  Transport
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he proposes to seek European Community structural funds to improve transport infrastructure and minimise peripheral disadvantages to Northern Ireland within the European single market.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  The broad strategy to improve transport infrastructure and minimise peripherality with regard to the European Community was one of the development priorities set out in the infrastructure section of the regional development plan which was submitted to the European Commission on 28 March 1989. This was the first stage in the new procedures in obtaining EC funds for Northern Ireland for this and future years.

  Negotiations with the Commission are continuing on the overall level of funding and the type of projects which will be eligible for EC assistance.

  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the transport needs of Northern Ireland in the context of the single European market.

  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what preparation he is making to improve transport links between Northern Ireland and the rest of the EEC.

  Mr. Needham
  The Government recognise the importance to Northern Ireland of transport links in its peripheral position in the European Community. Therefore, the Government are taking steps to improve transport to allow Northern Ireland industry to take advantage of the enhanced business opportunities offered by the single European market. These steps include the development of a transportation programme which is to be submitted for aid from the European regional development fund and which includes projects to improve port, airport and rail facilities and the roads network.

  Short Brothers
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made in the completion of the sale of Short Brothers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Viggers
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley (Mr. Cran).

  Disabled People (Funding)
  Mr. Lofthouse
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on Government funding of services for people with disabilities.

  Mr. Needham
  Services for people with disabilities are provided by a wide range of Government Departments and statutory and voluntary agencies. It is not possible to identify separately the total expenditure committed to meeting the needs of these people.

  Education Reform
  Mr. Michael Martin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what recent representations he has received regarding the problems for education reform.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The proposal for a draft Education Reform (Northern Ireland) Order was published for consultation on 13 June with a closing date of 12 September. No formal representations have yet been received.

  Emigration
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what are the latest available figures for annual emigration from Northern Ireland to(a) Great Britain, (b) the Republic of Ireland and (c) the rest of the world.

  Mr. Needham
  The information is as follows:

  (a)16,000

  (b)1,400

  (c)4,200

  Figures are derived from the 1988 mid-year estimates of population and cover the period 1 July 1987 to 30 June 1988.

  Local Government Consultative Document
  Mr. Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what representations he has received concerning the local government consultative document issued by the Northern Ireland Department of the Environment.

  Mr. Needham
  Over 60 responses to the local government consultative paper were received from district councils, political parties, trades unions, professional associations and others. The comments made by these respondents are presently being considered.

  Transport Groups
  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what recent representations he has received from transport groups.
  280
  Mr. Needham
  None.

  Structure Investment
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether his Department will be responding to the report by the Institution of Civil Engineers on structure investment; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Needham
  I shall write to my hon. Friend.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Welsh Farming Unions
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received recently from Welsh farming unions on the state of agriculture in Wales.

  Mr. McGregor
  My Department has in recent months received representations from the Welsh farming unions on a range of matters, including the general state of agriculture in Wales, the Commission's price-fixing proposals and the organisation of ADAS activities in Wales.

  Egg Producers
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many representations he has had on the problems of very small-scale egg producers in the context of the Testing of Poultry Flocks Order 1989; and whether he has any proposals to amend this order.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  I have received a number of representations from the operators of small flocks about the effect of the monitoring requirements contained in the Testing of Poultry Flocks Order 1989. A new order laying down registration requirements for laying flocks is in preparation, which will also contain provisions on the monitoring of poultry flocks to replace those in the Testing of Poultry Flocks Order.

  Nuvan
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether the chemical Nuvan can be used to increase the shelf life of salmon.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Nuvan is not a permitted food additive.

  Potato Marketing
  Mr. Knapman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will announce his conclusions following the consultation exercise on potato market policy in Great Britain after 30 June 1990.

  Mr. McGregor
  My right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Wales and I have received a wide range of representations. A number of growers, supported by the processing industry and the multiple retailers, favour a free market (option (i) in the consultation paper). The majority of growers wish to retain the essentials of the present potato marketing
  281
  scheme but accept the need for non-producer interests to be represented (option (iii)). There was no support for option (ii)—retention of the scheme but without the board's basic area and quota powers.

  My colleagues and I have decided that we would propose to retain the basic elements of the existing potato marketing scheme in view of the need to maintain stability in the potato industry at a time of major adjustment in the arable crop sector generally. This is subject, however, to review in the longer term, and on condition that the following changes are made to the existing arrangements.

  First, we believe it is essential to ensure that consumers and other non-producer interests are given a greater influence in market management decisions. I have therefore invited the board to enter into discussions with other interests with a view to proposing modifications to the present scheme along the lines of option (iii). Secondly, it remains the Government's intention to abolish the guarantee arrangements as soon as parliamentary time permits. But in the meantime we shall be seeking substantial changes to the financial agreement between the Government and the board. We shall, therefore, be discussing with the board and the farmers' unions—as required under the Agriculture Acts 1947 and 1957:

  (i) A significant revision of the formula for allocating intervention costs with a view to enabling the industry to accept financial responsibility for its own affairs.

  (ii) A switch from pre-season contracts to direct intervention with a view to rendering intervention more cost-effective and strengthening the board's reserves.

  (iii) Elimination of the Government's contribution to the board's administrative costs.

  We aim to reach final conclusions on these matters by the end of September.

  Veterinary Products Committee
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to what extent members of the veterinary products committee have to declare an interest; and if he will list their interests.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Members of the veterinary products committee are required to declare all their interests which might affect the impartial discharge of their functions. Their personal interests are to be published shortly in the committee's annual report for 1988.

  Unregistered Fishing Vessels
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps his Department has taken to notify all vessels not registered as British under the Merchant Shipping Act 1988 to stop fishing on the British quota.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The fishing licenses issued by Fisheries departments make clear that they are valid only if the vessels are registered. Fishing by unregistered vessels is illegal, and where offences are detected prosecution action will be considered in the normal way.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many fishing vessels not registered under the Merchant Shipping Act 1988 are still(a) fishing in the British quota, (b) in FPOs and (c) have been notified by his Fisheries Department to stop fishing in the British quota.
  282
  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Fishing vessels which are not appropriately registered are not legally entitled to fish against United Kingdom quotas. To date we have evidence which points to illegal fishing by 19 unregistered vessels (of which seven are members of producer organisations). The owners involved are being notified of possible prosecution action in the usual way.

  Arctic Corsair and Arctic Range
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the registration status of the Arctic Corsair and the Arctic Range currently fishing in Greenland waters under the British quota in those waters.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Registration is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. I understand that both the Arctic Corsair and the Arctic Ranger have been accepted for registration under part II of the Merchant Shipping Act 1988.

  Marine Farms (Licensing)
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what criteria determine whether operators of marine and shell fish farms require a licence from his Department prior to commencing operation.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  A licence is not required for the operation of marine fish and shellfish farms. However, such operations must first obtain consent from the Crown Estate Commissioners and are also subject to statutory controls on aspects such as discharge and fish disease.

  Pesticides
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Caerphilly, of 27 June,Official Report, column 446, what exemptions on account of age apply to regulations on the handling of certain pesticides.

  Mr. Ryder
  In clarification of the reply given on 27 June the only exemption on account of age applies to people born before 1965 who are not required to hold an appropriate certificate of competence when using pesticides on their own land or on their employer's land. The requirement to hold an appropriate certificate of competence when providing a commercial service applies regardless of age.

  Age does not exempt anyone from the general obligation on users of pesticides to take all reasonable precautions to protect the health of people, creatures and plants and to safeguard the environment. In addition, anyone using pesticides in their business or employment must have had adequate instruction and guidance so as to be competent in what they are doing.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list all those pesticides cleared for use in Britain under the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985; and what percentage these form of the total number of pesticides currently approved for use in Britain.

  Mr. Ryder
  All pesticides currently approved for use in the United Kingdom have been approved under the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985. A list of approved products is published annually and is available in the Library of the House.
  283
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many of his Department's scientists are currently engaged in reviewing pesticides under the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985 procedures.

  Mr. Ryder
  It is not possible to give a precise figure, as explained in my reply to the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) on 23 March at column 726.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many older pesticides he expects to be reviewed by(a) the end of 1989, (b) the end of 1990, (c) the end of 1994 and (d) the end of 1999; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ryder
  It is not possible to predict how long reviews of particular pesticides will take.

  Farm Diversification Scheme
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, further to his reply to the hon. Member for Caerphilly of 18 May,Official Report, columns 293–94, if he will give a full description, by type, of the 23 environmental facilities established under the farm diversification scheme by that date; and if he will state the number of schemes including proposals to create wetland habitats such as ponds, reed beds, marshes, etc., and the area which such habitats cover.

  Mr. Ryder
  These projects cover nature trails, woodland walks and associated interpretation centres and educational facilities. Most of the nature trails incorporate existing wetland habitats or newly established ponds. Statistics on the precise area covered are not readily available.

  Fishing Vessels (Grants)
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information he has regarding the total sums awarded by the European Community grants for fishing vessels to each maritime member state in the fourth round of European Community regulation 4028/86.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The information requested is as follows:

  Regulation 4028/86 — 4th Round

  Member state

  EC vessel grants

  Stirling equivalent

  Mecus

  £ million

  Belgium

  0·18

  0·12

  Denmark

  1·83

  1·18

  Germany

  1·38

  0·89

  Greece

  2·84

  1·83

  Spain

  15·69

  10·12

  France

  5·37

  3·46

  Republic of Ireland

  0·48

  0·31

  Italy

  5·62

  3·63

  Netherlands

  0·03

  0·02

  Portugal

  5·31

  3·43

  United Kingdom

  1·99

  1·28

  Total

  40·72

  26·27

  Fisheries Multi-annual Guidance Programme
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information he has regarding the steps taken by each maritime European Community member state regarding steps to meet the objectives set in the fisheries multi-annual guidance programme.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Member states have adopted various measures, including a decommissioning grants scheme, to meet their programme objectives.

  Fisheries Management
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he has taken to support the principle of sustainable fisheries management based on scientific evidence; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The Government provide over £15 million a year for monitoring and research towards achieving sound and rational management of fish as a renewable resource. Furthermore we have sought to ensure in discussions in the European Community that total allowable catches are set, as far as scientific knowledge allows, on a biologically sound basis and that appropriate technical conservation measures are adopted. We will continue with these policies.

  Aquatic Environment
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the ways in which he carries out his duties to protect the aquatic environment.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  A total of 130 scientists and support staff in my Department's fisheries laboratories carry out a substantial research and monitoring programme for the protection of the marine and freshwater environments. Reports are published of the results of research and of monitoring the environmental quality of our waters.

  We take a major role in international work to strengthen understanding and protection of the aquatic environment.

  Strict statutory controls under the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985 are applied to regulate disposal and incineration at sea of waste material, in conformity with international commitments to protect the environment. No waste may be dumped without a strict scientific assessment to ensure that disposal to sea will not harm the marine environment. The availability of disposal routes on land is also assessed. Licences are limited to one year to permit frequent review of the availability of land disposal. Concentrations of contaminants in sewage sludge have been reduced, and we are continuing to reduce the number of liquid industrial wastes dumped at sea as alternative means of disposal on land become available.

  Discharges to sea of radioactive waste are authorised jointly by my Department and the Department of the Environment and have been very substantially reduced over the lifetime of this Government.

  My Department advises upon applications for consents to discharge waste through pipelines to estuaries and coastal waters. These applications are carefully scrutinised with a view to avoiding any harmful effects from such discharges.
  285
  Under the Control of Pesticides Regulations 1986 the terms of approval of pesticides include any conditions relating to storage or use which are necessary to ensure protection and conservation of the aquatic environment.

  My Department plays an active role, both nationally and internationally, in the management and conservation of marine and freshwater fish and shellfish stocks.

  My agricultural development and advisory service advises farmers on ways to reduce pollution of the aquatic environment. Reducing pollution of our rivers and watercourses is a very important consideration in the operation of the recently introduced farm and conservation grant scheme. I have made available grants of 50 per cent. for the installation on farms of facilities for the safe treatment and disposal of slurry and silage effluent.

  Sharks
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the research on which the current Norwegian-European Community fisheries agreement quota for basking shark exploitation is based; whether the level of exploitation is sustainable; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The Norwegian quota for basking shark in Community waters is set as part of the annual EC-Norway fisheries agreement. Data available indicates that there has been no decline in the stock in Community waters since 1978. The annual quota has remained the same since 1985. I understand that Norway's catch in the Community zone has been nil in the last two years. The species will not therefore have been affected by fishing in Community waters.

  Fisheries Inspectors
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the duties of his fisheries inspectors; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The principal duties of my Department's fishery inspectors are to enforce EC and United Kingdom fisheries conservation and management regulations, to enforce EC fish marketing regulations, to assist in the enforcement of marine environmental protection legislation and to collect fisheries statistics and provide other information and advice to assist with the development and implementation of fisheries and other regulations.

  Marine Pollution
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list all the research projects and their locations which his Department carries out into marine pollution; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ryder
  My Department has a substantial investment in research on marine pollution covering almost 100 distinct projects. A full list of these projects is being placed in the Library of the House.

  Seals
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many post-mortem examinations of seals have been carried out by his Department in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement.
  286
  Mr. Donald Thompson
  My Department's veterinary investigation service carried out the following numbers of post mortem examinations of seals in 1985–89 (to date):

  Number

  1985

  1

  1986

  7

  1987

  6

  1988

  8

  1989

  2

  Examinations are performed as part of the diagnostic service provided to private veterinary practitioners.

  The Department of the Environment has primary responsibility for matters concerning the recent epidemic of disease in seals.

  Organic Produce
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what percentage of agricultural produce was produced in 1980 classified as organic; and what is the latest annual figure available.

  Mr. Ryder
  This information is not available.

  Anthrax
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has now been informed of the source of the anthrax infection in Clwyd; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  [holding answer 19 July 1989]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) on 14 July at column 667.

  Pollution
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he is monitoring the input of nutrients, including nitrates and phosphates, into the North sea; and if he will give the results of any such monitoring.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  [holding answer 18 July 1989]: My Ministry monitors the input of nutrients to the sea arising from sea disposal operations licensed under the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985. Such inputs are a very small proportion of the total nutrient inputs into the North sea, of the order of 1 per cent. for nitrates and less than 3 per cent. for phosphates.

  Water authorities record inputs of nutrients from rivers to estuaries. This monitoring shows that there has been no change in nitrate inputs in the last 10 to 15 years. Phosphate inputs have shown a detectable rising trend.

  Ministry scientists have examined records of nitrate concentrations in sea water in winter, the period of maximum and stable nitrate concentrations. These show that there has been a cyclical pattern in nitrate concentrations but no consistent rising trend. The same cyclical pattern occurs throughout the mid and southern North sea and is believed to reflect climatic or other long-term changes rather than anthropogenic nitrate inputs.

  It is known that a substantial proportion of the nutrients entering the estuary do not reach the sea. An

  287
  investigation is now in preparation by MAFF scientists and others to establish the scale on which the removal processes involved occur.

  Conservation
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for South Shields of 22 June,Official Report, columns 252–53, how many of the 35 national training courses on wildlife and landscape conservation have been held in each year since 1981; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ryder
  [holding answer 18 July 1989]: The breakdown of national training courses on wildlife and landscape conservation since 1981 is as follows:

  Number

  1981

  4

  1982

  4

  1983

  4

  1984

  5

  1985

  7

  1986

  8

  Quantity (tonnes)

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  11989

  Cod

  23,987

  45,284

  60,719

  58,593

  59,441

  19,054

  Haddock

  5,733

  9,512

  10,613

  10,383

  16,786

  6,185

  Saithe

  925

  1,390

  2,228

  2,796

  2,462

  595

  Plaice

  3,645

  6,478

  7,537

  7,824

  8,124

  2,385

  Dogfish

  8

  1

  2

  —

  —

  —

  Flounder

  7

  1

  3

  —

  —

  —

  Halibut

  1,422

  1,812

  1,512

  2,231

  1,441

  636

  Ling

  43

  125

  140

  122

  158

  86

  Redfish

  790

  609

  719

  1,000

  1,065

  321

  Whiting

  21

  10

  1

  3

  10

  20

  Herring

  3,149

  2,800

  2,741

  3,888

  3,297

  2,177

  Mackerel

  —

  13

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Salmon

  21

  18

  1

  29

  32

  3

  Trout

  —

  —

  —

  —

  282

  1

  Other fish

  1,915

  2,113

  2,798

  2,537

  3,211

  1,229

  Livers and roes

  254

  467

  408

  295

  201

  56

  Shrimps and prawns

  591

  785

  927

  1,194

  895

  153

  Other Crustacea

  17

  —

  6

  34

  10

  2

  Squid

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Molluscs

  —

  6

  1

  —

  9

  —

  Fishmeal

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Prepared and preserved fish

  1,646

  2,466

  3,226

  3,319

  3,897

  11

  TOTAL

  44,175

  73,890

  93,582

  94,248

  101,321

  32,914

  1 January to April.

  Source: Customs and Excise Overseas Trade Statistics.

  Value (£000)

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  11989

  Cod

  22,847

  44,031

  70,090

  75,707

  73,281

  24,658

  Haddock

  3,949

  6,282

  10,698

  10,238

  17,293

  7,036

  Saithe

  323

  686

  1,612

  2,094

  1,854

  532

  Plaice

  2,633

  3,847

  6,022

  5,873

  5,991

  1,766

  Dogfish

  4

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Flounder

  7

  1

  7

  —

  —

  —

  Halibut

  999

  1,360

  1,646

  2,336

  1,835

  752

  Ling

  13

  49

  95

  62

  81

  46

  Redfish

  243

  209

  384

  604

  798

  236

  Whiting

  6

  4

  1

  2

  11

  6

  Herring

  1,395

  1,324

  1,362

  1,768

  1,731

  1,097

  Mackerel

  —

  5

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Salmon

  9

  74

  3

  117

  120

  9

  Trout

  —

  —

  —

  —

  174

  3

  Other fish

  1,139

  1,367

  1,979

  1,894

  2,046

  710

  Livers and roes

  257

  533

  642

  662

  427

  157

  Shrimps and prawns

  2,393

  3,260

  5,662

  7,504

  4,998

  712

  288

  Number

  1987

  2

  1988

  1

  Since 1987, greater emphasis has been placed on regionally organised conservation awareness training for front-line ADAS advisers to meet their enhanced responsibilities under section 17 of the Agriculture Act 1986. Specialist training continues to be organised on a national and regional basis.

  Fish Imports
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the tonnage, species and value of fish and fisheries products imported into the United Kingdom from Iceland in each of the past five years and for the first four months of the current year.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  [holding answer 11 July 1989]: The imports of fish and fisheries products (fresh, chilled, frozen, dried, salted, in brine, smoked) and prepared or preserved fish into the United Kingdom from Iceland since 1984 have been as follows:
  289

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  11989

  Other Crustacea

  33

  —

  28

  195

  54

  16

  Squid

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Molluscs

  1

  23

  2

  —

  33

  —

  Fishmeal

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Prepared and preserved fish

  5,759

  9,635

  21,646

  20,188

  20,529

  64

  TOTAL

  42,011

  72,691

  121,879

  129,244

  131,256

  37,800

  1 January to April.

  Source: Customs and Excise Overseas Trade Statistics.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the tonnage, species and value of fish and fisheries products imported into the United Kingdom from Norway in each of the past five years and for the first four months of the current year.

  Quantity (tonnes)

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989 January to April

  Cod

  20,599

  19,818

  21,323

  23,083

  18,565

  6,847

  Haddock

  3,079

  3,009

  5,252

  6,866

  9,247

  3,929

  Saithe

  5,626

  4,811

  3,098

  2,704

  2,723

  508

  Plaice

  698

  416

  316

  132

  109

  55

  Dogfish

  152

  1

  22

  1

  —

  —

  Flounder

  298

  —

  5

  —

  —

  —

  Halibut

  5

  4

  2

  45

  127

  14

  Ling

  100

  49

  36

  35

  41

  8

  Redfish

  41

  44

  174

  173

  169

  57

  Whiting

  1

  —

  104

  20

  134

  119

  Herring

  1,893

  4,164

  4,661

  2,253

  2,852

  3,133

  Mackerel

  379

  1,480

  218

  83

  95

  255

  Salmon

  1,739

  2,005

  1,684

  1,385

  2,143

  626

  Trout

  73

  11

  16

  124

  53

  7

  Other fish

  929

  1,010

  884

  1,673

  2,367

  418

  Livers and roes

  89

  89

  48

  6

  7

  —

  Shrimps and prawns

  99

  42

  2

  44

  33

  6

  Other Crustacea

  2

  23

  18

  19

  11

  7

  Squid

  146

  106

  108

  61

  318

  21

  Molluscs

  36

  26

  7

  44

  474

  9

  Fishmeal

  18

  12

  12

  12

  15

  4

  Prepared and Preserved Fish

  7,477

  9,788

  5,354

  3,067

  3,922

  79

  Total

  43,479

  46,908

  43,344

  41,830

  43,405

  16,102

  Source: Customs and Excise Overseas Trade Statistics.

  Value (£'000)

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989 January-April

  Cod

  19,982

  32,170

  39,414

  47,819

  34,918

  12,372

  Haddock

  3,735

  4,700

  8,314

  11,920

  14,214

  5,483

  Saithe

  3,819

  3,718

  3,051

  3,001

  2,523

  399

  Plaice

  409

  309

  253

  125

  113

  33

  Dogfish

  69

  1

  19

  1

  —

  —

  Flounder

  157

  —

  3

  —

  —

  —

  Halibut

  11

  4

  9

  87

  107

  11

  Ling

  53

  33

  38

  44

  46

  12

  Redfish

  25

  35

  169

  215

  141

  51

  Whiting

  1

  —

  80

  8

  63

  54

  Herring

  783

  1,859

  2,066

  936

  1,279

  1,386

  Mackerel

  18

  485

  53

  41

  36

  47

  Salmon

  7,970

  9,915

  7,380

  7,012

  9,360

  2,412

  Trout

  309

  42

  44

  440

  368

  72

  Other Fish

  805

  947

  1,225

  1,551

  2,388

  577

  Livers and Roes

  111

  141

  93

  19

  7

  —

  Shrimps and Prawns

  226

  129

  11

  262

  183

  29

  Other Crustacea

  —

  77

  46

  50

  32

  26

  Squid

  147

  136

  137

  130

  32

  26

  Molluscs

  26

  30

  26

  160

  448

  41

  Fishmeal

  94

  87

  76

  90

  119

  39

  Prepared and Preserved Fish

  27,793

  35,876

  30,015

  17,857

  19,531

  278

  Total

  66,543

  90,694

  92,522

  91,768

  85,908

  23,348

  Source: Customs and Excise Overseas Trade Statistics.
  290
  Mr. Donald Thompson
  [holding answer 11 July 1989]; The imports of fish and fisheries products (fresh, chilled, frozen, dried, salted, in brine, smoked) and prepared or preserved fish into the United Kingdom from Norway since 1984 have been as follows:

HEALTH

  Airline Meals
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Cynon Valley of 2 May,Official Report, column 100, if he has now given consideration to the report of a survey of microbiological quality of airline meals to three London boroughs; and if he will now make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  The survey by the three local authorities surrounding Heathrow was carried out between 1984 and 1986. The results are of concern to the Government and we are co-operating with both the airline catering industry and the appropriate environmental health departments to draw up codes of practice relevant to the operation of the airline caterers. These codes should incorporate all the best features of the present European and international guidelines as well as the Department's guidelines on cook-chill and frozen catering systems. We recognise that there will need to be detailed discussion between the interested parties, but we would expect the new codes of practice to be published in the spring of 1990. We will then consider whether any further measures are necessary to safeguard the public from food poisoning while flying on British-controlled aircraft. In our review of the Food Act, we will also consider carefully any revision of powers. I am advised that the food hygiene regulations apply to airline meals on any British-controlled aircraft and under certain circumstances the Air Navigation Order 1965/1643 article 47 could be evoked.

  Chiropody Services
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what is the current advice being given to people seeking an initial appointment and assessment for chiropody about(a) when they will be seen, (b) where they will be seen and (c) how to get to the place at which they will be seen in (i) Calderdale, (ii) Bradford, (iii) Kirklees, (iv) Wakefield and (v) Leeds; and what it is in each district health authority in England and Wales;

  (2) what is the National Health Service waiting list for an initial appointment and assessment for chiropody in (a) Calderdale, (b) Bradford, (c) Kirklees, (d) Wakefield and (e) Leeds; and what it is in each district health authority in England and Wales.

  Mr. Mellor
  We do not collect this information centrally. The hon. Member may wish to contact the chairman of the health authorities concerned for the information she is seeking.

  NHS Reform
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received about the proposals in the White Paper, "Working for Patients", to increase the number of consultants.

  Mr. Mellor
  Twelve letters and five parliamentary questions on this specific proposal have been received.

  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how women general practitioners will be affected by the new general practitioners' contract.

  Mr. Mellor
  The new contract will increase opportunities for women GPs. There is considerable demand 292
  from patients to have the choice of seeing a woman doctor, and partnerships will be keen to provide this option. Formalised arrangements for flexible working will provide specific opportunities for women doctors with domestic or other commitments.

  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether expressions of interest by persons employed in, or associated with National Health Service hospitals, in the hospital concerned changing status to the proposed National Health Service trust status, were supposed to be referred for comment to members of the regional health authority in whose area the hospitals affected lie; and whether he has relieved regional health authorities of that duty before they forwarded such expressions of interest to his Department without regional health authority members having the opportunity to comment on them.

  Mr. Mellor
  The chief executive of the National Health Service management board, in his letter of 14 March to regional general managers, asked regional health authorities to invite interested parties in their regions to provide outline expressions of interest on their proposals for establishment of NHS hospital trusts. Regional health authorities were asked to consider the expressions of interest and to send them, together with any comments which they might have on the proposals, to the Department. The letter did not explicitly require expressions of interest to be referred to the full health authority for comment at this stage. There will, of course, be opportunities for full discussion of any applications which are developed from initial expressions of interest.

  Immunisations and Smears
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how a refusal by a person or a parent to have or allow an immunisation or smear despite repeated requests from the general practitioner will be counted under the new contract.

  Mr. Mellor
  It is important that all children should be immunised and all eligible women should have smear tests taken. We recognise, however, that in a few cases it may be impossible for a doctor to carry out these procedures because the patient cannot be persuaded. The target levels that we have set reflect this, and there is no need to make any additional allowance for such cases in the calculation of coverage for payments purposes.

  White Papers
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if, for each of the last three White Papers issued by his Department, or its predecessor, for which legislation has been started, he will state the time elapsed between their publication and the First Reading of any Bill connected with them; and if he will do the same for the last three. White Papers issued by the Department of Health and Social Security prior to May 1979.

  Mr. Mellor
  The last three White Papers published by the Department of Health and Social Security, in which legislation was proposed and has been subsequently started or completed, were: "Promoting Better Health", "Law on Child Care and Family Services" and "Reform of Social Security: Programme for Action". These were
  293
  published on November 1987, January 1987 and December 1985 respectively and the First Readings of the Health and Medicines Act 1988, Children Bill and Social Security Act 1986 took place on November 1987, November 1988 and January 1986. It is not for me to answer for the record of the previous Government in this matter, but the information requested should be available in the Library.

  Consultants
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many new consultants' posts will be created in north-west England as a result of the proposals in the White Paper.

  Mr. Mellor
  Under the White Paper proposals 100 extra consultant posts will be allocated in England. Their distribution cannot be determined until bids for them have been received from regional health authorities, and analysed.

  General Practitioners
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health for how long it is proposed that the new general practitioners' contract should run unamended.

  Mr. Mellor
  The new contract represents the first major change to the family doctor service for over 20 years. We shall monitor the effect on patient care and, although no further major changes are planned, we shall be ready to amend the contract should that prove necessary in the light of events.

  Health Authorities
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list in rank order of size of the waiting list the health authorities for which he is responsible as at 31 March indicating in each case the change in position in the rank order since 31 March 1988.

  Mr. Mellor
  We do not yet have available information about the number of people waiting for hospital in-patient treatment at 31 March 1989. The latest published figures are for 30 September 1988 and a copy of the booklet "Hospital In-patient Waiting Lists—England" is in the Library.

  Bone Mass Screening
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the locations at which bone mass screening is available within the National Health Service.

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  Central Public Health Laboratory

  359

  291

  299

  300

  289

  309

  305

  295

  295

  Centre for Applied Microbiology and Research

  259

  323

  305

  302

  308

  313

  318

  315

  323

  Communicable Disease Surveillance Centre

  30

  30

  30

  30

  31

  44

  50

  54

  61

  Area and Regional Laboratories

  1,469

  1,493

  1,421

  1,375

  1,362

  1,363

  1,360

  1,361

  1,364

  Headquarters

  57

  57

  73

  79

  78

  78

  84

  89

  98

  The cost of each branch of the service since 1980 expressed as net expenditure is:
  294
  Mr. Freeman
  We do not hold this information centrally.

  Centre for Advanced Microbiological Research
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will place a copy of the agreement between the Centre for Advanced Microbiological Research and Porton International Limited in the Library.

  Mr. Freeman
  No. Agreements between the public health laboratory services centre for applied microbiology and research and companies in the Porton International group are commercially confidential.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the income generated by the Centre for Applied Microbiological Research in each year since 1980.

  Mr. Freeman
  The income generated by the centre for applied microbiology and research for each year since 1980, including grants for specific work, has been:

  £ million

  Year

  Amount

  1980–81

  1·8

  1981–82

  2·0

  1982–83

  2·3

  1983–84

  2·2

  1984–85

  2·5

  1985–86

  3·0

  1986–87

  2·8

  1987–88

  3·7

  1988–89

  4·2

  Hormone Replacement Therapy
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will state the number of patients receiving hormone replacement therapy within the National Health Service in each year since 1982.

  Mr. Freeman
  We do not hold this information centrally.

  Public Health Laboratory Service
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has(a) the employment in and (b) the costs of, each branch of the public health laboratory service in each year since 1980.

  Mr. Mellor
  The number of staff employed by the public health laboratory service in each branch since 1980 is:
  295

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  Central Public Health Laboratory

  3·6

  4·3

  4·1

  4·1

  4·1

  4·9

  5·4

  5·9

  6·5

  Centre for Applied Microbiology and Research

  3·3

  3·2

  3·4

  5·3

  4·2

  4·3

  5·3

  4·6

  5·7

  Communicable Diseases Surveillance Centre

  0·3

  0·4

  0·4

  0·5

  0·7

  0·7

  0·9

  1·1

  1·3

  Area and Regional Laboratories and Headquarters

  11·1

  13·6

  13·9

  15·1

  15·9

  17·3

  17·8

  20·1

  21·7

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the basic pay of all grades of staff employed by the public health laboratory service in animal handling; and what is the actual average gross pay and hours worked on each public health laboratory service site.

  Mr. Mellor
  The basic pay varies according to salary grades and duties but the average gross pay per annum including overtime is £9,663. Average hours worked per week by animal handlers on PHLS sites with such a facility vary between 37 and 43.

  Porton International Ltd.
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what were(a) the fees paid to, (b) costs of services supplied to, and (c) income derived from Porton International Ltd. in each year since 1982.

  Mr. Freeman
  This information cannot be disclosed as it is commercially confidential.

  Mr. Graham Gaskin
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what advice his Department has issued to local authorities regarding a client's access to past social work records following the recent ruling of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Mr. Graham Gaskin.

  Mr. Mellor
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) on 18 July at column 133.

  York City Hospital
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he has taken to ensure that the discharges of elderly patients from York city hospital into private residential care are being handled in accordance with the requirements of his Department's circular on discharges of patients issued during 1988.

  Mr. Freeman
  This is a local matter. The hon. Member may wish to contact the chairman of York health authority for such information.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to reply to the letter, reference number 22.s.13/VJN/H, from the assistant chief executive of St. Helens metropolitan borough council which was sent to his Department on 26 May; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  I am making inquiries on the delay and shall ensure a reply is sent as soon as possible.

  Lead-free Petrol
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many health authorities have converted their petrol-driven vehicles to run on lead-free petrol; and what action his Department is taking to encourage such conversions.

  Mr. Freeman
  Of 14 regional health authorities in England, nine already have a policy of conversion to lead-free usage wherever possible. The rest have the matter under active consideration. The Department, through its procurement directorate, has encouraged regional supplies directors to move as quickly as possible towards use of lead-free vehicles and is planning the issue of general guidance on the subject later this year.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action his Department is taking to encourage health authorities to implement energy efficiency policies.

  Mr. Freeman
  Energy use in the NHS is monitored using performance indicators to ensure that the Department's 1985 commitment to the Public Accounts Committee to achieve savings of £1·3 billion (or savings of 1·5 per cent. per annum) over 15 years is being achieved.

  Detailed guidance, under the general title "Encode", has been issued to health authorities on a range of energy efficiency measures, including measuring energy usage, setting targets for savings and measuring effectiveness. Computer software for building management systems has also been developed and marketed. A third volume of guidance, aimed specifically at managers, is in preparation. Construction of an exemplar nucleus low-energy hospital designed to secure energy savings of 50 per cent. is well advanced at Newport, Isle of Wight. Construction of a second exemplar low-energy hospital, which aims to secure even greater energy savings, has just commenced.

  Bleaching
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action his Department is taking to encourage manufacturers to phase out the practice of bleaching wound dressings and incontinence products.

  Mr. Freeman
  None, because the evidence of the recently published report "Dioxins in the Environment" is that residue levels of dioxins arising from bleaching of such products are at the limits of detection and pose no risk to patients. However, until alternatives to bleaching can be found, bleaching is necessary to make natural cotton absorbent. I welcome industry efforts to find an acceptable alternative which will satisfy performance requirements.

  Chlorofluorocarbons
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures his Department is taking to encourage health authorities to phase out the use of chlorofluorocarbons in hospitals.

  Mr. Freeman
  NHS authorities have been urged to phase out their use of CFCs in all but essential medical and refrigeration uses by the end of 1989 and to purchase CFC-free alternatives. In some cases the alternative products may involve an increased flammability risk, and guidance on safe storage and disposal of such products was issued in November 1988. Where no alternative is currently available, the overall CFC usage is likely to be small, but we will continue to encourage industry and other efforts to find suitable replacements.

  Incineration
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what resources his Department is providing to bring incineration facilities up to the required legal standards.

  Mr. Freeman
  Health authorities are expected to comply with current statutory standards governing emissions to the atmosphere. New and more stringent statutory controls are expected to be introduced in 1990 and the Department will shortly be issuing guidance to health authorities to enable them to ensure that their installations comply with the new statutory requirements. It is anticipated that these requirements will provide a transitional period for the replacement of existing incinerators. Many incinerators will therefore be upgraded or replaced at the end of their useful lives as part of the normal cycle of planned equipment renewal. Authorities will also be expected to review waste disposal services, taking account of the scope for rationalising and reducing the number of incinerator facilities and the contribution the private sector can make.

  Playgroups
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received about the imposition of registration and inspection fees on pre-school playgroups; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  Five from hon. Members and four from members of the public. The Children Bill, which has completed Committee stage in this House, proposes to give the Secretary of State power to make regulations to prescribe fees to be levied by local authorities for registration and inspection of childminders and providers of day care. No decisions about the levels of fees will be made without prior discussion with interested parties such as local authority associations and voluntary organisations.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research he has undertaken about the likely impact of registration and inspection fees being imposed on pre-school playgroups(a) in Bradford and (b) elsewhere.

  Mr. Mellor
  None.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will take steps to provide grants for pre-school playgroups in areas where there is no public nursery provision.
  298
  Mr. Mellor
  No. This is a matter for local decision.

  Speech Therapy
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what speech therapy is available to children with severe learning difficulties who attend schools within the Liverpool area health authority's district; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  We do not hold this information centrally. The hon. Member may wish to contact the chairman of the Liverpool district health authority.

  Hearing Aids
  Mr. Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the average delay in the provision of hearing aids; what are the regional differences in waiting times; and if he will make a statement about the action he may be taking to speed the delivery of such hearing aids.

  Mr. Freeman
  According to a survey carried out in 1986 by the British Association of Audiology Technicians, the average waiting time for a hearing aid fitting in the United Kingdom is 7·2 weeks. Information on regional differences in waiting times is not held centrally. We are considering the action which might be taken in response to the Royal National Institute for the Dears "Fair Hearing" campaign.

  NHS Staff (Pensions)
  Sir George Young
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health on how many occasions in each of the last five years he has exercised his discretion under regulation 62 of the National Health Service (Superannuation) Regulations 1980 and reduced the pension or retiring allowance of National Health Service staff.

  Mr. Mellor
  On only one occasion in the past five years, in June 1986, has the Secretary of State directed that the forfeiture provisions of regulation 62 should apply. That decision was subsequently reviewed and upheld earlier this year.

  Welfare Milk Tokens
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he intends to reduce the value of welfare milk tokens in relation to the full cost of the doorstep pint of milk.

  Mr. Freeman
  We have no plans to reduce the value to beneficiaries of welfare milk tokens. But the Department is negotiating a reduced price with the liquid welfare milk suppliers.

  Lowermoor Incident Group
  Mr. Neale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about the report of the Lowermoor incident health advisory group.

  Mr. Freeman
  The report of the Lowermoor incident health advisory group is being published today. The group was set up in January 1989 at my request to provide independent expert advice to the Cornwall and Isles of Scilly district health authority on the implications for the health of the population in the Camelford area following
  299
  the contamination of their drinking water in July 1988. Copies of the report have been sent to the Department of Health and to the Department of the Environment, and I am placing copies in the Library. I am grateful to Dame Barbara Clayton and her colleagues for their very thoughtful and authoritative report.

  The Government welcome the group's advice that no long-term effects on health are expected. The group's main findings are that:

  (i) early symptoms, which were mostly gastrointestinal disturbances, rashes and mouth ulcers and which appeared to be mostly mild and short-lived, can most probably be attributed to the incident. Other causes such as viral infections cannot be discounted for some of the cases.

  (ii) it is not possible to attribute the very real current health complaints to the toxic effects of the incident, except insofar as they are the consequence of the sustained anxiety naturally felt by many people. A number of factors have contributed to this anxiety, particularly in relation to long-term effects, and these are addressed in the report.

  It is for the district health authority to take any further measures it thinks necessary for the health of the local population in the light of these findings. The Department of Health notes that the advisory group welcomes the DHA's survey of pregnancy outcomes as a sensible precautionary measure and also the continuance of the special consultant sessions for people who are anxious and unwell. The Department has asked the DHA for its observations on the group's recommendations about the availability of patch tests for patients concerned about aluminium hypersensitivity and has noted that general practitioners are advised to consider referral to a rheumatologist for patients with persistent joint or muscle pain.

  The report also addresses several recommendations to central Government. We accept all these recommendations; indeed, some have already been implemented.

  A formal requirement for a water utility to notify the district health authority without delay of such incidents is included in the Water Supply (Water Quality) Regulations 1989 (SI No 1147). The need for the population and the media to have proper medical and scientific advice as promptly as possible for advance planning to ensure sound management of any such crisis, and for good communications were all addressed by the Government's review of water utilities' management anti operating procedures at treatment works following the incident.

  The provision of alternative drinking water supplies is also part of normal contingency arrangements, but the terms of the recommendation on this aspect, especially as it relates to bottle-fed infants, will be taken up with the utilities. The need for health authorities to have immediate access to an authoritative source of medical and toxicological advice is accepted, and we are studying the practical details of implementation. A further statement on all outstanding aspects will be made as soon as possible.

  Food Safety
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will give additional powers to local authorities to allow them to deal more effectively with listeria-contaminated food;

  (2) if he will issue clear guidelines on the level of listeria contamination which makes food unfit;
  300
  (3) when his Department was first notified of listeria-contaminated pate being imported into Britain; when he issued warnings; and what was the reason for the delay.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 18 July 1989]: While local authorities already have powers under the Food Act 1984 to deal with food contamination, we are proposing measures in a new Food Bill which will strengthen these powers.

  In a report "Foodborne Listeriosis" published in 1988, the World Health Organisation concluded:
  "Virtually nothing is known about the infectious dose of Listeria monocytogenes in man, nor is there good quantitative information relating to the amount of contaminated foodstuff ingested with the risk of acquiring disease. It is likely that infectious dose may be related to host susceptibility."
  We understand that this conclusion is shared by experts in this country. Hence we have no sound scientific basis upon which to issue guidelines on dangerous levels of Listeria monocytogenes in foods.

  On 30 June 1989, the Department was informed of the results of a survey of pates which had been carried out in two districts in Wales. At that time, the problem appeared to be mainly one of poor handling in the local stores and our understanding was that appropriate advice had been given to the supermarkets concerned by the local environmental health officers, in particular about the correct storage temperature and handling of paté. There was nevertheless the possibility that there might be a more general problem with patés. Arrangements were made for a nationwide survey, by the public health laboratory service, of all types of paté on sale in England and Wales. The EC and Belgian authorities were alerted and asked to inspect the Belgian factories. In the light of further evidence received by the Department from one of the importers on the evening of 11 July, the public were alerted on 12 July that certain vulnerable groups should for the time being avoid eating paté.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  White Papers
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if, for each of the last three White Papers issued by his Department, for which legislation has been started, he will state the time elapsed between their publication and First Reading of any Bill connected with them; and if he will do the same for the last three White Papers issued by his Department prior to May 1979.

  Mr. Hurd
  The last three White Papers published by my Department in which legislation was proposed and has been subsequently started or completed, were: "Criminal Justice Bill Plans for Legislation" (Cm 9658); "Firearms Act 1968: Proposals for Reform" (Cm 261) and "Reform of Section 2 of the Official Secrets Act 1911" (Cm 1108). These were published on 6 March 1986, 2 December 1987 and 29 June 1988 respectively and the First Readings of the Criminal Justice, Firearms (Amendment) and Official Secrets Bills resulting from them took place on 14 November 1986, 17 December 1987 and 30 November 1988. It is not for me to answer for the record of the previous Government in this matter, but the information requested should be available in the Library.

  Orange Badge Scheme
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department by what percentage the £400 fine for the unauthorised use of the orange badge would have to be increased for the fine to have the same real value as it had when it was first introduced; and what has been the percentage increase in the general parking fine over this period.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The maximum fine for unauthorised use of the orange badge was set at level 3 on the standard scale in May 1984. The maximum fine for parking and waiting offences was also set at level 3 in May 1984. Since that time, the general index of retail prices has risen by 30 per cent.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will discuss with chief constables the possibility of improving the monitoring of the misuse of orange badges and penalising the offenders.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  A number of proposals for improvement of the orange badge scheme were announced on 25 April by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley). The implementation of these proposals should result in a significant reduction in opportunity for abuse of the scheme. The operation of the scheme will be carefully monitored and discussions held with chief police officers as necessary.

  Asylum seekers in certain Western European countries and Canada by year of application 1984 to 1988

  Number of persons

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  Total

  Austria

  7,200

  6,700

  8,700

  11,400

  15,700

  49,700

  Belgium

  3,700

  5,300

  7,700

  6,000

  5,000

  27,700

  Canada

  7,100

  8,400

  25,000

  35,000

  34,000

  109,500

  Denmark

  4,300

  8,700

  9,300

  2,100

  4,700

  29,100

  France

  15,900

  25,800

  23,400

  24,800

  31,000

  120,900

  Netherlands

  2,600

  5,700

  5,900

  14,000

  7,500

  35,700

  Norway

  300

  900

  2,700

  8,600

  6,600

  19,100

  Sweden

  12,000

  14,500

  14,600

  18,500

  20,000

  79,600

  Switzerland

  7,500

  9,700

  8,600

  10,900

  16,700

  53,400

  United Kingdom

  3,900

  5,400

  4,800

  5,200

  5,100

  24,400

  West Germany

  35,000

  73,900

  99,700

  57,400

  103,000

  369,000

  TOTAL

  99,500

  165,000

  210,400

  193,900

  249,300

  918,100

  Information on the population of these countries is available from a number of published sources including the "United Nations Demographic Yearbook", a copy of which is in the Library.

  Kurdish Refugees
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what further measures he intends to undertake to assist the plight of Kurdish refugees.

  Mr. Renton
  Existing central and local government services provide for asylum seekers' basic needs. We have agreed to reimburse some of the exceptional expenses incurred by churches and community and voluntary organisations in helping Kurdish asylum seekers who have recently arrived from Turkey. We are considering whether any further assistance is required.
  302
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy to increase the £400 fine for the unauthorised use of an orange badge to £2,000.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  No.

  Asylum
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were granted asylum in the United Kingdom in each year since 1978.

  Mr. Renton
  The numbers of persons granted refugee status or asylum in the United Kingdom in each of the years 1979–88 are shown in table 2 of Home Office Statistical Bulletin Issue 25/89 "Refugee Statistics, United Kingdom 1988", published today, a copy of which is in the Library. This shows that the provisional number of asylum applicants given refugee status in 1988 was 960, the highest figure since 1983. Corresponding information for 1978 is not available.

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what estimate he has of what proportion of all refugees seeking asylum come to Great Britain;

  (2) if he will list in ranked order the 10 main refugee-receiving countries in Europe expressed as a figure per head of the population.

  Mr. Renton
  Information is not available on asylum applications to all countries. The information available for the principal countries is given in the following table.

  Privacy
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) by what date he has asked the review body on privacy and related issues, announced on 21 April,Official Report, column 593, to report to him;

  (2) how many people will be appointed to serve on the body appointed to review privacy and related issues, announced on 21 April, Official Report, column 593;

  (3) whether he will publish the detailed terms of reference of the review of privacy and related issues, announced on 21 April, Official Report, column 593;

  (4) whether he will publish the report of the review of privacy and related issues, announced on 21 April, Official Report, column 593;
  303
  (5) whether the membership of the body appointed to review privacy and related issued, announced on 21 April, Official Report, column 593, will include representatives of (a) the churches, (b) the press trades unions, (c) working journalists, (d) consumer groups and (e) media rights groups;

  (6) whether the review of privacy and related issues announced on 21 April, Official Report, column 593, will be able to (a) invite evidence from organisations and (b) commission research and surveys;

  (7) whether the review of privacy and related issues, announced on 21 April, Official Report, column 593, will take evidence (a) in public session, (b) at regional meetings, (c) in Scotland, (d) in Wales and (e) in Northern Ireland;

  (8) whether the review of privacy and related issues, announced on 21 April, Official Report, column 593, will inquire into (a) ownership and control of the press, (b) the future of the Press Council, (c) the right of reply, (d) freedom of information and (e) alternative means of address to the public.

  Mr. Renton
  As my right hon. Friend announced in reply to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Mr. Browne) on 5 July at column 193, the terms of reference of the committee to review privacy and related matters will be as follows:
  "In the light of recent public concern about intrusions into the private lives of individuals by certain sections of the press, to consider what measures (whether legislative or otherwise) are needed to give further protection to individual privacy from the activities of the press and improve recourse against the press for the individual citizen, taking account of existing remedies, including the law of defamation and breach of confidence; and to make recommendations."

  The chairman, Mr. David Calcutt, QC, has been asked to complete his report speedily. We hope it will be published by next summer. The membership is being considered. The task of the committee will be to concentrate on privacy and recourse for the citizen in respect of the press. This includes recourse against inaccuracies as well as intrusion. The committee will be able to consider any matter that it regards as relevant to that task and to seek what evidence it wishes.

  Mr. Tarek Sharif
  Mr. Ron Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent representations he has received from Mr. Tarek Sharif, a Libyan, about his since its inception. passport; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Renton
  I understand that Mr. Sharif's passport was impounded by the court. I have received letters from Mr. Sharif and his solicitors. His immigration status is under consideration.

  Criminal Injuries Compensation Board
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will seek an explanation from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board as to why it has not yet responded to correspondence dated June 1988 from the solicitors acting for Mr. James Bloomfield of 45 Cheltenham street, Bosford, Nottingham.

  Mr. Hurd
  Jointly with my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland I have responsibility for general oversight of the criminal injuries 304
  compensation scheme. However, under the terms of the scheme the board is entirely responsible for the handling and determination of individual applications for compensation. I have therefore referred the matter to the board, which has been asked to write to the hon. Member.

  Broadcasting (Competitive Tendering)
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 13 July,Official Report, column 635, how many submissions he has received supporting the principle of competitive tender for the award of commercial television and radio licences.

  Mr. Renton
  I regret that the information sought would involve a fresh analysis of more than 3,000 submissions and could therefore be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Female Prisoners
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has for improving the management of longer-term and life-sentence female prisoners; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The policy for the management of female longer-term and life-sentenced inmates has been reviewed recently. It is now intended to increase the number of establishments which cater for these inmates, other than those in category A. The result of the new policy will be that female prisoners serving life or long sentences can be allocated to prisons closer to their homes and a wider variety of regimes can be offered. In addition to those prisons which currently cater for life-sentenced inmates, four more will take these prisoners in future. They are the closed prisons at New Hall in Yorkshire and Bullwood Hall in Essex, and the open prisons at Drake Hall in Staffordshire and East Sutton Park in Kent. I have written to the hon. Members concerned.

SCOTLAND

  Govan Initiative
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the grants and loans made by the Scottish Development Agency to the Govan initiative in each year since its inception.

  Mr. Lang
  Grants made to the Govan initiative by the Scottish Development Agency since its inception are shown in the table. These grants represent payment towards core funding of the initiative. No loans have been made by the agency.

  £

  1986–87

  14,000

  1987–88

  28,000

  1988–89

  85,000

  Farming
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many whole farms have been set aside from agricultural production under the European Community scheme in each region in Scotland.
  305
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The table gives details of holdings where participants have opted to set aside all their eligible arable land. As indicated in the table, the area set aside represents considerably less than the whole farm area.

  Region

  Number of holdings

  Total area set aside

  Total area of holdings

  (ha)

  (ha)

  Borders

  3

  76

  334

  Central

  3

  216

  357

  Dumfries and Galloway

  —

  —

  —

  Fife

  3

  43

  96

  Grampian

  76

  2,093

  4,738

  Highland

  12

  572

  1,240

  Lothian

  4

  226

  733

  Strathclyde

  6

  168

  390

  Tayside

  12

  328

  846

  Islands areas

  —

  —

  —

  SCOTLAND

  119

  3,722

  8,734

  Sewage, Firth of Forth
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what quantity of raw sewage and sewage sludge is discharged into the firth of Forth each year from(a) Fife, (b) Central and (c) Lothian Regions.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The quantities of untreated sewage discharged in 1988 were:

  (a) Fife: the information is not available in the form sought. However, 84,000 cu m per day, much of it screened, were discharged into Fife's estuarine and coastal waters.

  (b) Central: 4,800 cu m per day.

  (c) Lothian: the information is not available in the form sought. However, sewage, much of it screened, from a population of approximately 90,000 was discharged into Lothian's estuarine and coastal waters.

  Since sewage sludge is a product of the treatment of sewage, there is none arising from the discharges noted above. Sludge generated at treatment works is not discharged to the sea, although 250,000 wet tonnes of sludge from works serving the Edinburgh area is dumped at sites in the outer firth of Forth. This disposal operation takes place in accordance with the terms of a licence issued by the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland under the Food and Environment Protection Act.

  Dental Hospital (Edinburgh)
  Mr. Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he can indicate a starting date for the building of a new dental hospital in Edinburgh.

  Mr. Rifkind
  The nature of future dental hospital provision in Edinburgh depends initially on the Universities Funding Council's decision about the future of undergraduate dental education in Edinburgh. Once that decision is known, it will be for Lothian health board to progress appropriate hospital development in Edinburgh.

  Edinburgh Dental School
  Mr. Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the catchment area and its population in and around Edinburgh for cases available for teaching purposes was considered before he accepted the proposal to close the Edinburgh dental school.
  306
  Mr. Rifkind
  I have not accepted the approval to close the Edinburgh dental school. This is a matter for the Universities Funding Council.

  Before making its recommendation, the working party on the review of dental provision in Scotland advised, on the basis of outpatient attendance figures, that
  "the attendance figures between Edinburgh and Dundee are sufficiently close as to make little difference in terms of undergraduate education".
  I have sent its report to the Universities Funding Council, and asked the council to consider the working party's advice in reaching decisions on undergraduate dental education.

  School Staffing
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if, in the light of paragraphs 5.3 of SED "Statistical Bulletin" 5 January 1989, he is yet in a position to offer guidance to determining staffing needs in Scottish primary and secondary schools; and what provision for school staffing in session 1989–90 has been included in central Government funding made available to regional councils.

  Mr. Lang
  The provision made for teaching costs in schools in Scotland in the revenue support grant settlement for 1989–90 was £879 million. This was based on the staffing standards contained in the draft circular which was issued last year following the Department's review of school staffing. The settlement for 1990–91 will similarly be based on these standards. Consideration is still being given to the nature of any final guidance which might go to authorities.

  New Towns
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will estimate the outstanding debt in the industrial and commercial properties and land of each of the five new towns.

  Mr. Lang
  Outstanding long-term loans payable to the National Loans Fund at 31 March 1989 were:

  £000

  Cumbernauld

  233,362

  East Kilbride

  117,948

  Glenrothes

  149,773

  Irvine

  163,622

  Livingston

  295,576

  Total

  960,281

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will estimate the total income received from industrial and commercial properties and land of each of the five new towns.

  Mr. Lang
  The total income from non-housing activities received by the five development corporations for the financial year which ended on 31 March 1989 was:

  £000

  Cumbernauld

  2,992

  East Kilbride

  6,439

  Glenrothes

  3,745

  Irvine

  2,656

  Livingston

  6,729

  Total

  22,561

  307
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will estimate the value of the industrial and commercial properties and land in each of the five new towns.

  Mr. Lang
  The new book values of industrial, commercial properties and land at 31 March 1989 for each of the five development corporations are set out in the following table.

  £'000s

  Industrial

  Commercial

  Land

  Cumbernauld

  26,005

  6,497

  14,100

  Glenrothes

  16,872

  12,268

  4,580

  East Kilbride

  40,705

  30,245

  8,040

  Irvine

  19,603

  6,522

  8,084

  Livingston

  60,633

  27,598

  347

  TOTAL

  163,818

  83,130

  35,151

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will give an estimate of the amount of debt of industrial and commercial properties and land, in each of the new towns, to be written off as part of the wind-up proposal as agreed to in July 1987;

  (2) if, pursuant to paragraph 9.4, page 17, of "Scottish New Towns—The Way Ahead", he will give the estimated value of writing off loans not represented by asset value in each of the five new towns.

  Mr. Lang
  The amount of debt to be written off will be derived from a calculation of the amount of debt which the corporations' industrial and commercial activities will be able to service and repay until wind-up. The precise amount of debt to be written off has yet to be determined.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will take steps to ensure that the industrial and commercial assets in each of the five new towns will be sold at market value as part of the wind up process.

  Mr. Lang
  Yes, other than in exceptional cases which will be treated strictly on their merits.

  Development Agency
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if any discussions have taken place with the chief executive of the Scottish Development Agency regarding the sale of the equity investments in Scottish companies.

  Mr. Lang
  Yes.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if companies renting factory space from the Scottish Development Agency will retain the right to buy.

  Mr. Lang
  Detailed arrangements for the disposal of agency properties, including any conditions relating to existing tenants, have yet to be determined. In the meantime, requests to purchase particular properties will be considered by the agency on their individual merits, having due regard to the agency's duty to make the best use of public assets within its control.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will estimate how much factory space, owned by the Scottish Development Agency, has been sold in each of the years 1979–80 to 1988–89 inclusive.
  308
  Mr. Lang
  Factory space sold by the Scottish Development Agency in each of the years 1980–81 to 1988–89 inclusive is shown in the table. No information is available for 1979–80.

  Factory Space Sold (Square foot)

  1980–81

  286,664

  1981–82

  269,000

  1982–83

  1,016,271

  1983–84

  1,217,684

  1984–85

  2,110,043

  1985–86

  1,779,481

  1986–87

  1,996,000

  1987–88

  1,821,000

  1988–89

  1,536,009

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give an estimate of the value of(a) factory space, (b) land and (c) commercial property owned by the Scottish Development Agency.

  Mr. Lang
  The estimated value of industrial property, land and commercial property owned by the Scottish Development Agency as at 31 March 1988 (latest available date) is shown in the table.

  Property Type Owned

  Value

  (£ million)

  Industrial property

  130·1

  Land

  20·9

  Commercial property

  1·4

  152·4

  The industrial property shown includes business centres which in some cases may include office accommodation. The commercial property shown is confined to the agency's own offices.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give an estimate of the value of the Scottish Development Agency investment portfolio in each of the years 1982–83 to the latest year for which information is available.

  Mr. Lang
  The cumulative total of the Scottish Development Agency's investment portfolio is published each year in the agency's annual accounts. In accordance with the agency's accounting policies, the investments are. stated at cost and consist of secured loans, unsecured loans, loan stocks, preference shares and equity shares. Funding for these investments comes from grant-in-aid, public dividend capital, the National Loans Fund and the European Coal and Steel Community. The net cumulative total of agency investments (after provisions) for each year from 1982–83 to 1988–89 is set out in the table.

  £.000

  1982–83

  29,988

  1983–84

  37,259

  1984–85

  43,077

  1985–86

  42,032

  1986–87

  47,306

  1987–88

  52,065

  1988–89

  148,654

  1 Unaudited.

  309
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the average rental per square foot of factory space owned by the Scottish Development Agency and what assessment he has made of the likely impact of the sale of those assets on rents.

  Mr. Lang
  The agency does not produce a figure for average rent for its properties, because the variations in rent between different locations, for different types of property and for other reasons render such a figure meaningless. On the impact of any sale on rents, tenants will continue to occupy their premises in accordance with the terms of their existing leases, which include provisions for rent reviews. Any change in rents will take place as a result of these reviews. These will take place over an extended period as they fall due, and it is not possible to anticipate what the effect might be.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the estimated value to be realised by the sale of factory space, land and commercial property owned by the Scottish Development Agency.

  Mr. Lang
  No.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list by constituency factories, land and other commercial properties owned by the Scottish Development Agency.

  Mr. Lang
  This information is not available in the form requested and cannot be provided without incurring disproportionate cost.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the institutions being consulted regarding the take-over of the Scottish Development Agency's investment portfolio.

  Mr. Lang
  I have received advice from Quayle Munro Ltd. in connection with the possible disposal of the agency's investment portfolio. The agency has also sought professional advice as appropriate. There has otherwise been no formal consultation with financial institutions.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the Scottish companies which have shown an interest in the purchase of total land and property assets of the Scottish Development Agency.

  Mr. Lang
  No. This information is commercial in confidence.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will take steps to ensure that all factory space, land or commercial property sold by the Scottish Development Agency will be sold at market value.

  Mr. Lang
  Yes, other than in exceptional cases which will be treated strictly on their merits.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the date on which all land and factories owned by the Scottish Development Agency are to be sold.

  Mr. Lang
  I expect to announce my decision on the sale of the agency's property portfolio, including the timing and nature of any such disposal, shortly.
  310
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the Scottish Development Agency or the Scottish Office has consulted(a) those who have leased land or property and (b) local authorities over the possible sale of industrial and commercial assets owned by the Scottish Development Agency.

  Mr. Lang
  No.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was(a) the long-term unemployment total for each month January 1987 to June 1989 and (b) the percentage change of long-term unemployment for each month over the same period.

  Mr. Lang
  The information requested is available only on a quarterly basis.

  The number of claimants unemployed for one year or more in Scotland in each quarter from January 1987 to April 1989 (the latest date for which information is available) and the percentage of the total unemployed claimants this represents are set out in the table.

  Scotland

  Date

  Claimants unemployed for one year or more

  Percentage of total unemployed claimants

  1987

  January

  148,957

  39·2

  April

  146,702

  40·4

  July

  142,212

  41·5

  October

  136,185

  41·8

  1988

  January

  131,213

  39·3

  April

  123,873

  40·1

  July

  117,173

  40·3

  October

  110,846

  41·8

  1989

  January

  106,190

  39·5

  April

  98,248

  40·0

  Due to a change in the compilation of the count in September 1988 these figures are not directly comparable. This information is available in the Library.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was(a) the seasonally adjusted unemployment total for each of the months January 1987 to June 1989 and (b) the percentage change for each month over the same period.

  Mr. Lang
  The information requested is set out in the table which shows for Scotland for each month since January 1987 the level of seasonally adjusted unemployment, the seasonally adjusted unemployment rate and the change in the rate compared with the previous month.
  311

  Seasonally adjusted unemployment, Scotland, January 1987 to June 1989

  Level

  Rate-Workforce Basis

  Change in Rate from previous month

  (000's)

  Per cent

  (percentage points)

  1987

  January

  340·6

  13·7

  February

  337·8

  13·6

  -0·1

  March

  336·0

  13·5

  -0·1

  April

  337·6

  13·6

  +0·1

  May

  329·3

  13·2

  -0·4

  June

  326·6

  13·1

  -0·1

  July

  323·2

  13·0

  -0·1

  August

  318·7

  12·8

  -0·2

  September

  313·6

  12·6

  -0·2

  October

  309·4

  12·4

  -0·2

  November

  305·1

  12·3

  -0·1

  December

  302·3

  12·1

  -0·2

  1988

  January

  299·7

  12·0

  -0·1

  February

  296·6

  11·9

  -0·1

  March

  293·3

  11·7

  -0·2

  April

  288·4

  11·5

  -0·2

  May

  284·8

  11·4

  -0·1

  June

  279·7

  11·2

  -0·2

  July

  275·9

  11·0

  -0·2

  August

  273·4

  10·9

  -0·1

  September

  272·3

  10·9

  -0·0

  October

  270·1

  10·8

  -0·1

  November

  266·5

  10·7

  -0·1

  December

  260·2

  10·4

  -0·3

  1989

  January

  256·6

  10·3

  -0·1

  February

  253·4

  10·1

  -0·2

  March

  250·5

  10·0

  -0·1

  April

  243·3

  9·7

  -0·3

  May

  239·5

  9·6

  -0·1

  June1

  234·9

  9·4

  -0·2

  1 Provisional.

  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what has been the reduction in unemployment in Govan constituency in the past two years; what are the numbers who have found employment in the age ranges(a) 16 to 20 years, (b) 21–30 years, (c) 31–40 years, (d) 41–50 years, and (e) 51–60 years; and how many in each age range went into part-time employment.

  Mr. Lang
  Between June 1989 and June 1987 unemployment in the Govan constituency fell by 1,529. Information on numbers going into employment by age ranges is not available.

  Electricity Privatisation
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what consultations he has had with the Scottish members of the Association of Independent Electricity Producers with regard to the Government's proposals to privatise the electricity industry in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  I met representatives of the Association of Independent Electricity Producers on 8 June. A number of issues related to the present operation of the electricity supply industry in Scotland and the proposed arrangements for privatisation were discussed.

  Sports Clubs (Rates)
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the system of rate relief for non-profit-making sports clubs from local authorities in place in Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The decision whether to give rate relief to sports clubs, and if so how much, is at the discretion of local authorities. Where an authority does give relief, it is compensated for the lost rate income by a corresponding increase in revenue support grant.

  Fishing
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps have been taken by his Department to notify fishing vessels not registered under the Merchant Shipping Act 1988 to stop fishing.

  Mr. Lang
  The fishing licenses issued by fisheries departments make it clear that only registered vessels are entitled to fish against United Kingdom quotas. Where necessary, appropriate enforcement action will be taken to ensure compliance with this condition.

  Nursery School Places
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will estimate the annual revenue cost of creating and maintaining a nursery school place.
  313
  Mr. Lang
  Most children attend nursery school on a part-time basis. In 1987–88, the last year for which figures are available, the average annual revenue cost per child was £781 and the whole-time equivalent cost £1,488.

  Hospital Service Capital Programme
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will express in real terms, using 1966 as base, the expenditure within Scotland on the hospital service capital programme for each of the past 22 years; what is his estimate for the current year; and if he will also give the figures in real terms for revenue expenditure over the same period.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The expenditure by health boards on hospital services for the past 22 years and the estimated expenditure for the current year at 1966 prices is as follows:

  Year

  Revenue

  Capital

  £'000s

  £'000s

  1966–67

  84,631

  12,439

  1967–68

  89,098

  13,835

  1968–69

  92,918

  13,849

  1969–70

  97,341

  12,198

  1970–71

  107,111

  13,091

  1971–72

  115,441

  14,464

  1972–73

  122,141

  16,295

  1973–74

  134,342

  17,523

  1974–75

  156,944

  16,570

  1975–76

  167,402

  16,867

  1976–77

  167,021

  14,029

  1977–78

  166,779

  12,698

  1978–79

  171,560

  15,363

  1979–80

  175,265

  14,905

  1980–81

  190,361

  12,924

  1981–82

  194,342

  16,334

  1982–83

  193,326

  17,091

  1983–84

  195,269

  17,040

  1984–85

  198,333

  17,655

  1985–86

  198,559

  18,869

  1986–87

  204,499

  15,330

  1987–88

  210,782

  15,182

  1988–89

  218,912

  15,945

  1989–90

  1220,987

  118,833

  1 Estimated.

  Notes:

  1. The above figures apart for those for 1989–90 were taken from Health Boards annual accounts.

  2. The capital expenditure is total expenditure on hospital and community health services. Hospital services arc not shown separately in the annual accounts.

  Child Care
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will show central Government financial support for child care services in each of the past five years; and if he will make a statement on Government policy.

  Mr. Lang
  The Scottish Office has provided support for expenditure on social work services by local authorities, including child care, through successive increases in rate support grant. It is for individual local authorities to decide on their spending priorities according to their own needs and available resources. In addition, we have made available grants under section 10 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 to a wide range of voluntary organisations concerned with child care services.

  Community Charge
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people whose main place of residence in the United Kingdom is in Scotland, but who are exempt from payment of income tax as they work overseas and are resident in the United Kingdom for 90 days or less each year, have been exempted from payment of(a) all and (b) part of their community charge; and if he will make a statement on his Department's advice to local authorities in these circumstances.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  There is no provision which exempts a person from any of the community charges by reason of his being exempt from income tax in the United Kingdom through living abroad. A person's liability for the personal community charge in Scotland depends upon whether that person is solely or mainly resident in Scotland. This is determined by the community charges registration officer for the appropriate regional or islands council area on the basis of the facts and circumstances of each case. A person has a right of appeal against the registration officer's decision. A person who is resident abroad may be liable for the standard community charge if he owns or is the long-term tenant of a property which is nobody's sole or main residence. The decision about whether a standard community charge liability arises is again for the registration officer and again there is a right of appeal. My right hon. and learned Friend has not issued guidance to registration officers on how they should act in respect of particular cases, nor would it be appropriate for him to do so. It is for individuals to appeal against the registration officer's decisions if they disagree with those decisions.

  Basking Sharks
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what instructions he has issued to district fisheries inspectors about the recording of basking sharks that are landed; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  The basking shark fishery has been carried out in recent years by a single vessel based in the firth of Clyde. The sea fisheries inspectorate obtains details of any landings.

  Scottish Consumer Council
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list members of the Scottish Consumer Council and indicate the method of appointing those members.

  Mr. Forth
  I have been asked to reply.

  The chairman and members of the Scottish Consumer Council are as follows:

  Mrs. Barbara Kelly (Chairman)

  Mrs. Joan Aitken

  Mrs. Patricia Bolton

  Mrs. Patricia Cooper

  Mr. Cowan Ervine

  Mr. Kenneth Gilbert

  Mr. Christopher Harley

  Mrs. Deirdre Hutton

  Father Matthew McManus

  Mrs. Winifred Sherry JP

  Mr. Gordon Smith

  Mr. Mark Steiner

  Dr. Douglas Williamson

  Members of the SCC are appointed by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.
  315
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give details of the salaries and remunerations paid to members of the Scottish Consumer Council including the director.

  Mr. Forth
  I have been asked to reply.

  The chairman of the Scottish Consumer Council receives a salary of £3,770 per annum as a member of the National Consumer Council. Other members of the SCC receive no salary but can currently claim a fee of £44 for attendance at council meetings. The salary of the director of the SCC is within the range 01113,318 to £17,149, which is equivalent to a senior executive officer post in the Civil Service.

  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met representatives of the Scottish Consumer Council; and whether he discussed the problem of alcohol abuse among young people in Scotland.

  Mr. Forth
  I have been asked to reply.

  I attended the SCC's council meeting on 19 May and discussed a number of topics of particular concern to Scottish consumers. The problem of alcohol abuse among young people in Scotland was not discussed.

  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what qualifications are required to be a member of he Scottish Consumer Council.

  Mr. Forth
  I have been asked to reply.

  Although no specific qualifications are required, prospective members would be expected to have an active interest in, and knowledge of, matters relevant to consumers in Scotland.

  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland who is responsible for the appointment of the director of the Scottish Consumer Council.

  Mr. Forth
  I have been asked to reply.

  The appointment is made by the Scottish Consumer Council, in consultation with the director of the National Consumer Council.

  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what qualifications are required for the post of Director of the Scottish Consumer Council.

  Mr. Forth
  I have been asked to reply.

  It is a matter for the two bodies concerned with the appointment to decide what qualifications are appropriate for the post.

  Greater Glasgow Health Board
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) on what date authorisation was given for the Greater Glasgow health board laboratory services and records department to be let out to competitive tendering; and who gave the authorisation;

  (2) who was consulted before Greater Glasgow health board put its laboratory services and records department out to competitive tendering.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 17 July 1989]: The laboratory services and records department of Greater Glasgow health board have not been put out to tender.

DEFENCE

  Low Flying
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many night low-level flights took place in the United Kingdom low-flying system in 1988.

  Mr. Neubert
  Central records are not available in a form which would allow the information requested to be provided.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy of 24 January,Official Report, column 555, whether centre is quantified as a radius in kilometres in the instructions to pilots concerning overflight of the centres of major conurbations and built-up areas in the United Kingdom low flying system.

  Mr. Neubert
  No.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to the replies to the hon. Member for Meirionydd Nant Conwy of 9 November 1987,Official Report, columns 36–7, 20 January 1988, Official Report, column 765, and 10 May 1989, Official Report, columns 474–5, on what assumed average number of movements per sortie the figures for low-flying sorties in the years 1985, 1986, 1987 and 1988, as recalculated by the pre-1985 method of estimating sorties from numbers of movements, were based; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Neubert
  Yes.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to the reply to the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy of 25 May,Official Report, column 732, what are the differences between the bases of recording low flying movements in the Borders tactical training area before and after July 1988.

  Mr. Neubert
  Depending on the route adopted, flights using the borders tactical training area after July 1988 may generate more than one movement in central records.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what advice is given to military aircrews on the use of the common North Atlantic Treaty Organisation radio frequency for low level flying when operating in the United Kingdom low flying system.

  Mr. Neubert
  There is no common North Atlantic Treaty Organisation radio frequency for low flying. However, a specially designated frequency is available for the transmission of flight safety information within the United Kingdom low flying system.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information on the location of planned entry into and exit from low flying areas is provided to RAF West Drayton by military aircrews planning low flying sorties.

  Mr. Neubert
  None.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the specific purpose of the Milford Haven low flying avoidance area; and if there are any plans to alter its extent and scope.

  Mr. Neubert
  It is not our practice to release specific details of the United Kingdom low flying system.
  317
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans exist to lower the minimum permitted altitude for terrain-following radar flying in the Highlands restricted area.

  Mr. Neubert
  Low flying military aircraft using the Highlands restricted area operate within the relevant height constraints of the United Kingdom low flying system and there are no plans to change this.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans exist to permit terrain-following radar flying in areas of the United Kingdom other than the Highlands restricted area.

  Mr. Neubert
  In appropriate meteorological conditions, terrain following radar may already be used to assist flying by suitably equipped aircraft anywhere in the United Kingdom low flying system.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has further to reduce the number and size of low flying avoidance areas covering special rules airspace around civil airports; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Neubert
  Special rules airspace and civil aerodrome traffic zones constitute in themselves avoidance areas for military aircraft, except where entry has been authorised by the controlling authority. There are no plans to change these arrangements.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what use is made of high frequency radio for air traffic control in the United Kingdom low flying system;

  (2) what use is made of satellite communications for air traffic control in the United Kingdom low flying system.

  Mr. Neubert
  None. The assistance of air traffic control is not required in the management of the airspace constituting the United Kingdom low flying system.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the percentage change in the number of low-level flights authorised at less than 250 ft between 1979 and 1988.

  Mr. Neubert
  This information is not available in the form requested. The information that is available has already been given in replies to the hon. Member by my predecessor on 2 November 1987,Official Report, column 487, and on 20 January 1988, Official Report, columns 764–65, and in the reply that I gave to the hon. Member on 25 May 1989, Official Report, columns 732–33.

  Chemical Weapons
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list all those North Atlantic Treaty Organisation countries which have chemical weapons stored or available for use on British soil.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  None.

  White Papers
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if, for each of the last three White Papers issued by his Department, for which legislation has been started, he will state the time elapsed between their publication and the First Readings of any Bills connected with them; and if he will do the same for the last three White Papers issued by his Department prior to May 1979.
  318
  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  My Department has not since 1979 issued White Papers which have formed the basis of subsequent legislation.

  It is not for me to answer for the record of the previous Government in this matter, but the information requested should be available in the Library of the House and the official record.

  Upper Heyford (Aircraft Noise)
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will provide a table giving the number of dwellings which the Ministry of Defence has(a) offered to purchase because they fall within the 83 LAeq, 12H noise contour and (b) offered to provide noise insulation because they fall within the 70 LAeq, 12H noise contour, for RAF Upper Heyford and for each of the military air bases in the United Kingdom at which the above schemes apply.

  Mr. Neubert
  The information requested is show in the table:

  Number of properties situated within

  Airfield

  83 dBLAeq 12H contour

  70 dBLAeq 12H contour

  RNAS Yeovilton

  11

  483

  RAF Alconbury

  —

  138

  RAF Kinloss

  —

  49

  RAF Lossiemouth

  —

  293

  RAF Leuchars

  —

  1,070

  RAF Cottesmore

  —

  1,506

  RAF Honington

  —

  260

  RAF Leeming

  19

  926

  RAF Marham

  1

  265

  RAF Stornoway

  12

  180

  RAF Coningsby

  —

  800

  RAF Wattisham

  —

  540

  RAF Lakenheath/Mildenhall

  2

  5,600

  RAF Upper Heyford

  60

  770

  RAF Chivenor

  —

  18

  F111 Aircraft
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many United States Air Force F 111 aircraft are currently based at RAF Lakenheath; and what changes have occurred in this number since 1979.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I understand that 72 F 111F aircraft are assigned to RAF Lakenheath.

  Chemical Agent Monitors
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence in which financial year the final batch of chemical agent monitors was ordered.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Financial year 1987–88.

  General Service Respirators
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence in which financial year the final batch of general service respirators, S10, was ordered.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The order for the final tranche of the main production of S10 respirator face pieces was made in financial year 1987–88 and that for the respirator canister was made in financial year 1988–89.

  Contracted-out Services
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information he has on the proportion of those Ministry of Defence civilian employees made redundant as a result of contracting-out and privatisation since 1979 who have been subsequently re-employed by contractors providing services to his Department.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  No such information is held. The Ministry of Defence requires contractors to consider employing civilian staff being made redundant as a result of contracting-out, but the decision is entirely for the contractor. In the case of privatisation of Royal Ordnance and transfer to commercial management of the royal dockyards, staff were not made redundant but were all transferred to the new companies under the Transfer of Undertaking (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981.

  Arms Control
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what measures are taken by his Department to ensure that the Government's arms control policies maintain or enhance Britain's military position.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Arms control is an integral part of the Government's security policy. Our arms control objectives are designed to enhance the security of this country and of our allies, and the Ministry of Defence is fully involved in the formulation and implementation of our arms control policies.

  Nuclear Submarines (Disposal)
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what studies he has commissioned into the disposal of nuclear-powered submarines once their operational lives have been completed.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I would refer the hon. Member to the House of Commons Defence Committee's report on the decommissioning of nuclear submarines (HC, 1988–89, No. 316).

  Pilotless Planes
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many incidents have taken place since 1987 when a plane flew over Britain without a pilot; and if he will make a statement outlining the precautions which were taken to avoid any repetition of the problem.

  Mr. Neubert
  Other than in brief instances when aircrew have had to eject, the only such occasion of which I am aware is the incident involving a Harrier GR5 aircraft on 22 October 1987 during a production test flight, when the pilot was killed after being ejected accidentally. The aircraft crashed into the sea some 500 miles west of the Republic of Ireland. A summary of the findings of the board of inquiry, including remedial actions taken, was placed in the Library in the usual way.

  Tropical Hardwood
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much tropical hardwood in cubic metres was used by the Ministry of Defence in 1988.
  320
  Mr. Sainsbury
  Purchases by the Ministry of Defence during 1988 amounted to around 600 cu m. Usage figures for tropical hardwood are not readily available.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what percentage of tropical hardwood used by the Ministry of Defence last year came from(a) Brazil, (b) the Ivory Coast, (c) Ghana, (d) India and (e) elsewhere; and in each case what steps were taken to ensure the wood used originated from plantations managed in a sustainable manner.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Of the tropical hardwood which was bought by the Ministry of Defence in 1988:

  16 per cent. came from Brazil.

  16 per cent. came from the Ivory Coast.

  27 per cent. came from Ghana.

  0 per cent. came from India.

  41 per cent. came from elsewhere.

  All tropical hardwood was procured competitively through importers and stockists in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps his Department has taken to eliminate the use of tropical hardwoods from non-sustainable sources.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  No specific measures have been taken, but the Ministry of Defence has, in recent years, adopted a general policy to minimise, wherever possible, the usage of all types of timber.

  Official Hospitality
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much was spent by his Department on official hospitality in the financial year 1988–89.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The amount spent on official hospitality by the Ministry of Defence in 1988–89 totalled some £3·520 million. This figure included expenditure incurred by the Ministry of Defence itself, by formations and establishments of the armed forces at home and abroad, and by individual officers occupying command and international appointments for which entertainment allowances are payable.

  Emergency Parking, London
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what has been the cost of troop involvement in emergency parking arrangements during the current industrial action on British Rail and London Regional Transport; and who is responsible for meeting the cost.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The costs of service assistance in providing emergency parking facilities will not be known until the facilities are no longer needed and have been withdrawn. The Department of Transport will meet the extra cost incurred by the Ministry of Defence.

  Prime Minister (Transport Costs)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what has been the cost to his Department of providing transport for the Prime Minister on overseas visits in each year since 1985–86.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Ministry of Defence charges the Office of the Minister for the Civil Service for
  321
  providing transport for the Prime Minister on official visits overseas at rates which are calculated in accordance with rules laid down by the Treasury. These rates are designed to ensure that no residual costs are carried on Defence Votes.

  Property Disposals
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the total value of property disposed of by his Department in the financial year 1988–89; and what is the current estimate of likely disposals in 1989–90.

  Mr. Neubert
  Receipts from property sold in 1988–89 were £150·6 million. At this early stage of the 1989–90 financial year, we anticipate receipts of around £130 million.

  HMS Fearless
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Rhondda of 17 July,Official Report, columns 24, how the schedule for the refit of HMS Fearless has been revised; and what additional expenditure will be involved.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The completion date of HMS Fearless has been revised from the end of 1989 to spring 1990. The additional expenditure is still subject to negotiation.

  Computer Scientists
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current requirement for specialist computer science staff in the procurement executive.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Computer scientists are in short supply nationally. There is currently a requirement for 272 such staff, mainly in the research establishments.

  Procurement Executive
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the total number of military staff employed in the procurement executive in 1980 and 1989.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  No central record of the number of service men employed in the procurement executive before 1 June 1981 exists; the number on that date was 1,655. It is too early in the year to give a definitive figure for 1989. However, it is expected to be around 1,200.

  Centre for Defence Studies
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his reply of 17 July,Official Report, column 254, whether he will state the planned location of the proposed centre for defence studies.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The intention is to establish the centre for defence studies at an existing university, polytechnic or institute. Its location will depend, therefore, on the outcome of the evaluation of proposals to which I referred in my reply of 17 July.

  Female Employment (RAF)
  Mr. Mans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he has plans to widen the opportunities for the employment of women in the Royal Air Force; and if he will make a statement.
  322
  Mr. Neubert
  We intend to widen the opportunities for women in the Royal Air Force by recruiting and training them as pilots and navigators for the following aircraft:

  Operational aircraft

  Training aircraft

  Tristar

  Chipmunk

  VC10/VC10K

  Bulldog

  Hercules

  Jet Provost

  Victor

  Tucano

  Sentry (AWACS)

  Hawk (AFT only)

  HS 125

  Dominie

  BAe 146

  Jetstream

  Andover

  Gazelle

  Canberra

  Wessex

  Sea King

  Wessex (SAR)

  It remains Government policy that women should not undertake direct combatant duties, and this has determined the aircraft in which women will act as aircrew.

  We intend to begin recruiting immediately, and in the first instance shall be looking for up to 10 per cent. women recruits, (25 pilots and 10 navigators) in the first year, but this will be kept under review.

  Single European Market
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information has been prepared by his Department for defence contractors on the implications of 1992 and the single European market.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 19 July 1989]: Although European Community competence in defence procurement is circumscribed by article 223 of the treaty of Rome, the completion of the single European market will have an important impact on our suppliers, most of which operate in both the civil and defence sectors of the economy. The Department has therefore taken a number of steps to ensure that defence contractors are informed of the implications of 1992 for defence procurement. In April 1989, the Department held a forum for industry on the future of defence procurement in Europe; Ministers and senior officials have addressed the implications of 1992 in speeches and articles; and there are working-level contacts between the defence contractors and Ministry officials concerned with the impact of the single European market.

  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many personnel from his Department are currently employed in giving advice on the implications of 1992 and the single European market.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 19 July 1989]: A number of officials in the Ministry of Defence, particularly those concerned with legal affairs and with procurement and contractual matters, give advice on the implications of 1992. However, there is no post in the Department wholly or mainly devoted to advising on EEC matters.

  Nuclear Submarines
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make it his policy to reply to the Seventh Report from the Select Committee on Defence, on decommissioning of nuclear submarines, (HC, 1988–89, No. 316), before the House rises for the summer recess; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 13 July 1989]: The Ministry of Defence is studying the Committee's report

  323
  published on 21 June and will provide a formal response in due course. It will not, however, be possible to reply before the House goes into recess.

EMPLOYMENT

  Construction Industry Training Board
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the future of the construction industry training board.

  Mr. Nicholls
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave on 14 February to my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham) at column 153. Consultations with the board and organisations representing employers are almost complete. I expect to be in a position to make a decision shortly.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish in the Official Report the number, and percentage of (i) men and (ii) women aged (a) 50 to 54, (b) 55 to 59 and (c) 60 to 64 for men only who are in (1) employment, (2) part-time employment and (3) full-time employment.

  Mr. Lee
  The information requested, based on preliminary results from the spring 1988 labour force survey, is given in the following table.

  Persons in employment by whether working full or part time by sex and selected age groups

  Spring 1988

  Great Britain, Thousands and per cent.

  Full or part lime status1

  Sex Age

  All in employment2

  Part time

  Full lime

  Men

  Numbers

  50 to 54

  1,220

  26

  1,194

  55 to 59

  1,033

  38

  994

  60 to 64

  671

  65

  605

  Percentages of all in age group

  50 to 54

  83·1

  1·8

  81·2

  55 to 59

  72·7

  2·7

  70·0

  60 to 64

  49·3

  4·8

  44·4

  Women

  Numbers

  50 to 54

  924

  482

  441

  55 to 59

  729

  370

  359

  Percentages of all in age group

  50 to 54

  62·4

  32·6

  29·8

  55 to 59

  49·5

  25·1

  24·3

  Great Britain

  Numbers1

  Numbers2

  Numbers3

  Gross Average3

  Numbers3

  Gross Average3

  employed

  in temporary employment

  on adult rates

  earnings of those on adult rates

  not on adult rates

  earnings of those not on adult rates

  millions

  millions

  millions

  £ per week

  millions

  £ per week

  1988

  Males

  Full-time employees

  11·0

  0·3

  10·7

  245·8

  0·3

  98·2

  Part-time employees

  0·9

  0·2

  0·9

  69·8

  ..

  —

  324
  Source: 1988 Labour Force Survey Preliminary results.

  1 Full or part time employment is based on self-assessment by the respondent.

  2 Includes those who did not state whether they worked full or part time.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) what are the latest figures for the unemployment rate for each of the social classes I to V; and what the corresponding rates were in 1979;

  (2) what is the percentage of each social class I to V who are unemployed; and by how much each of these percentages has changed since 1979.

  Mr. Lee
  Preliminary estimates from the 1988 labour force survey (LFS), as requested, are shown in the following table:

  Unemployment by social class—Great Britain Spring 1988, per cent.

  Social class1

  Unemployment rate2

  Percentage of each social class unemployed3

  per cent.

  per cent.

  I

  1·7

  1·6

  II

  2·7

  2·5

  III

  5·3

  4·8

  IV

  7·9

  7·0

  V

  10·5

  9·1

  1 Based on previous occupation of those unemployed or inactive and current occupation of those in employment.

  2 Unemployed (ILO/OECD definition) as a percentage of economically active (i.e. unemployed plus employed).

  3 Unemployed (ILO/OECD definition) as a percentage of all persons 16 or over.

  Note: Persons not in employment were not asked about their previous occupation if they left their last job three or more years prior to interview. These persons plus those who have never had a job are excluded from the above table.

  Data on unemployment by social class was not collected in the 1979 LFS on a basis comparable with the given estimates.

  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will update tables published in the Official Report on 25 March 1987, columns 171–72, showing for June 1979 and the latest available date, the number of male and female full-time and part-time workers on adult rates and the estimated average earnings in each case, and the number of full-time and part-time workers who were temporarily employed in each case; and if he will provide what estimate he is able to make of similar data for the self-employed and for workers on non-adult rates.

  Mr. Lee
  Such estimates as are possible for 1988, the latest available date, are provided in the table.
  325

  Numbers1

  Numbers2

  Numbers3

  Gross Average3

  Numbers3

  Gross Average3

  employed

  in temporary employment

  on adult rates

  earnings of those on adult rates

  not on adult rates

  earnings of those not on adult rates

  millions

  millions

  millions

  £ per week

  millions

  £ per week

  Self-employed

  2·2

  0·2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Full-time

  2·0

  0·1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Part-time

  0·2

  ..

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Females

  Full-time employees

  5·8

  0·2

  5·5

  164·2

  0·2

  86·7

  Part-time employees

  4·3

  0·5

  4·2

  62·0

  0·1

  26·4

  Self-employed

  0·7

  0·1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Full-time

  0·4

  ..

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Part-time

  0·4

  0·1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1 Relates to June 1988.

  2 Preliminary 1988 estimates.

  3 Relates to April 1988.

  —Data either not available or no reliable estimate possible.

  .. Figures not significant at the level indicated.

  Disabled People
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many(a) registered disabled persons and (b) disabled persons were seeking employment at jobcentres for each of the standard regions, Scotland and Wales in 1985 to 1987, inclusive.

  Region

  8 March 1985

  4 April 1986

  3 April 1987

  (a)

  (b)

  (a)

  (b)

  (a)

  (b)

  Northern

  1—

  1—

  2,643

  6,804

  2,806

  7,184

  North East

  2,492

  6,411

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  2,591

  6,543

  1,975

  4,954

  2,123

  5,126

  East Midlands

  1,639

  3,631

  2,650

  5,587

  2,570

  5,578

  South East

  1—

  1—

  4,397

  9,454

  3,650

  8,293

  Southern

  3,677

  7,725

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Eastern

  3,269

  6,763

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  London

  1—

  1—

  1,711

  3,842

  1,533

  3,381

  London North

  1,399

  3,340

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  London South and West

  924

  2,412

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  South West

  2,116

  4,908

  1,806

  4,338

  1,652

  4,391

  Wales

  2,864

  7,284

  2,371

  6,192

  2,431

  6,830

  West Midlands

  2,646

  5,991

  2,220

  5,086

  2,112

  4,703

  North West

  8,228

  15,973

  6,647

  13,066

  5,697

  11,349

  Scotland

  3,705

  9,640

  3,177

  8,360

  3,029

  8,537

  1 Regional boundary changes.

  (a) People with disabilities who were registered at jobcentres as seeking work and who were registered as disabled under the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944.

  (b) People with disabilities who were registered at jobcentres as seeking work (including those in column (a)).

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will estimate the number of companies in England, Scotland and Wales covered by the 3 per cent. quota scheme and the percentage of those companies that satisfy the standard.

  Mr. Lee
  On 1 June 1988, 32,441 employers were subject to the quota scheme. Of these, 23·8 per cent. were employing their full quota of registered disabled people.

  Remploy
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many disabled people are known to be seeking work with Remploy but are unable to get jobs.

  Mr. Lee
  Information about the number of severely disabled people seeking work with Remploy is not held. The company has been recruiting and training between 1,000 and 1,200 disabled people a year.
  326
  Mr. Lee
  I regret that this information is not available in the form requested but the numbers of people with disabilities registered for work at jobcentres on 8 March 1985, 4 April 1986 and 3 April 1987 were as follows:

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many disabled workers are employed by Remploy; in which areas they are located; and what is their average weekly wage.

  Mr. Lee
  On 31 May 1989 Remploy employed 8,706 severely disabled workers. The following table gives a breakdown into employment service regions:

  Region

  Number of severely disabled workers at 31 May 1989

  London and South East

  945

  South West

  523

  West Midlands

  624

  East Midlands and Eastern

  642

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  1,012

  North West

  1,610

  Northern

  885

  Wales

  1,442

  Scotland

  1,023

  327

  Region

  Number of severely disabled workers at 31 May 1989

  Total

  8,706

  The basic weekly wage is £109·72 for disabled manual workers in London and £96·54 elsewhere. With skill and productivity payments, average weekly earnings are £129·15 in London and £115·97 elsewhere.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people are in management jobs in Remploy; and how many of those are disabled.

  Mr. Lee
  Comprehensive information is not available, but four of Remploy's factory managers are disabled. It is the company's policy to provide opportunities for people with disabilities to fill jobs at all levels, and, through its development training programme for shop floor workers, to equip more disabled people for opportunities for promotion.

  Financial year 1985–86

  Financial year 1986–87

  Financial year 1987–88

  Financial year 1988–89

  Places occupied at 31 March 1986

  Approved ceiling at 31 March 1987

  Places occupied at 31 March 1987

  Approved ceiling at 31 March 1988

  Places occupied at 31 March 1988

  Approved ceiling at 31 March 1989

  Places occupied at 31 March 1989

  South East

  448

  491

  476

  669

  650

  21,529

  21,263

  London

  124

  226

  168

  319

  259

  South West

  311

  422

  376

  490

  472

  646

  616

  West Midlands

  1306

  338

  328

  491

  450

  650

  586

  East Midlands and Eastern

  363

  359

  522

  479

  621

  590

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  134

  227

  209

  322

  306

  465

  408

  North West

  219

  344

  300

  423

  376

  540

  482

  Northern

  58

  93

  72

  120

  99

  226

  183

  Wales

  88

  178

  149

  239

  240

  327

  312

  Scotland

  146

  281

  247

  379

  389

  570

  516

  1 The figure of 306 occupied places relates to the whole of the former Midlands region.

  2 The figures of 1,529 and 1,263 relate to the now combined London and South East region.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the expenditure on the sheltered placement scheme in each of the years 1985–86 to 1988–89 inclusive; and what is the estimated expenditure in each of the years 1989–90, 1990–91 and 1991–92 for each of the standard regions, Scotland and Wales.

  Mr. Lee
  The information is not available in the form requested. The following table gives details of the

  £000

  Region

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89 Forecast

  South East

  222

  497

  1,400

  2,698

  London

  284

  409

  558

  South West

  1,457

  2,545

  1,017

  1,316

  West Midlands

  123

  264

  969

  1,251

  East Midlands and Eastern

  382

  510

  1,031

  1,260

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  249

  473

  659

  871

  North West

  368

  504

  810

  1,029

  Northern

  79

  99

  213

  390

  Wales

  18

  58

  517

  667

  Scotland

  401

  705

  838

  1,102

  Great Britain

  3,583

  6,064

  8,012

  10,584

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the number of places on the
  328
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people are in supervisory jobs in Remploy; and how many of them are disabled.

  Mr. Lee
  Comprehensive information is not available, but 306 (46 per cent.) of the 659 supervisory staff in Remploy factories are severely disabled.

  Sheltered Placement Scheme
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will provide figures for 1985 to 1989 inclusive for each standard region and for Scotland and Wales of the number of sheltered placement scheme places(a) approved and (b) occupied.

  Mr. Lee
  The information is not available in the form requested. The following table provides information on numbers of places occupied in each employment service region against the number each region had authority to fill in 1986–87, 1987–88 and 1988–89 financial years. Occupancy figures as at the end of financial year 1985–86 are also given. Regions were not given a specified number of places to fill until 1986–87.

  estimated expenditure nationally and by employment service regions. Boundary changes arising from the establishment of the employment service in October 1987 means that direct comparison at the regional level should be avoided between the years 1985–87 and 1987–89. Information on expenditure for 1989–90 and beyond is not available.

  sheltered placement scheme in each of the years 1985–86 to

  329
  1988–89 inclusive; and what is the estimated number of places in each or the years 1989–90, 1990–91 and 1991–92 for each of the standard regions, Scotland and Wales.

  Mr. Lee
  The information is not available in the form requested. The following table sets out the number of

  Employment Service region

  Places occupied at 31 March 1986

  Places occupied at 31 March 1987

  Places occupied at 31 March 1988

  Places occupied at 31 March 1989

  Estimated places occupied at 31 March 1990

  South East

  448

  476

  650

  21,263

  21885

  London

  124

  168

  259

  South West

  311

  376

  472

  616

  826

  West Midlands

  >1306

  328

  450

  586

  739

  East Midlands and Eastern

  359

  479

  590

  785

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  134

  209

  306

  408

  586

  North West

  219

  300

  376

  482

  676

  Northern

  58

  72

  99

  183

  297

  Wales

  88

  149

  240

  312

  428

  Scotland

  146

  247

  389

  516

  643

  Total

  1834

  2,684

  3,720

  4,956

  36,865

  1 The figure of 306 occupied places relates to the whole of the former Midlands Region

  2 The figures of 1,529 and 1,263 relate to the now combined London and South East Region

  3 A further 35 places have still to be allocated.

  Enterprise Allowance
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people have been granted an enterprise allowance in each year since the enterprise allowance scheme was introduced; what information he has about(a) the proportion of people who have become self-employed and (b) signed as being available for work at the expiry of the enterprise allowance; what proposals he has for the future of the enterprise allowance scheme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Cope
  The numbers of people granted an enterprise allowance are as follows:

  Total number joined in that period

  Financial year

  Number

  April 1989 to June 1989

  22,511

  1988–89

  98,522

  1987–88

  106,305

  1986–87

  86,751

  1985–86

  60,037

  1984–85

  46,037

  August 1983 to March 19841

  27,629

  February 1982 to July 19832

  3,331

  1 National implementation.

  2 Pilot in five parts of the country.

  Information on the proportion of people who signed as being available for work at the expiry of the enterprise allowance is not collected on a regular basis. However, latest survey evidence shows that of businesses completing a full year on the scheme, six months later 74 per cent. were still trading, 9 per cent. were in paid employment or other self-employment, and 15 per cent. were unemployed (the remaining 2 per cent. were sick, retired, or provided no answer).

  In the future, responsibility for running the enterprise allowance scheme, along with training and other enterprise measures, will be passed to the training and enterprise councils (TECs).
  330
  places under the sheltered placement scheme in each of the years 1985–86 to 1988–89 inclusive, and estimated figures for the year 1989–90 for each employment service region. Firm estimates for the years 1990–91 and 1991–92 have not yet been made.

  Unemployment Benefit
  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many claimants in the west midlands region were suspended from receipt of unemployment benefit during the period from 11 April 1988 to 10 April 1989 for failure to show good cause for the termination of their last employment.

  Mr. Lee
  Information is not available in the precise form requested.

  However, for the period 1 January to 31 March 1989, the number of persons, in the west midlands region, who were disqualified from receiving unemployment benefit because they were considered to have left their employment voluntarily without just cause was 24,302.

  Retail Prices
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the change in retail prices over the period 1979–1988, measured against the retail price index, of(a) gas, (b) electricity, (c) bread, (d) beer, and (e) four star/premium petrol (i) net of duty and taxes and (ii) including duty and taxes.

  Mr. Lee
  The information requested is shown in the table:

  Percentage changes in retail prices June 1979 to June 1988

  Including tax and duty

  Excluding tax and duty

  Per cent.

  Per cent.

  All items

  + 92

  —

  Bread

  + 79

  —

  Gas

  + 134

  —

  Electricity

  + 106

  —

  Beer

  + 164

  + 147

  4/star petrol

  + 75

  -1

  Training Boards
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment which of the seven statutory training boards has made proposals to him on the establishment of the
  331
  industry level training organisation proposed in the White Paper "Employment for the 1990s"; and when he expects to be in a position to respond to each of the boards.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The chairman of each industrial training board has been asked to submit proposals by the end of this month. To date proposals have been received from the clothing and allied products, engineering, offshore petroleum and road transport industry training boards. I intend to respond to each board's proposals shortly.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. Patnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what steps his Department is taking to ensure that small firms are well placed to compete for Government contracts.

  Mr. Cope
  [holding answer 19 July 1989]: I launched a new booklet in June called "Think Big Buy Small", produced by our Department in collaboration with the central unit on purchasing (CUP). It is addressed directly to Government Departments, and advises them on improving the effectiveness and transparency of their purchasing and supply activities. It shows that purchasing officials can help small firms and get the best out of them by simply following good procurement practices. We thought it right to publish the booklet so that small firms themselves could see the advice given to Departments and I am pleased to say that it has been well received.

  In addition the small firms service has recently revised and expanded its booklet "Tendering for Government Contracts" which outlines the main purchasing requirements, contract procedures, and special opportunities or simplified procedures for small firms, for all major Departments.

  The Government's own purchasing procedures have been simplified so that firms are now usually exempt from normal approval procedures for contracts under £10,000; firms not on Departments' approved lists can bid for non-urgent contracts. The general information that firms have to provide for approval has been standardised between Departments which now review their approved lists regularly to encourage new suppliers and rotate invitations to tender. I am satisfied that the effect of these initiatives is to improve the value for money of Government purchasing.

  Employment and Training Schemes
  Mr. Lester
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish a table setting out for each of the different employment and training schemes for which he is responsible(a) the administrative costs, (b) the amounts spent on grants/allowances for participants, (c) the total costs and (d) the numbers of participants.

  Mr. Cope
  [holding answer 19 July 1989]: The information requested is mostly in the Department of Employment chapter of the public expenditure White Paper, Cm. 607, published in January 1989, a copy of which is in the Library.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the nuclear non-proliferation treaty was raised during the recent visit of a ministerial delegation from Uganda to the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  No.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what dates and what locations have been arranged for the second and third preparatory conferences for the fourth review conference of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The second preparatory committee will take place in Geneva from 11–18 September. The third preparatory committee will be held from 23 April—4 May 1990, also in Geneva.

  President Menem
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has any plans to meet the new Argentine President, Senor Carlos Menem.

  Mr. Eggar
  No.

  Mrs. Khalil
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he intends to send an independent observer to the trial of Mrs. Khalil, the president of In'ash El-Usra, to be held on 20 July.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  No.

  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations his Department has made on behalf of Mrs. Khalil, the president of In'ash El-Usra.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We raised the case of In'ash EI-Usra with the Israeli authorities at the time of its closure last summer. We have not raised the specific charges brought subsequently against Mrs. Khalil.

  Nicaragua
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many visits have been made to Nicaragua by Her Majesty's ambassador accredited to that country since July 1988.

  Mr. Eggar
  Her Majesty's ambassador to Nicaragua, who is resident in San José, has made 10 visits to Nicaragua since July 1988.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if any assistance has been offered to the Nicaraguan Government in connection with the run-up to the elections in February 1990; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  The Nicaraguan Government have not asked us for any assistance in the preparation or conduct of the election due in February 1990.
  333
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if any resources have been made available by Her Majesty's Government to opposition parties in Nicaragua during the past five years.

  Mr. Eggar
  No.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if Her Majesty's Government have requested the new Administration in Washington to cease their economic sanctions against Nicaragua; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  United States bilateral relations with Nicaragua are a matter for the two Governments concerned. We have normal economic relations with Nicaragua.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has any plans to visit Nicaragua during 1989; and if he will make a statement.

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

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what contacts have taken place between Her Majesty's representatives in Nicaragua and representatives of Nicaraguan opposition parties in the past 12 months.

  Mr. Eggar
  In the course of their normal duties, Her Majesty's representatives in Managua maintain contact with individuals representing a wide spread of opinion, including the Opposition.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what response has been formulated by Her Majesty's Government to the request from President Ortega for an all-party group to visit Nicaragua in the run-up to the 1990 elections in that country.

  Mr. Eggar
  The question of sending an all-party group of hon. Members is for Parliament rather than the Government to consider. For our part, we indicated on 30 June our willingness to send an official observer. We have just received an invitation and shall accept it.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the last visit was made by a Minister of Her Majesty's Government to Nicaragua.

  Mr. Eggar
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, then Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, visited Nicaragua in May 1980.

  Eastern Europe
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if assistance has been offered by Her Majesty's Government to political parties in(a) Poland, (b) Hungary, (c) Yugoslavia and (d) the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in the past two years.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We have not offered assistance to political parties in any of these countries.

  Ivory
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will give details of the staffing and budget of the special task force set up in Hong Kong to investigate and suppress illegal imports and exports of ivory; and how many cases have been investigated and seizures made to date.

  Mr. Eggar
  The special task force set up by the Customs and Excise Department in Hong Kong consists of one senior superintendent, one assistant superintendent, four senior inspectors and four inspectors. The task force does not have a separate budget but shares the resources of the Customs and Excise Department as is necessary for its duties. Since the task force was established on 1 June 1989, a total of 35 cases have been investigated. Seizures were made in two cases. Two cases are pending.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the current estimated stock of elephant ivory in Hong Kong.

  Mr. Eggar
  The current estimated stock of ivory imported into and held in Hong Kong under CITES regulations is approximately 500 tonnes of raw ivory and 170 tonnes of worked ivory.

  Central America
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made to the Costa Rican Government concerning ratification of the treaty establishing the Central American Parliament.

  Mr. Eggar
  We and our EC partners have, on a number of occasions, called on the signatories of the Esquipulas II peace agreement to fulfil their outstanding obligations under the agreement without delay. Ratification of the Central American Parliament treaty is, of course, a matter for national Parliaments rather than Governments.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when representatives of Her Majesty's Government last made representations to the Governments of Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador regarding the failure of those countries to abide by the terms of the Esquipulas agreements.

  Mr. Eggar
  We and our European partners have, on a number of occasions, called on all the signatories of the Esquipulas II peace agreement to fulfil their outstanding obligations under the agreement without delay.

  Panama
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement regarding Her Majesty's Government's relations with Panama.

  Mr. Eggar
  Relations would be improved if General Noriega were to stand down and open the way to democratic government.

  Political Parties (Aid)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which opposition parties in which countries have received offers of assistance from Her Majesty's Government in each of the past five years.

  Mr. Eggar
  The information requested is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Peru
  Sir Trevor Skeet
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) since prisoners in Peruvian gaols have to provide for their own upkeep, what steps are being taken by Her Majesty's Government to ensure British nationals detained in Lurigancho prison have sufficient funds to obtain sustenance;

  (2) under what circumstances John Boxhall and Brian Tristram could be extradited from Peru and charged with offences in the United Kingdom;

  (3) what information he has about the detention of John Boxhall and Brian Tristram in a Peruvian gaol since 6 December 1988 and the reasons they have been detained without trial;

  (4) what steps are being taken to ensure that John Boxhall and Brian Tristram both of the county of Bedfordshire will be speedily brought to trial in Peru.

  Mr. Eggar
  The information required is not readily available. A further reply will be sent to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

  Mr. Derrick Gregory
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will have urgent and immediate discussions with the Malaysian Government to save the life of Mr. Derrick Gregory, a British subject.

  Mr. Eggar
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has appealed for clemency at the highest levels in Malaysia. We have exhausted all avenues of appeal for the sentence of death to be commuted to one of life imprisonment. We do not believe that further representations to the Malaysian Government would be productive.

  College of Europe
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the purpose and role of the College of Europe.

  Mr. Eggar
  The College of Europe at Bruges is a good and effective institution for spreading understanding of the Community and promoting study of it. It provides post-graduate training for European, including British, students to equip them for entry into the European Commission.

  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what has been the cost of the College of Europe to United Kingdom public funds in each year since 1970 in 1989 money.

  Mr. Eggar
  We have made an annual grant of £2,500 to the college since 1963.
  336
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what has been the total cost of the College of Europe to European public funds in each year since 1970 in 1989 money.

  Mr. Eggar
  In 1987, the latest year for which such figures are available, the total cost of the College of Europe to European public funds was 79 million Belgian francs. The Belgian authorities contributed 67 million Belgian francs of this figure.

  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what measures he intends to take to ensure that the College of Europe is an effective forum for the exchange of ideas about the possible future development of the European Community.

  Mr. Eggar
  No further measures are necessary. The representative of the British Council in Belgium sits on the college's administrative council and is actively involved in all aspects of the college, including its curriculum.

  Hong Kong
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will place in the Library a summary of the discussions he has had with European Ministers, and in particular his Portuguese counterpart, about the future of Macao; and whether he now intends to give similar European citizenship rights to Hong Kong people.

  Mr. Eggar
  We are in touch from time to time with the Portuguese Government on matters relating to Hong Kong and Macao. Such discussions are confidential and we are not at liberty to publish details. We have had no substantive discussions with other European Governments about the future of Macao.

  In order to enjoy the right of free movement and settlement within the EC, Hong Kong people would require full British citizenship. The Government have no plans to grant this to all Hong Kong people.

  USSR Compensation Order
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress is being made in implementing the Foreign Compensation (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (Distribution) Order 1987.

  Mr. Eggar
  Good progress continues to be made. The Foreign Compensation Commission made an interim payment of 10 per cent. of the value assigned to a bond to successful bond claimants in November 1987. Of 2,596 property claims submitted, 529 have been established by the Commission, 1,120 have been dismissed and 72 have been withdrawn. There remain 875 property claims still to be determined by the Commission. Many of these are held up because information is awaited from claimants. Claimants should note that failure to supply essential information without delay may result in dismissal of their claims.

  It is now expected that the final payout to claimants is likely to be in excess of 40 per cent. of the value the Commission assigns to a claim rather than approximately 20 per cent. which was the best estimate at the time of the interim distribution to bond claimants in November 1987.

  The target date for announcing the final distribution to claimants remains the end of 1989.

  Turkey
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has on whether certain British nationals will shortly require visas to visit Turkey.

  Mr. Eggar
  Following the imposition of our visa regime on 23 June, the Turkish Government have decided that all British citizens who, were they Turks, would hold diplomatic, service and special passports, will from 1 August require visas for Turkey, for all visits, including those for the purpose of tourism.

  Discussions about the precise extent of the visa regime are continuing but it is likely to cover Members of both Houses of Parliament, judges, civil servants of assistant secretary grade and above, local government employees of equivalent grade, and officers in Her Majesty's forces of the equivalent Army rank of captain and above. Spouses and dependent children will not require visas.

ENVIRONMENT

  Area Mobility Scheme
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether it is his intention to continue the current quota of nominations for housing for hostel projects in London provided under statutory authority through the London area mobility scheme at the same level of provision after March 1990, when the current scheme ends.

  Mr. Trippier
  These matters are currently under consideration in a working party, comprising representatives of the London area mobility scheme and other interested bodies. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will make a statement when their report is ready, and he has considered it.

  Housing Action Trust, Southwark
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) following the completion of the register of those tenants entitled to vote in any ballot on the proposed creation of a housing action trust in Southwark, what arrangements will be made to allow new tenants moving on to either the North Peckham or Gloucester Grove estates to be accorded voting rights;

  (2) how long, before any ballot on the proposed creation of a housing action trust in Southwark, the register of those eligible to vote will have to be completed.

  Mr. Trippier
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave her on 18 July.

  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) in which languages other than English any ballot form concerning the proposed creation of a housing action trust in Southwark will be made available;

  (2) what length of notice will be given by a ballot on the proposed creation of a housing action trust in Southwark; and in what form it will be given;

  (3) what will be the wording used on the ballot form concerning the creation of a housing action trust in Southwark;
  338
  (4) whether interpreters for non-English speaking tenants will be made available in the period immediately before any ballot on the proposed creation of a housing action trust in Southwark;

  (5) whether voters in any ballot on the proposed creation of a housing action trust in Southwark will be required to vote in the form of a straight yes or no.

  Mr. Trippier
  I refer the hon. Member to the answers that I gave her on 18 and 19 July.

  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what forum there will be for those not entitled to vote in any ballot on the creation of a housing action trust in Southwark, to put forward their views during the consultation process.

  Mr. Trippier
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave on 24 May 1988 to the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) at column 599–600. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will take into account the views of all residents in any proposed housing action trust area before deciding whether to make a designation order.

  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether there will be separate ballots taken on the creation of a housing action trust in the Gloucester Grove and North Peckham estates in Southwark.

  Mr. Trippier
  Any housing action trust ballot will be in respect of the area proposed by the Secretary of State for a designation order under section 60 of the Housing Act 1988.

  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment who will be entitled to vote in any ballot on the creation of a housing action trust in Southwark.

  Mr. Trippier
  Each secure tenant, including each joint tenant, and any other categories of tenants prescribed by regulations, living within the area proposed for designation will have a vote.

  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment for what period members of the proposed housing action trust board in Southwark would be elected or nominated.

  Mr. Trippier
  We shall decide the period of trust appointments in due course.

  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how abstentions would be recorded in any ballot on the proposed creation of a housing action trust in Southwark.

  Mr. Trippier
  I refer the hon. Member to the answers that I gave her on 18 and 19 July.

  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how rents would be paid by tenants to the proposed housing action trust in Southwark.

  Mr. Trippier
  It would be for a housing action trust to decide how to collect rents.

  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how the proposed housing action trust in Southwark would deal with racial harassment.
  339
  Mr. Trippier
  A trust would have a duty under section 71 of the Race Relations Act 1976 to carry out its various functions with regard to the need to eliminate racial discrimination and to promote equality of opportunity. It would need to decide on policies to fulfil this duty, including how to deal with racial harassment. We would recommend to any trust two recent reports which my Department has drawn to the attention of local authorities: "The Response to Racial Attacks and Harassment: Report of the Interdepartmental Racial Attacks Group" and "Brunel Guide to Good Practice in Tackling Racial Violence and Harassment on Local Authority Housing Estates".

  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how the service provided by the proposed housing action trust in Southwark to different ethnic groups would be monitored.

  Mr. Trippier
  We shall encourage trusts to seek advice from the Commission for Racial Equality on the use of ethnic monitoring.

  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy that all the occupants of demolished properties will be rehoused on the estate, in the event of the establishment of the proposed housing action trust in Southwark.

  Mr. Trippier
  A trust would have to find alternative accommodation for any tenant whose home had to be demolished as part of a programme of improvements decided on after consultation with local people. A trust, like a local authority, could not require a tenant to move out of his home if it needed to be demolished unless it secured suitable alternative accommodation for him. Such accommodation could be either on the estates or nearby.

  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what would be the procedure for electing resident members of the proposed housing action trust board in Southwark.

  Mr. Trippier
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave her yesterday.

  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) whether he will publish a statement as to the allocation policies of the proposed housing action trust in Southwark(a) before any ballot and (b) after the housing action trust has been formed;

  (2) whether the proposed housing action trust in Southwark would maintain its own waiting list with its own prioritising policy.

  Mr. Trippier
  One of the primary objects of a housing action trust under section 63 of the Housing Act 1988 is to secure the proper and effective management and use of the housing for which it is responsible. It would be for a trust to decide on its allocation policy once it had been set up. It would be required, like Southwark council, to publish its allocation policy under section 106 of the Housing Act 1985. It would also have to consider how to make best use of any properties which become available for occupation.

  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether the proposed housing action trust in Southwark would be given the responsibility of assisting residents in obtaining their correct benefit entitlements.
  340
  Mr. Trippier
  Where housing action trusts are set up, local authorities will retain responsibility for the administration of housing benefit.

  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether the proposed housing action trust in Southwark would be able to receive housing benefit payments for tenants directly from the council in a similar way to housing associations.

  Mr. Trippier
  Housing benefit rent allowance payments to trust tenants would be governed by the same rules as apply to all rent allowance payments. Consequently, just as in certain circumstances a housing association can receive benefit payments direct from the local authority administering the benefit, so a trust could receive benefit payments direct.

  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether the proposed housing action trust in Southwark would have an equal opportunities policy.

  Mr. Trippier
  Yes.

  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether the proposed housing action trust in Southwark would support the activities of existing community groups.

  Mr. Trippier
  Section 63 of the Housing Act 1988 sets out the primary objects of a housing action trust which include the improvement of living and social conditions in its area. We expect that a trust would want to use its powers under section 63(2)(b) to work for the benefit of the community.

  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether the proposed housing action trust on the North Peckham and Gloucester Grove estates in Southwark would employ multilingual workers.

  Mr. Trippier
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave her earlier today. It would be for a trust to decide whether it needed to employ multilingual workers.

  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if at the end of the operating period for a housing action trust created in Southwark, the option of returning to council management would be made available.

  Mr. Trippier
  Once improvements had been carried out, a trust would consult secure tenants about whether they wanted to transfer to a landlord approved by the Housing Corporation, such as a housing association or co-operative, or go back to the council. We would give local authorities the necessary supplementary credit approvals to enable them to buy back properties where tenants opted to return to them.

  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what training would be provided to enable residents to run a management co-operative at the end of the operating period for a housing action trust in Southwark;

  (2) what training would be provided to instruct residents on how to conduct their functions on the estate management boards, during and after the formation of the proposed housing action trust in Southwark;
  341
  (3) what would be the role of the proposed housing action trust in Southwark in the training or assisting of residents to take advantage of existing training facilities outside the housing action trust;

  (4) what would be the role of the proposed housing action trust in Southwark in the training or assisting of residents to carry out senior management roles, such as membership of the housing action trust board.

  Mr. Trippier
  I have already asked tenants' representatives from the North Peckham and Gloucester Grove estates to discuss training with my officials. Both before and after a trust is set up, we shall ensure that tenants who want to become involved in managing their own housing have access to the training that they need. Trusts may also have a wider role in helping residents to take advantage of other training and employment opportunities which may be available locally. We shall want trusts to discuss with all interested bodies and agencies how best to achieve this.

  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether, in the event of the establishment of the proposed housing action trust in Southwark, any provision will be made for individual blocks in the North Peckham and Gloucester Grove estates, to be able to withdraw their membership at any time.
  342
  Mr. Trippier
  As a trust completed improvements to parts of the estates, tenants in an improved block could opt to transfer to an approved landlord offered to them by the trust, or return to the council. They would also be able to exercise tenants' choice at any time during the life of the trust.

  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) under what circumstances he would have the power to impose a budget on the proposed housing action trust in Southwark;

  (2) what powers he would have to approve or disapprove the annual budget of the proposed housing action trust in Southwark.

  Mr. Trippier
  A trust's programme of work will be decided after consultation with residents and the local housing authority. This will form the basis of a plan, including a budget, which the Secretary of State will approve annually. Trusts will be funded through grant-in-aid, which Parliament will be invited to vote each year under normal procedures, and by borrowing up to an agreed limit.
  343
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will identify prior to any ballot on the creation of the proposed housing action trust in Southwark which blocks in the Gloucester Grove and North Peckham estates would be demolished.

  Mr. Trippier
  Under section 64 of the Housing Act 1988 a trust board, which would include tenant and council representatives, would be required to draw up a statement of proposals for its area in consultation with the residents and the local authority. The statement would include proposals for physical alterations to the estates. We would expect the trust to take account of the views expressed in the current consultation exercise in drawing up its proposals.

  Disabled Persons Rate Relief
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will make a statement on the future of disabled persons rate relief;

  (2) what consideration he has given to the payment of compensation to those disabled people who will no longer receive rate relief with the introduction of the community charge in April 1990.

  Mr. Gummer
  The present relief reduces the rateable value of a house to what it would have been if no adaptations or improvements were carried out by a disabled householder to accommodate their disability. Without this adjustment some disabled persons would have been required to pay more in rates because of their disability. No such adjustment is needed under the community charge arrangements because the charge is no longer related to the nature of the property. However, we have structured the community charge rebate system to target help to those who need it and this ensures that disabled people with limited means receive help towards paying their community charge.

  Lancashire Replacement Structure Plan
  Mr. Dover
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many representations have been received to date concerning modifications 13, 58 and 59 to the Lancashire replacement structure plan(a) by his office in Manchester, and (b) by his Department in London; and how many of these supported these modifications.

  Mr. Chope
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State received at 14 July a total of 780 representations concerning modifications 58 and 59, and somewhat more for modification 13, to the Lancashire replacement structure plan. Few of the representations received support modification 58 and 59, but elsewhere green belt proposals are for the most part supported.

  Multiple Deprivation
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what are the criteria for achieving relativities within ranking according to the score system on the accepted United Kingdom index of multiple deprivation; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what is the ranking according to the score system on the accepted United Kingdom index of multiple deprivation for (a) Bradford, (b) Birmingham, (c) Merseyside, (d) Manchester/Salford/Trafford and (e) Strathclyde; and if he will make a statement.
  344
  Mr. Trippier
  The information is not available in the form requested. An index was included in an analysis of urban deprivation in all English authorities, based on the 1981 census, which was published as "Census Information Note No. 2: Urban Deprivation" in February 1983. It is available in the Library.

  On the basis of that index which is available at district level, the rankings (out of 366 English local authorities) for the districts requested were:

  Rankings

  (a) Bradford

  32

  (b) Birmingham

  15

  (c) Merseyside:

  Knowsley

  26

  Liverpool

  15

  St. Helens

  86

  Sefton

  97

  Wirral

  94

  (d) Manchester

  11

  Salford

  38

  Traflbrd

  115

  No comparable analysis is available for Strathclyde.

  Land Sales
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many directives to sell land registered on the public land register have been issued each year since its inception by the following categories(a) land owned by Labour-controlled local authorities, (b) land owned by other local authorities and (c) other owners.

  Mr. Trippier
  The table shows the number of original directions issued to local authorities each year. A breakdown of these by controlling political party is not readily available. No directions have been issued to other owners.

  Directions issued to local authorities under Section 98 of the Local Government Planning and Land Act 1980

  Number

  1984

  4

  1985

  21

  1986

  14

  1987

  25

  1988

  13

  1989

  2

  Allotments
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what Her Majesty's Government have done since 1979 to improve the use of allotments.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Allotment provision and administration is a local government matter as provided for in the Allotment Acts 1908–1950.

  Canterbury Cross School, Handsworth
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement outlining reasons for delay in releasing promised inner-city partnership moneys in respect of Canterbury Cross junior and infant school, Handsworth, Birmingham.

  Mr. Trippier
  The project was submitted for DOE approval on 2 November 1988. Approval (ie authority to spend) was granted on 2 December 1988. Actual disbursement is a matter for Birmingham city council.

  Nature Conservancy
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart) of 11 July,Official Report, columns 482–83, what measures will be taken to ensure a unified scientific approach to the United Kingdom's responsibilities under (a) the Ramsar convention on wetlands of international importance, (b) the European community directive on the conservation of wild birds, and (c) the Berne convention; and if the scientific criteria for selecting sites of special scientific interest on a United Kingdom basis will remain in place.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Government will ensure that the successor bodies to the present NCC are able to provide appropriate advice on the designation of ramsar sites and special protection areas. NCC's present country headquarters submit the proposals for individual sites. Provision will also be made for the Government to maintain a Great Britain overview based on the best scientific advice. The details of how best to achieve this having regard to the new organisational structure will be discussed with the NCC. No changes are proposed to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.

  GLC Heritage Collection
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give details of each item sold from the Greater London council's heritage collection by the London residuary body; and how much was realised for each item.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I have nothing to add to my answer of 11 April at column 462.

  Middlesex Guildhall Collection
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give details of the agreement made between the London residuary body and the London borough of Harrow in respect of the Middlesex Guildhall collection.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The agreement will be made by order under the Local Government Act 1985. London boroughs will be consulted about the proposed arrangements.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment who owns the items from the Middlesex Guildhall collection currently on display in the Middlesex Guildhall.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The London residuary body.

  London Residuary Body
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give details of the number of occasions upon which the London residuary body has sought his consent to dispose of assets for less than the best consideration reasonably obtainable.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  In the last year the Department has processed 65 applications by the London residuary body for consent to dispose of properties by means of voluntary sales to licensee occupiers at discounted prices.
  346
  In addition the London residuary body has sought consent in relation to seven other disposals.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment in what form records are kept in respect of prices paid and the details of new ownership of former publicly owned assets sold by the London residuary body; and what access is available to such records by members of the public and the press.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Such matters are for the London residuary body, and the purchasers.

  Coal-fired Power Stations
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the eight dirtiest coal-fired power stations in the United Kingdom.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Power station operations vary greatly in their load factor throughout the year, depending upon demand from the grid system, and also in their coal supply pattern. It is not possible to categorise them uniquely in terms of pollution.

  Jobs, Sunderland
  Mr. Clay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many new jobs in Sunderland have been created by the activities of the Tyne and Wear development corporation from its inception up to the latest available date about which he has information.

  Mr. Trippier
  Some 250 jobs have been created to date in Sunderland through the activities of Tyne and Wear development corporation. Further investment already in train is estimated to produce an additional 2,000 to 3,000 jobs.

  Sports Clubs (Rate Relief)
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to bring local authority rate relief for non-profit-making sports clubs in England and Wales into line with the situation in Scotland.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Local authorities levying rates in England and Wales, as in Scotland, have discretion to grant up to 100 per cent. rate relief to sports clubs and other non-profit-making organisations and will continue to do so after 1 April 1990.

  Paragraphs 20 and 21 of the consultation paper of 16 March 1989 on "Payments into the National Non-Domestic Rating Pool" set out the Government's proposals on the way in which the cost of any such relief should be met in England and Wales. The proposed approach, which differs from that in Scotland, is for the cost to be borne equally by community charge payers and by the national non-domestic rating pool. A number of representations on this point have been received and careful consideration is being given to the arguments advanced. I hope that a decision on this can be announced before too long.

  Crown Suppliers
  Sir George Young
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress has been made in the privatisation of the Crown Suppliers.

  Mr. Chope
  It is the Government's intention that the Crown Suppliers should be privatised in the first half of
  347
  1990, and that parliamentary approval will be sought for the necessary arrangements for the transfer of the Crown Suppliers to the private sector. I expect to be able to launch a competition for the sale in the autumn.

  We have taken a number of steps to move the Crown Suppliers towards a more commercial mode of operation, reorganising it on business lines, installing a new computer system and allowing it to begin to trade with the private sector. The board of the Crown Suppliers has recently been strengthened by the appointment of three non-executive members to add further private sector experience and particular skills in finance and marketing to the direction of the Crown Suppliers at a critical phase. They are Mr. Ralph Kaner, formerly international marketing director of Rowntree plc, Mr. David Pearl, chairman of London Securities plc, and Mr. Edward Stanger, formerly chairman of Ford and Weston Group plc.

  Professional, technical and industrial grades will transfer to the purchaser by virtue of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 and benefit from the safeguards provided by them. However, in the particular circumstances of the Crown Suppliers' privatisation, consultations have been taking place with the trade unions about the details of a secondment scheme which I hope can be applied to the generalist staff of the Crown Suppliers, for whom we can expect to find alternative Civil Service posts if necessary.

  Deloitte, Haskins and Sells has recently been appointed to act as reporting accountants for the sale, and Field. Fisher, Waterhouse as solicitors. They join Samuel Montagu and Co as the Government's advisers on the privatisation.

  Litter
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to deal with the problem of litter in public places; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ridley
  We are determined to tackle vigorously the problems caused by litter and litterers. I am today, together with my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Transport and for Wales, publishing details of our proposals for legislation designed to improve the appearance and standards of cleanliness of public places in England and Wales, and to enable and encourage local authorities, other landowners and individual citizens to take more effective action against litter and those who drop it.

  Our proposals include:
  An increase in the maximum fine for littering under the 1983 Litter Act from £400 to £1,000;
  A power for local authorities to introduce a fixed penalty scheme for littering;
  A duty on local authorities to keep clean all land in their beneficial occupancy or control, open to the air and to which the public have access (the duty to include both litter and dog faeces);
  A similar duty on certain landowners with statutory functions;
  A power for local authorities to extend by designation order a similar duty on owners of certain defined categories of land in other ownership (such as car parks, shopping precincts and forecourts of commercial premises);
  Rationalising street cleaning responsibilities by making non-metropolitan district councils wholly responsible for cleaning of all roads (except motorways);
  348
  A statutory code of practice to which all those under the duty would be required to have regard, specifying standards of cleanliness and advising on the best means of achieving them;
  A system of enforcement whereby (a) an aggrieved citizen will be able to apply for a court order directing a local authority, or any other landowner under the duty to keep clean, to discharge the duty; (b) the local authority has the power to issue a "litter abatement notice" requiring any other landowner under the duty to discharge that duty; and (c) the local authority has default powers to carry out cleaning work itself, and recover costs;
  The extension of section I of the Litter Act to all areas covered by the duty to keep clean, and the widening of its scope.

  I am arranging for copies of the consultation document to be placed in the Library of the House. Copies are also being sent to interested parties inviting comments by 22 September. Subject to responses to the consultation, the Government intend to introduce the necessary legislation at the earliest opportunity.

  Rent Collection
  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of local authorities' performance in the collection of housing rent; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  It is the responsibility of all local authorities to collect efficiently the rents due to them and most authorities do just this. But a number of authorities have irresponsibly allowed their rent arrears to rise to very high levels.

  The Government consider that failure to collect rent due is wholly unacceptable, inevitably putting an unfair burden on others. Rent rebates are available for tenants on low incomes who might otherwise have difficulty in paying their rents. High arrears result from authorities' poor management and from tenants unjustifiably failing to meet their obligations.

  At present the burden of any uncollected rent can fall on either ratepayers or tenants, or both, as the authority chooses. Under the proposals for the ring-fenced housing revenue account (HRA) in the Local Government and Housing Bill, authorities will from 1 April 1990 not be allowed to use community charge payers' money to meet their housing costs. So if in future authorities fail in their duty to collect the rents due, the cost, like any other housing cost, will have to be borne on the housing revenue account and will reflect itself in levels of rents or service. This will put councils in the same position as any other landlord, or as any other business, where the costs of bad debts have to be met by cutting back on the service they provide or increasing the charges to their customers. This is a significant change from the present system, and it would have been unfair in earlier days, when council tenants were effectively locked into dependency on their landlords. But council tenants are no longer captive customers. As well as the right to buy, the new tenants' choice scheme gives them the chance to transfer their custom elsewhere, to people who can provide a better service.

  We also recognise that it would have been grossly unfair on those tenants who do pay their rents if at the outset of the new system, they were faced with having to make good other tenants' arrears which had accumulated under the existing system. We therefore announced on 26 June, that, exceptionally, the cost of any arrears outstanding at 31 March 1990 which councils do not

  349
  manage to collect should be met not from the ring-fenced HRA but from the community charge. We are also proposing that in the case of authorities with the worst arrears the cost on the community charge could be spread over three to five years. This will enable every council to start off its new HRA with a clean slate, while still providing an effective incentive on authorities to collect outstanding arrears. We hope tenants and council managers alike will strive to eradicate the irresponsibility which has allowed arrears in the past to build up to intolerable levels.

  Carbon Tax
  Mr. McCrindle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has received any proposals for the introduction of a carbon tax on carbon dioxide emissions; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Taxation in the United Kingdom is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I am aware, however, of a number of informal proposals for a carbon tax as a possible policy instrument for mitigating climate change. These are likely to be the subject of continuing discussions, particularly in the intergovernmental panel on climate change.

PRIME MINISTER

  Republic of Ireland
  Sir Hugh Rossi
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has received recent representations regarding the United Kingdom's relations with the Republic of Ireland.

  The Prime Minister
  No. But we have a close relationship with the Republic of Ireland based on our many shared historical, cultural and family links. I last saw Mr. Haughey on 26 June and look forward to continuing to work with him and his new team of Ministers.

  Government Papers
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will institute a review of the 30-year rule on the release of Government papers; what steps are taken to ensure the secure preservation of all prime ministerial papers; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  I have no plans to institute a review of the 30-year rule. The preservation of prime ministerial papers, as with all public records, is handled in accordance with the provisions of the Public Records Acts 1958 and 1967.

  South Africa
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has received recent representations regarding the United Kingdom's relations with South Africa.

  The Prime Minister
  Yes. I have received support for our policy of encouraging South Africa to solve its problems through dialogue.

  Local Government (London)
  Mr. Cyril D. Townsend
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has received recent representations regarding local government in London.
  350
  The Prime Minister
  Yes. I periodically receive representations about a wide range of aspects of local government in London. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment made a statement yesterday about local government finance.

  Railway Privatisation
  Mr. Goodlad
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has received recent representations regarding railway privatisation.

  The Prime Minister
  I have received a small number of representations from hon. Members and others, most in favour of privatisation. As I said in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) on 29 June at column 1103, we are not yet ready to bring forward proposals for the privatisation of British Rail which would require careful preparation.

  British Rail (Catering)
  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has received recent representations regarding the future of catering services on British Rail.

  The Prime Minister
  No.

  Greece
  Sir Anthony Grant
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has received recent representations regarding the United Kingdom's relations with Greece.

  The Prime Minister
  No.

  Court of Auditors
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has received recent representations regarding the Court of Auditors in the European Community.

  The Prime Minister
  No.

  Wyke
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Prime Minister when she expects to pay an official visit to Wyke.

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

  Trade Union Law
  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has received recent representations regarding reform of trade union law.

  The Prime Minister
  I do receive representations on this matter from time to time. I have recently received many representations deploring irresponsible industrial action in a number of public services.

  Kirkshaw's Coatbridge
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Prime Minister when she next intends to visit Kirkshaw's Coatbridge.

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

  US President
  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Prime Minister when she next expects to meet the President of the United States of America.
  351
  The Prime Minister
  I have met President Bush on several occasions in recent weeks which both of us have greatly valued and I am sure that there will be many more meetings in the future. No firm date has yet been fixed for my next meeting with President Bush.

  Soviet Union
  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has received recent representations regarding human rights in the Soviet Union.

  The Prime Minister
  We receive many representations which reflect the deep concern in this country about human rights in the Soviet Union. We are continuing to press the Soviet authorities over a range of individual cases, and over a wider need for institutionalised reform. These efforts do bear fruit. In the past year, 68 refusenik cases which we have raised have been resolved satisfactorily.

  Energy Conservation
  Mr. Page
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has received recent representations regarding energy conservation.

  The Prime Minister
  I have received a number of recent representations regarding energy conservation and energy efficiency. In cash terms the Government are this year spending six times the amount in energy efficiency programmes as was spent in 1979. Over the last four years for which figures are available, this country's ratio of energy use to GDP growth has improved at twice the average rate for the European Community.

  Sea Birds
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Prime Minister what advice she has been given by the Nature Conservancy Council in relation to Her Majesty's Government's international obligations to protect sea birds' feeding and gathering grounds; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the written answers I gave him on Tuesday 16 May, at column 119 and on Monday 19 June at column 1.

  Central Europe
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Prime Minister whether she has received recent representations on political developments in Central Europe.

  The Prime Minister
  The Polish authorities and Solidarity have recently made specific requests to Her Majesty's Government for assistance to support reform. No such representation had been made on behalf of Hungary. We have joined in the economic summit's commitment to co-ordinate assistance to Poland and Hungary. The United Kingdom has already pledged some economic assistance, including an offer of £25 million to supply know-how to Poland.

  Italy
  Mr. Marland
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has received recent representations regarding the United Kingdom's relations with Italy.
  352
  The Prime Minister
  No.

  Social Charter
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister if the European Economic Community Commission reported to the European Council meeting at Madrid the number of directives it proposed to present to the Council of Ministers arising out of the social charter approved by that Council on a majority vote.

  The Prime Minister
  No. I would also refer my hon. Friend to my reply to him on Tuesday 18 July 1989, at column 141.

  Engagements
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 20 July.

  Mr. Ashton
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 20 July.

  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 20 July.

  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 20 July.

  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 20 July.

  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 20 July.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 20 July.

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

  EC (Contributions)
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will raise at the next meeting of the European Council the level of net contributions being made by member states to the European Economic Community.

  The Prime Minister
  I have no plans to do so and would refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave him on 21 June at column 148.

  Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Prime Minister if, during her meeting with the Prime Minister of Canada in London on 11 July, she raised(a) the issue of the fourth review conference of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and (b) nuclear exports and safeguards on uranium.

  The Prime Minister
  No.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Prime Minister if, during her recent visit to Paris, she discussed with President Sarney of Brazil the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

  The Prime Minister
  No.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Prime Minister if, during her recent visit to Paris she discussed with the Prime Minister of India the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.
  353
  The Prime Minister
  No.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list the heads of Government and heads of state of African countries with whom she raised the subject of the 4 review conference of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty during her recent visit to Paris; and what representations she made in each case.

  The Prime Minister
  I did not raise the non-proliferation treaty review conference with African leaders during my visit to Paris.

  Brazilian Mahogany
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) what steps were taken to ensure that the plantation which supplied the Brazilian mahogany for the proposed refurbishment of the white and blue rooms at 10 Downing street is operated on a sustainable basis;

  (2) what steps were taken to ensure the area of the plantation which was cleared to supply the Brazilian mahogany for the proposed refurbishment of the white and blue rooms at 10 Downing street has now been replanted;

  (3) which plantation supplied the Brazilian mahogany for the proposed refurbishment of the white and blue rooms at 10 Downing street;

  (4) who owns, and whether there is any British involvement in, the plantation which supplied the Brazilian mahogany for the proposed refurbishment of the white and blue rooms at 10 Downing street.

  The Prime Minister
  Only about 25 cu ft of Brazilian mahogany is being used for refurbishment of the blue and white rooms at 10 Downing street, mainly for overdoor and other fine carvings for which it is the most suitable material. This is equivalent to about a quarter of one tree. The importer supplying the specialist joinery contractor undertaking the work has provided inspection certificates issued by the Brazilian Institute of Forest Development indicating that his sawn timber supplies are drawn from areas where officially approved programmes of forest enrichment are in force. This is a process of sustained management of mixed forests whereby mature trees are removed without damage to the remainder, and replaced by mahogany transplants in numbers which ensure that the density of hardwood in the forest is actually increased. The plantations in question are managed by Maginco Madeireira Araguaia S/A Ind Com e Agropecuaria and located at Fazenda Fontalina in the Rio Maria region. It is not known whether there is any British involvement.

  Community Care Minister
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has any plans for the appointment of a Minister for community care.

  The Prime Minister
  My hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State, Department of Health has responsibility, under my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health, for monitoring the implementation of the Government's community care policies.

  Multiple Deprivation Indices
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Prime Minister if it is the policy of Her Majesty's Government that financial support from Government, and support which is sought 354
  from the European Commission, should reflect the relative need for such support as illustrated in the United Kingdom/European Community indices of multiple deprivation; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  Financial support from Government, where provided, takes account of the need for support as shown by indicators appropriate to the support scheme concerned. Applications for support from the European Community are made in conformity with the Community's rules.

  French Revolution
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Prime Minister what initiatives Her Majesty's Government will be taking arising from the celebrations of the French Revolution.

  The Prime Minister
  Anglo-French relations are excellent. We shall continue to work closely with the French Government over a wide range of issues.

  Tom Paine
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Prime Minister what proposals she has to commemorate the contribution to democracy of Tom Paine.

  The Prime Minister
  None. Tom Paines' beliefs and writings had a greater effect on the political evolution of the United States of America and of France than on that of this country.

  Official Hospitality
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Prime Minister how much was spent by her office on official hospitality in the financial year 1988–89.

  The Prime Minister
  The cost of official hospitality met by my office during 1988–89 was £22,008.

  Expenses
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will provide the final figure for 1988–89 and the estimates for 1989–90 for the total cost to public funds of all her offices, duties, accommodation and expenses.

  The Prime Minister
  The total cost of all my offices in 1988–89 was £6,443,711.1

  The estimated total cost for 1989–90 is £6,443,711.1

  Note:

  1 Salaries and wages, notional pension liability, administration costs, and the grant-in-aid to the Chequers Trust are included. My salary as a Cabinet minister is also included. My pay and allowances as a Member of this House are excluded.

  Official Residences
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will provide the final figures for 1988–89 and the estimate for 1989–90 for(a) the cost of maintaining and running 10 Downing street and additional cost at Chequers, (b) the grant-in-aid to the Chequers Trust and (c) the costs on a consistent basis and expressed at constant 1984–85 prices.

  The Prime Minister
  The figures requested are as follows:
  355

  (a) Cost of maintaining and running 10 Downing street and additional costs at Chequers1 2 3

  £

  1988–89

  6,593,793

  51989–90

  6,409,232

  (b) Grant-in-aid to the Chequers Trust

  £

  1988–89

  238,000

  1989–90

  238,000

  (c) Costs at (a) and (b) in 1984–85 price terms4

  £

  1988–89

  (a) 5,369,530

  (b) 193,810

  51989–90

  (a) 4,944,947

  (b) 183,625

  Notes:

  1 The figures include costs at both 10 Downing street and Chequers; the information is not available by location.

  2 Salaries and wages, notional pension liability, administration costs, the costs of office services and the grant-in-aid to the
  356
  Chequers Trust are included. The salary of the Prime Minister is excluded.

  3 These totals are calculated on a consistent basis with the total for 1986–87 in sub-paragraph (a) of the reply to the hon. Member on 23 October 1987 at column 846. If office services costs are excluded (to produce a figure consistent with those at sub-paragraph (c) of that reply) the totals are:

  £

  £

  1988–89

  6,063,266

  64,937,505

  1989–90

  5,841,190

  64,506,683

  4 Constant costs have been calculated using deflator for 1987–88 rebased to 1984–85.

  5 Estimate.

  6 At 1984–85 prices.

  Travel
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Prime Minister what was the total cost to public funds of travel by her and her staff in 1988–89.

  The Prime Minister
  The total cost of my travel and that of my staff in 1988–89 was £952,150.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Bradford): The LORD CHANCELLOR On the Woolsack.
Lord Petre Lord Petre—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

Air Transport: EC Liberalisation Proposals
Baroness Burton of Coventry Baroness Burton of Coventry asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the Commission has tabled its proposals on the further liberalisation of air transport in the European Community and what measures do they wish to see included.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, I am pleased to learn that the Commission finalised its proposals yesterday for submission to the Council of Ministers. We shall need to study the details, but early reports indicate that the Commission has taken up many of our suggestions. These include much greater freedom for airlines to set their own fares; the opening up of all routes between member states; relaxation of capacity constraints and limits on mulitiple designation and further liberalisation of fifth freedom services; and action on national route licensing to give all airlines the opportunity to compete in the market.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, I am glad that the Answer to the first part of the Question is yes, even though it happened only yesterday. I am sure that the whole House will have noted with pleasure what the Minister said. However, may I ask him about two matters concerned with the second part of the Question which were not dealt with in the statement that he gave? Do the Government accept that the problem of air traffic congestion must be dealt with urgently and enthusiastically if airlines and passengers alike are to have a better deal? After last weekend I should think that the answer is yes. Secondly, does he agree that along with the problem of congestion must go that of providing adequate runway and terminal capacity? If so, what can the Government do to hasten along the solution to those two matters?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, of course adequate runway and terminal capacity at points of departure and arrival are central to the efficiency of air travel. That is why, in response to a commission from my right honourable friend, the CAA is at present preparing advice on the adequacy of UK airport capacity in the long term. We expect its advice by next summer. As regards the problems of air traffic control, last weekend's unfortunate experiences were largely the result of industrial action in France. It is difficult to know what we can
908
do to help in that respect. We take the problem of air traffic control extremely seriously. That is why we have been pushing forward with initiatives in Europe.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, will my noble friend accept congratulations for the good news which he conveyed about yesterday's decision? Does he not agree that congratulations are also owing to the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry, for her indefatigable efforts in this direction?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I agree entirely with the latter part of my noble friend's question. I should like to qualify slightly what I said. This is not so much a decision but Commission proposals which are being put forward to the Council of Ministers. I suspect that we shall have somewhat of a battle to get them through the Council of Ministers. Some countries in Europe have not yet seen the benefits which arise from a liberalisation so we must explain that their doubts are unfounded.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, although I admire the noble Baroness's tenacity in continually pressing the matter, is it not a fact that the second part of her Question is important? The British Airports Authority and the Civil Aviation Authority are in complete agreement that there is an urgent requirement to deal with the problem of air space and air flow movement on a European basis. I fully support the noble Baroness's comments, but does the Minister agree that, despite his efforts in Europe, there is still a lack of urgency by a number of countries in the development of proper Eurocontrol? Does he further agree that unless that matter is dealt with we shall not overcome the problem of delays of aircraft from this country?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, if there has been a lack of urgency in the development of Eurocontrol, I hope that our actions, among others, taken during the past 12 months have done a great deal to speed things up. We had a fairly momentous decision a fortnight ago when approval was given for the new central flow management unit. Eurocontrol is to be congratulated on doing the preparatory work and putting forward firm proposals in only six months. That is a short time span. Things are moving in the right direction but there is still much to be done.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, the noble Lord rightly refers to the French air traffic controllers' strike last weekend which caused chaos. Is he aware of reports that immigration officers at Gatwick Airport are now causing difficulties on this side of the Channel, and has he any comments to make?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I have heard reports of those difficulties but I have no comment to make at the moment.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, I appreciate the kindness and generosity of the remarks made. However, does the Minister realise that we shall have many opportunities of returning

909
to the problem of BAA and the problem of runway capacity at a future date? Can he tell the House when the Transport Ministers will be discussing the proposals from the European Commission? Does he realise that the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, require underlining? Is the Minister aware that it is not enough to leave these matters to the Community because there has been far too little sense of urgency in dealing with them and we cannot wait another year until we begin to decide what to do?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, we shall not have to wait another year because we have already made the decision. We should see signs of progress on the first stages by the beginning of next year. We shall have no less than two opportunities at Question Time next week to discuss airport capacity, so I for one know that the issue will not go away.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, can the Minister say when the Ministers hope to discuss these matters? Am I right in assuming that it will be in October, and can he give definite dates?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I apologise for not answering that part of the noble Baroness's question. The French presidency proposes to hold an informal transport council which I hope will be able to discuss the matters. The last date I had in my diary was 6th October, but already the date has changed twice.

Listed Building Consent: Mappin & Webb Site
3.9 p.m.
Baroness Birk Baroness Birk asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, in the light of the decision to allow the redevelopment of the Mappin & Webb site in the City of London, they will reaffirm the principles applying to applications for consent to demolish listed buildings set out in Circular 8/87; and, in particular, the exceptional nature of the decision to depart from these principles.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Hesketh): My Lords, there has been no change in the principles applying to such applications. As the Department of the Environment circular states, there is a general presumption in favour of preserving listed buildings. But the fact that a building is listed does not inevitably mean that it will be preserved. In this case, for reasons set out very fully in the decision letter, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State was satisfied that it was right in the special circumstances to grant listed building consent for demolition.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, while thanking the Minister for that Answer, is he aware that the decision to destroy the best surviving collection of Victorian commercial buildings in the City based on
910
a mediaeval street pattern overturns the Secretary of State's own direction that listed buildings should not be demolished if use can be found for them? Is he also aware that replacement, even by an alleged "masterpiece", is not one of the criteria set out in the historic buildings and conservation areas circular? Therefore, do the Government intend to give supplementary advice and clarification to deal with the uncertainty arising from that decision?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, with regard to the latter part of the noble Baroness's question, I refer her to the second part of my original Answer. Each listed building consent decided by my right honourable friend is, always has been and will continue to be determined on its individual merits. The requirements of listed building consent legislation remain unchanged.
Lord St. John of Fawsley: My Lords, would my noble friend agree that, while it is extremely important to preserve our past heritage, it is equally important to ensure that our own generation adds worthily to it? Is not Mr. Peter Palumbo to be congratulated on commissioning a first-rate building from a major British architect? Is he not also to be congratulated on his persistence, determination and tenacity, which make Bruce and the spider seem pusillanimous?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am not too sure about my noble friend's spiders. However, he is correct that we must strive constantly to achieve the right balance between preserving the past and allowing new development for the future to go ahead. We must look forward as well as back. That inevitably involves making judgments which will not be universally shared.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, is it not the case that that particular site has been one of the most discussed and widely canvassed planning applications of the decade? Is it not also the case that as a result of the earlier refusal, as recommended by the inspector, of the original Mies Van Der Rohe building, a very much better building is now to be erected? It has always been recognised, as my noble friend on the Front Bench said, that this is a matter of balancing the desire to preserve the heritage of the past with the need to provide for the requirements of the present and the future. If we are to have a dynamic city, it cannot be ossified.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Jenkin. I suppose that in less than a century someone else will have to stand at this Dispatch Box in order to explain why a further possible change may be taking place in Poultry.
Lord Monson: My Lords, notwithstanding the last two supplementary questions, will the Minister concede that the Mappin & Webb building is far more pleasing to the eye than will be the building scheduled to replace it and, for that matter, far more pleasing to the eye than are the remains of the Rose Theatre? With that in mind, will not Her Majesty's Government have second thoughts bearing in mind

911
that attractive buildings in London are already far too thin on the ground?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, my brief does not go as far as taste.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the remains of the Rose Theatre are not so much pleasing to the eye as important for what they represent?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am sure that my noble friend is aware that she has tabled a Question on that subject which will be dealt with on Monday. I hope that I shall be able to answer it satisfactorily.
Lord Sandys: My Lords, returning to the Mappin & Webb site, does my noble friend agree that the ingenuity displayed by architects in the demolition of part of the Nash terraces, and the reconstruction of a building behind the facade, would be a solution which would commend itself to many of those who appreciate the facades of fine buildings and who also recognise the urgent need to be able to occupy the space behind for commercial purposes?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, this matter was discussed at length at the inquiry. I draw my noble friend's attention to the inspector's report, which goes into the matter at greater length and in greater technical detail than I am able to do this afternoon.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: My Lords, in welcoming the Minister's statement, is he not aware of the confusion caused in planning circles by this decision? Will he do whatever he can to ensure that the statement he made today will be communicated to local authorities?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, of course the department will always try to avoid creating a state of confusion. However, I believe that English Heritage has sent a circular to local authorities indicating its position on this matter.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, in replying to what the noble Lords, Lord St. John of Fawsley, and Lord Jenkin of Roding said, is it not true—and it was the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, who, when he was Secretary of State, gave a green light to a further development after the original planning application was turned down—that there are plenty of places where a replacement of some rather mediocre modern or not-so-old buildings would be very welcome? Are we not here discussing whether in this paticular part of the City listed buildings should be destroyed in order to make way for a new building?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Baroness would not expect me to become the Minister for suggested demolition, even though I have an office in Marsham Street! However, I listened with care and attention to what she said and will draw it to the attention of my right honourable friend.

European Community Fraud
3.16 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington Lord Bruce of Donington asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will provide details of the "wide range of proposals for combating fraud" against European Community funds and particulars of "the Commission's 45 point work programme" referred to by Lord Brabazon of Tara on 23rd June (H.L. Deb. cols. 418–419); and to report what progress has been made.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, a copy of the Commission's 45 point work programme has been deposited in the Library of the House. The Commission has already presented new or revised proposals in the two key areas of export refunds and intervention storage.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I am grateful for that reply. Can the noble Lord inform the House whether his noble friend Lord Young of Graffham, who answered a Question on this subject on 13th July, his department, and the Treasury, have been able to identify the conference on international commercial crime to which I referred in my Question of 13th July and about which the noble Lord admitted he knew nothing? When questioned he said that his department could not send along representatives to every conference of that sort. Can the noble Lord inform me whether he is now aware of that conference and of its significance, bearing in mind that it was attended by 33 countries and specifically discussed fraud within the European Community?
Can the noble Lord also inform the House whether his department has yet seen the communication sent by the European Commission to the Ministry of Agriculture on the subject of fraud, upon which the Commission issued an explanatory memorandum some 14 days ago?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, as to the conference to which the noble Lord referred I have nothing to add to what my noble friend Lord Young said on 13th July. As regards the paper to which the noble Lord referred which has apparently been sent to the Ministry of Agriculture, I am sure that my colleagues in the Treasury will have seen that by now.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, on the question of combating Community fraud would my noble friend agree that as the prosecuting authorities in the member states may not take proceedings for fraud where the offence has been committed in another member state, and as the respective laws of each of the member states, to which this whole idea of Community fraud is wholly subservient, are dissimilar, there are really no effective steps which can ever be taken to combat fraud until a convention is established at the Council of Ministers level. Will my noble friend give earnest consideration to that proposal?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I shall of course pass on my noble friend's remarks. As he said, decisions to prosecute are matters for national authorities. To confer that right across the Community would require legislation in all member states. The United Kingdom has played a constructive role in work on the proposed Community Crimes Convention, although we have been concerned to ensure that the provisions of any such treaty are properly targeted and take account of our system of criminal law.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, as virtually all the fraud in the Community arises from the common agricultural policy, and as the common agricultural policy is against all the Government believe in relation to free and open trade, will they not redouble their efforts to get rid of this absurd, wasteful and expensive system?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the Government want to take a practical, not a utopian, approach. We have pressed both for improvements in the way the Community fights fraud, where I have been able to report solid progress to the House, and, as the noble Lord will be aware, in the way the CAP operates; and not unsuccessfully there, either.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, does that mean that the Government now believe that the free market is utopian?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: No, my Lords, that is not what I said. I said that we want to take a practical approach in tackling fraud, and not the utopian one of abolishing the CAP altogether which the noble Lord suggested.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, the fundamental questions submitted by my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington are of great interest to everyone concerned with these issues. Would it not assist us if the Minister and his noble friend Lord Young could gather documents and place them in the Library?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am not quite sure which documents the noble Lord wants to have placed in the Library in addition to the one referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, in his original Question, which I said has been placed in the Library. The noble Lord will be able to refer to it there.
Lord Carter: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the lowest estimate of EC fraud is equal to twice the total income of the whole of British farming and the highest estimate to six times the total income of British farming? Does this not indicate the scale and severity of the problem?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I shall not comment on the noble Lord's estimates. We take this problem extremely seriously, and we have been at the forefront among member states in trying to do something about it.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that his answers this afternoon have been thoroughly unsatisfactory? Is he further aware that, on the lowest estimates, these frauds involve the British taxpayer in a net loss of some £400 million a year? Will the Government please give some concrete evidence, as distinct from evasion, that they take these problems seriously and will do something about them?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the answer to the first part of the noble Lord's question is, no; and to the second part, yes.

EC Social Charter Proposal
3.23 p.m.
Lord Rochester Lord Rochester asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their attitude to the European Commission's draft social charter.
The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Lord Young of Graffham): My Lords, the Government firmly believe that the creation of the internal market will create new jobs, will reduce unemployment and will improve real standards of living. The Government do not see how the charter proposed by the Commission could contribute to achieving those goals.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, I find that Answer depressingly negative. Would it not be more productive if, instead of denouncing, the charter as socialist and even Marxist, the Prime Minister in particular were to give a positive lead in seeking to adapt it to conditions in this country? Is it not a fact that, in the matter of employee involvement, so far from insisting that workers should sit on company boards, the key sentence in paragraph 22 of the charter states:
"Information, consultation and participation of workers must be developed along appropriate lines and in such a way as to take account of the laws, contractual agreements and practices in the member states".
Is that not precisely what is already being done by our more progressive companies, and why should it not apply throughout British industry?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, the Madrid summit noted that job creation should be given top priority in the achievement of the internal market and that the role to be played by Community standards, by national legislation and by contractual relationships should be clearly established. That is the right approach, but it may well be that the noble Lord has forgotten what conditions were like 10 or 12 years ago when government tried to impose these things. What we have seen in the past few years is an enormous explosion in the creation of jobs and wealth—something which the Government's present policies have brought about.
Lord Murray of Epping Forest: My Lords, may we not hope that the Government will cooly and in consultation with our friends and colleagues in the rest of the Community examine the practical

915
advantages both to Britain and to Europe of adopting such a social charter? May we have an assurance that, whatever may be the Government's objections to other parts of the charter, they will have no objection to the provision in paragraph 17 for,
"the right to collective action in cases of conflicts of interest, including the right to strike",
as this reproduces practically word for word Article 6(4) of the European social charter to which the United Kingdom is a party and which the noble Lord's colleague the Prime Minister has widely praised in commenting on current proposals for the charter?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, as I look round the United Kingdom today, I find no absence of the right to strike.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, how do the Government expect the single European market to function effectively without some degree of harmonisation on the social front, particularly in relation to labour law? How will a level playing field be established from the standpoint of freedom of movement between countries of the Community?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, freedom of movement is one thing. Freedom of movement is already established. I very much believe in diverse systems. The system in the United Kingdom which has seen the creation of 3.5 million new jobs over the past five years is one which we should uphold. The system across the water, which has seen an increase in the rate of unemployment and where statutory work protection applies to all kinds of jobs, is not one which I think it would profit the United Kingdom to adopt.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, are we not faced with a major crisis of confidence as a result of the emergence of wholesale corruption in the European Community? In dealing with such crime, can anything be less appropriate than another social inquiry?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I fail to recognise that wholesale corruption exists in the European Community. However, that is another question.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, is it not clear that, whereas level playing fields are all very well, nobody wants to see a level obstacle course? That is what the social charter offers in the way that it is currently being put forward.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am very grateful indeed to my noble friend.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, as in his original Answer the noble Lord referred to the generally constructive approach of the Government towards Europe, can he tell us how officials are getting on with the somewhat intractable task which they were set after the Madrid summit of preparing an alternative British plan for monetary union which
916
has nothing to do either with union or with a single currency?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, as I am sure the noble Lord will recognise, that question is a rather long way from a draft social charter. However, if he cares to put down a Question I shall be delighted to answer it.
Lord Peston: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the draft social charter is a typical and classic example of the doctrines of European Christian Democrats? Until recently we thought that they were also the doctrines of the noble Lord's party. What puzzles us—and we ask him to explain it—is why the Government are so antipathetic to a point of view which we thought was typically their own.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, of course there are elements in the social charter which we not only approve of but have led Europe in practising. There are other elements which we have practised and which we know have failed. We have no wish to return to those. Our position is very simple—to each his own. We know what makes the United Kingdom economy work and we should not like to change it.
Viscount Eccles: My Lords, is it not impossible to conceive of a social charter which is not based on political and economic principles? Is it not a fact that the economic and political principles of the governments of Europe differ very much: some are socialist, some are not socialist? Surely, therefore it is impossible to reform a charter. We ought to pursue our own ideas on how to treat our own people in industry and not try to borrow ideas from people whose basic views are different to ours.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I very much agree with my noble friend. What we are doing is to suggest that the social charter that works in the United Kingdom could be copied well by other countries in Europe. What we would never wish to do is to impose it upon other countries.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, in his rather surly reply to my noble friend Lord Murray of Epping Forest, the noble Lord appeared to speak with approval of the right to strike which he says still exists. Does that mean, and will he give an assurance, that in the Queen's Speech there will be no further measures to restrict the right to strike in this country?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I do not recognise the description "surly" of my reply to the noble Lord, Lord Murray, whom I have known for many years. All I pointed out to the noble Lord was that there appeared to be no shortage of the right to strike in the United Kingdom at this time.
Viscount Caldecote: My Lords, is it not much more important to stimulate the growth of UK manufacturing industry than it is to adopt irrelevant social charters from Europe?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I would rather we stimulated the entire wealth creation process of the economy including manufacturing. But as my noble friend knows, that is a matter on which we have already agreed to differ many times in the past.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, will the noble Lord answer—
Noble Lords: Order!

Business
3.34 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of your Lordships to know that the Committee stage of the Local Government and Housing Bill will be adjourned at about 8.30 p.m. to allow the Third Reading of the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Bill to be taken. The House will adjourn at the conclusion of that debate which will, of course, be taken on the motion that the Bill do now pass.

New Southgate Cemetery and Crematorium Limited Bill
3.35 p.m.
Read a third time, and passed and returned to the Commons with amendments.

King's Cross Railways Bill
3.36 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. This message concerns the normal carry-over Motion in another place to allow this Bill to continue its progress in the next Session. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House do concur with the orders made by the Commons set out in their message of yesterday.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Social Security Bill
3.37 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Skelmersdale): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons reasons be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons reasons be now considered.—(Lord Skelmersdale.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS REASONS FOR DISAGREEING TO CERTAIN LORDS AMENDMENTS
[References are to HL Bill 44 as first printed by the Lords. The Commons reasons are printed in italics.]

LORDS AMENDMENT
1 After Clause 4, insert the following new clause:
"Increase for child benefit
.In section 63(2) of the Social Security Act 1986, after paragraph (a) there shall be inserted the following paragraph—
"(aa) which increases the sum specified by virtue of section 5(1) of the Child Benefit Act 1975 by a percentage not less than the percentage by which the sum prescribed for the purposes of section 2I(6)(a) above in respect of a child aged less than 11 years is increased by the up-rating order; and"."
The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason:
2 Because this amendment might involve charges on public funds, and the Commons do not offer any further reason trusting that this reason may be deemed, sufficient.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Belstead): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 1 to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 2.
The amendment passed by your Lordships during the Committee stage of the Bill inserted a new clause which provided for child benefit to be uprated by at least the same percentage as the child credit rate of family credit. The House of Commons has now considered that amendment and has disagreed to it. I ask your Lordships therefore not to insist on the amendment.
The reason for the other place disagreeing is a privilege reason. As Erskine May puts it:
"This hint of privilege is generally accepted by the Lords, and the amendment is not insisted upon".
In view of this, I do not believe it would be right for me to go further and to rehearse once again the Government's arguments for retaining flexibility in the uprating of child benefit. I say that with no disrespect either to my noble friend Lady Faithfull, who originally moved the amendment, or to any Member of your Lordships' House who supported the amendment.
It is however for another place to decide, in considering an amendment received from your Lordships' House, whether the amendment touches on financial privilege. In this case the Commons has so decided. At this stage we have to consider our response to the decision of another place. I do not suggest for a moment that it would be wrong if your Lordships wished once again to press in debate your views of the merits. On the contrary it is fully within the powers of your Lordships' House. But what I suggest is that the debate should in the end be decided on the single point of the financial privilege asserted by another place. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 1 to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 2.—(Lord Belstead.)
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, many people in all parts of the House will have received these messages with deep regret—and in some cases, I know, with genuine anger. We must stress that the only reason given in the messages is that the amendment might involve charges on public funds. The Commons does not offer any further reason. We might as well be talking of a Finance Bill.

919
All through our debates on the Social Security Bill we have heard nothing from government representatives except talk about money, figures, statistics and costs. The fact that the Commons sends this message to us saying that there is no further reason indicates the attitude of the Government towards social policy. They give no reason of justice, no reason of fairness, no reason of concern for the people we are trying to help—only finance.
We are all aware of the limitations on our powers imposed by the Parliament Act. We were not trying to start a revolution. In fact it would have been difficult for us, considering the all-party nature of the support for the amendments, to have gone down that road. All we were trying to do, well within our powers as a revising Chamber, was to send a message to another place asking it in these two respects to look again at clauses which we feel redound so unkindly to many people in this country.
Your Lordships have been given only the mercenary argument. One wonders what kind of philosophy underlies the Government's thinking on these important matters. Many experienced noble Lords supported the amendments, mostly out of their knowledge and concern. I shall not name anyone in particular, but looking through the Division lists it is clear that there was a great deal of wisdom, understanding and experience in the support which the amendments received here.
The brevity of the reply from the Commons is an insult to this House. It indicates that no genuine consideration was given by the Government to noble Lords of all parties when the Bill reached the other place. I do not want to go over all the arguments again because I am sure the House is familiar with them, but I must say that I resist the argument that what we suggested has to be thrown away because of a charge on public funds. One would think that the other place makes no charges on public funds, although that of course is its job.
I have been looking at some of the charges on public funds that the Government seem happy about. Following the Finance Bill of 1977 there is a statutory indexing of personal allowances, and that was accepted. I notice from the figures that tax allowances for a wife, however rich she is, have risen by 22 per cent. in real terms. Child benefit has gone down 13 per cent. in real terms. There is a charge on public funds for mortgage tax relief, however rich the house buyer might be. Now we are to have income tax allowances for private health care for the elderly, however rich they are.
This Government appear to have the most extraordinary lack of understanding and concern for children. A family with children clearly has higher expenses than a family without children or a single person without children. But, no, for two years running the Government have insisted on no uprating for child benefit and that there should be no concern for people who are endeavouring to bring up their families. As I said, I do not intend to go into arguments of detail. I do not intend to attack the other government proposals for helping low income families. That is not the business of the House today, though when I was in the other place last night it
920
seemed to take up a lot of time. I only say that there is a great deal of talk in some quarters about this place, the reforms that are necessary and how things should be altered here. However, when we deal with matters of human welfare I hope that we have a meeting of minds. In fact, we had a meeting of the majority of minds in these two cases.
I know—and I can say so having been a constituency Member for many years—that in this House we do not exactly have constituencies but we have our concerns for the people we want to help. In having these two amendments accepted with, as I said, support from all sides of the House, our constituents were the children, the blind, the deaf, the crippled and the disabled. By turning their back on these suggestions the Government have shown the ugly face of Toryism, and the people of this country will take note of that and they will pay for it.
3.45 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, Edward Gibbon was once commanded by his father to desist from a courtship on which he had set his heart. He sighed as a lover and obeyed as a son. It is a story which comes regularly to my mind when one of our amendments comes back from the Commons with a privilege reason attached.
This will cause a great deal of grief, as the noble Baroness said, not only in this House but throughout the country among families with children. I accept what the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, said on the Motion that the Bill do now pass; that our debates have been characterised by noble Lords wishing to push the Government in directions where they do not wish to go. He added the qualification, "Not now". And for that crumb of comfort I thank him.
However, there is a name for that process. It is called politics. I accept that those who bear sway in another place have the power. The common point of course of the story of Edward Gibbon and what has happened today is that it is true that he who pays the piper calls the tune, but those who have power are normally prudent if in the exercise of it they take some account of strong feelings which are held in other places and in other parts of the country.
The noble Lord, Lord Denham, speaking on 8th December last, said of this House that it is a revising Chamber and for that it is uniquely fitted. That is a view with which many of us would very much like to agree. However, when I think of it I cannot recall any amendment carried on a Division in this place which has been fully accepted in another place since he spoke. I accept that we may be wrong a lot of the time, but it would cause me considerable surprise if we had been wrong all the time.
In the current issue of The House Magazine Sheila Gunn says of the Prime Minister:
"She and her Cabinet colleagues reverse defeats inflicted in the Lords more readily without giving concessions—and they can no longer hide their irritation when the peers take a stand. In recent years the Lords have become, if not her poodle, at least Mrs. Thatcher's ageing labrador".
It would be unwise of the House to allow that view to spread too far.

921
I now turn to the matter of the amendment. I must confess to some disappointment. I read the Secretary of State's answers to Oral Questions on 3rd July last He praised what he described as a judicious mix of child benefit and family credit which, he argued, this Government have achieved. He said:
"The Government would not maintain that commitment as strongly as we do unless we believed that that mix was right."—[Official Report, Commons, 3/7/89; col. 13.]
Of course it was precisely the purpose of our amendment to keep that mix as it is now. If the Secretary of State believes that it is right to do so, I am a little surprised that he did not accept the amendment. The fact that he did not do so raises certain questions.
This is the second year in succession that child benefit has not been uprated. Tax allowances o course have been uprated. This raises the question which the Secretary of State refused to answer in another place last night: are the Government prepared to accept that child benefit can be uprated at some time in the future? I know that we will receive the answer that the Secretary of State has discretion to review benefits. I accept that. However, that is like saying, "How's that?" and getting the reply, "The umpire's decision is final". We know that it is final but we want to know what the answer is. We want to know whether child benefit will be uprated in future.
We want to know, if there is to be no uprating of child benefit, whether the Government intend to reintroduce the child tax allowance, which of course would be a great deal worse targeted in their terms than child benefit—for in equity I cannot see how the Government can fail to do one or the other.
I also repeat the question that I heard asked from the Government's own Front Bench below the Gangway last night. Has it now become the policy of Her Majesty's Government to discourage people from having children? If that is so, since this is a change in policy of some importance, are we to receive an announcement and an explanation of the reasons why such a decision might have been taken? It would be a matter of legitimate concern in this House.
I also wonder why it is that there is so much concern on the Government Benches about the notion that if this amendment were accepted the money might well go to the well-off. I say that because I did not know that that was contrary to government policy—that is, for money to go to the well-off. But, if it is on this occasion contrary to government policy, and it is not when they are passing a Budget, that seems to suggest rather too rigorous a distinction between what is labelled "taxation" on the one hand, and what is labelled "welfare" on the other. We seem, again, to be moving into a category of "wrong boxes". After all, it is all money and if the money can be more efficiently used in this way than in any other, I do not see why it should not be.
I accept the authority of those who hold the purse strings, but I think they have exercised it with a very great lack of wisdom.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I think that the debate this afternoon disqualifies Parliament from having anything useful to say to industry, commerce or our institutions about modernising their methods and procedures, economising on manpower and finding more modern methods of discharging business. It is no good rehearsing the merits behind these two amendments this afternoon, because they are of no consequence in another place; they do not care what the merits are. Those in another place are concerned about whether it is a breach of their privilege on matters of public expenditure.
We receive this brush-off every time and we take no notice of it. We go about helpless with a futile look on our faces. It is incredible that we put up with this in 1989. It has been going on since 1911. It is a historical inheritance from the Parliament Act 1911, when taxation was dealt with and when a ban was put on the powers of this House to tamper with either taxation or public expenditure.
Of course, in 1911 the national insurance scheme was in its infancy; indeed, it had hardly been born. It had not become the second biggest taxation system in our economic affairs. But, now has grown to be just that. I have drawn attention before to the anomalous position in which we find ourselves where we cannot amend the personal release for taxation in this House; but we can bankrupt the National Insurance Fund, if our amendments are given effect in another place. Can we not find a better way? Do we have to put up with this brush-off every time? Where is the ingenuity" Where is the will-power to do something more sensible than go through this rehearsal at the end of a Session every year?
I suggest that there are reasons behind these amendments which would qualify for a request to be made to another place asking it to think again. One of the points about our role in the parliamentary system is that although we acknowledge the sovereignty of the elected Chamber, if it insists upon what it wishes to do we can at least offer a check, or a pause, during which we can ask it to think again about what it proposes to do. But when we touch finance Members of another place do not think again; they do not need to think again. They can tell us to mind our own business—and that is what we put up with.
Then, as a means of coping with the situation, we have a rehearsal of all the reasons for passing the amendments in the first place. It is fatuous. Why does it fall to one of the oldest Members of your Lordships' House to pontificate about the modernity which is required of Britain to find its way in the world? We are obsolescent in the way we are going on now. The day will come when we shall be brushed aside and other forces of public administration will take our place. They deserve to do so.
I ask that those who are responsible for the leadership of the House these days should pay attention to some of the historical legacies of past years. Seventy-nine years ago was the origin of what we have today. The preamble to the Parliament Bill said that there would be major reform of the House

923
of Lords but that, in the meantime, it was necessary to do something ad interim; and they did something ad interim in 1911 and it is still ad interim today, according to the statute of 1911. I am indignant, I really am. I am becoming rather tired of being in a House of Parliament which is so behind the times.
Lord Elton: My Lords, the origins of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, were a little more than 79 years ago, but that is no reason why he should be swept aside. I intervene only to put right two misapprehensions, as I see them. First, it was suggested that the amendments put forward by this House are never accepted by another place. I have myself been at the Dispatch Box reporting the acceptance of an amendment from another place. Secondly, many amendments come back to us in another form, either as a compromise honourably worked between the two Chambers—and there is nothing wrong with that—or made to fit better into a scheme which is already in the statute. Again, there is nothing wrong in that procedure.
It is an accepted fact in our constitution that matters of finance are not the business of this House. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, that it is not an insult if the other place tells us so and then does not proceed to argue about the merits of the case expressed in this House, when they are not the business of this place. I do not think that we need a long constitutional debate about the future of the House of Lords, but I hope that I have said enough to show that this is an effective Chamber and that it has not been insulted by another place.
Baroness Faithful: My Lords, as the person privileged to move the amendment in the first place in your Lordships' House, it is natural that I should say that I am sad and disappointed that it has not been accepted by another place. But, having said that, perhaps the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, will remember that many years ago—it may well have been more years ago than we would care to count—when she was in the House of Commons she implanted in me the understanding, and told me in no uncertain terms that we were a democracy and that the House of Commons took precedence over the House of Lords. I do not know whether the noble Baroness can recall the occasion; I think that we were in fact sitting on an island in Malawi at the time. I have always remembered the occasion.
I should prefer to look to the future as regards this amendment. I do not believe that it would be right for your Lordships' House not to accept the reasons put forward by the House of Commons in this matter. I take heart from the fact that many Conservatives voted against the Government in another place. Therefore, as I said, I look to the future hoping that perhaps in the years to come there may be a change of attitude and that we shall have contributed, perhaps, in our way to that change. But, from the point of view of the present time, I support the Government in accepting the House of Commons' reply to the House of Lords' amendment, Sorrowful though I am, I am sure that it would not be right for this House to contest the matter with the other place.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, in case it should be thought that my noble friend Lord Houghton was alone in the views he expressed about this particular matter, I must tell him that he has considerable support. In spite of what the noble Lord, Lord Elton, said in defence of the system, it is a fact that when anything fundamental needs to be decided this House is overruled. Of course, it may be proper that it should be overruled; but, nevertheless, that is the situation.
Here, once again, we have a social measure which has wide support throughout the country and certainly wide support in this House, as an amendment was carried against the Government, and also in another place, where 19 Members of the Government voted against them and in favour of our amendment.
Here once again the House of Lords is being told, "Despite what you say, despite the remarkably good arguments you adduced in support of your amendment, despite the fact that it is a social measure that is supported in that way, and because we believe as the House of Commons, that we have financial privilege, we want you to undo what you did in good faith and after good argument". That does not smack of a responsible Chamber which is held in respect by the Government and another place. That is what we are complaining about.
What on earth is the use of good-hearted people, with a conscience about and a feeling for their country, coming along here day by day to thrash out the Bills that come before us and to give their considered opinion to the Government and to the country if they are to be overruled at a stroke with no reasons properly given?
We have become nothing more than a curiosity, and an expensive curiosity at that. If we are not to be considered seriously, if we are not to have our views taken into account after much argument, much debate and much voting—
4 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, will the noble Lord give way?
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, the noble Baroness has stopped me in mid-flight but I shall certainly give way.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, if the noble Lord's argument is right, why does his party wish to get rid of the House of Lords?
Lord Elwyn-Jones: It does not.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I have said nothing yet about getting rid of the House of Lords; but by accepting this sort of diktat from the House of Commons, the House of Lords is getting rid of itself. That is the point that I am trying to make. If it once becomes obvious to the electorate that it is wasting £,12 million or £15 million a year on this Chamber, they will demand that it be closed and be used merely as a tourist attraction for foreign visitors.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I was one of those who spoke against the amendment when it was in your Lordships' House. Despite, or perhaps because of, my opposition it was duly carried. That does not prevent me from understanding the strong feelings of those who supported it and who feel strongly about the matter when they find that it has come up against the barrier of Commons privilege. It is only human, when one has been keen on a proposal and when one believes, as many noble Lords on both sides do, that it would have been an improvement in our social security system had it been carried into law, to feel strongly about the matter. But we are up against one of the major features of our constitution.
The noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, was, if he will allow me to say so, wrong when he attributed the difficulty to the Parliament Act 1911. In fact if he will consult Erskine May, he will see that long years before the Parliament Act it had been accepted that this House would not insist upon measures which imposed substantial charges on the public. It was largely for, it seems to me, foolish reasons when in 1909 the Opposition tried to challenge that position that the Parliament Act was enacted. It is a mistake to believe that the financial privilege of the Commons is as recent as 1911.
One can understand the basis of that privilege. If your Lordships' House were free to carry amendments which would impose substantial additional charges on the taxpayer, one would in fact compel another place to do what we cannot do and impose adequate taxation to pay for it. If we are not to be concerned directly with taxation, surely it makes nonsense of the whole limitation if we can carry measures, however expensive, which inevitably involve another place having to impose additional taxation.
One or two rather harsh and unfair things have been said about the attitude of another place generally. As my noble friend pointed out, many of your Lordships' amendments, including those imposing some expenditure, have been accepted by another place; equally, others have been varied a little and sent back to us, perhaps somewhat improved as a result of the variation.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will give way. We have heard this argument from the noble Lord, Lord Elton. We are now hearing it again. Will the noble Lord, who has a good memory, outline the matters upon which he is now basing his argument? I cannot recall instances of our amendments being accepted when they involved finance.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, they have accepted so many. I do not propose to weary your Lordships by reciting the work of the past few years. It would be a waste of everyone's time, because the fact that another place has accepted our amendments is surely not an argument against it because in this case it has decided to reject them. It is fully entitled, by long-standing constitutional practice, to reverse our decisions where they involve substantial expenditure. That has been indisputably the position for a great many years. It serves little purpose, and
926
perhaps does not help relations between the two Houses, if we become too excited about it.
I suggest that the dignified thing for the House to do is, where the Commons exercises its undoubted privilege, to accept the decision with dignity and not appear to be too immensely hurt. I would venture to differ from noble Lords and the noble Baroness who said that because of that constitutional position, the House is useless and ineffective. That is not true. Even in these matters we have the right, which we exercised in this case, to ask another place to have a look at the proposal and consider it. That involves accepting, when it has had another look and decided to reject it, that that rejection stands. There is also so much work that does not involve the imposition of charges. I do not want to weary your Lordships with it, but there is the consideration of the mass of legislation with which we have to deal—in the view of some of us, we have to deal with too much legislation. The careful analysis and examination given to it by your Lordships' House is of immense value, as of course are the general debates which your Lordships' House undertakes in respect of major matters; and there is the work of its Select Committees.
It is a mistake, because for a very long time the House has not had the power to impose public expenditure against the wishes of another place, to say that this House is useless or ineffective. The House performs considerable functions, and we do not help their performance by taking too hardly—as I said I understand the feelings—the case where, within its undoubted rights, another place rejects them.
I shall quote again if I may, although I believe that my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal quoted it:
"This hint of privilege is generally accepted by the Lords, and the amendment is not insisted upon".
That is what our Bible, Erskine May, says, and that is the course which I suggest to your Lordships that we should take, with dignity, this afternoon.
Lord Coleraine: My Lords, this is I believe the fifth time that we in Parliament have discussed child benefit this year. One thing that the debates have made clear, especially the debate in the other place last night, is that the question of uprating will not go away. It will certainly not go away while the Government leave unanswered the question of whether child benefit may be uprated to take account of inflation one day. This is the question to which the noble Earl, Lord Russell, referred and which was put to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State by my right honourable and honourable friends in the other place last night.
The other place has spoken. So far as I am concerned I do not propose, any more than my noble friend Lady Faithfull, to look back at the amendment. I shall certainly not do so with the anger to which the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, referred, nor do I propose to associate myself in any way with the sniping at the constitution which has come from the Benches opposite today. I propose to look forward to the uprating review which will be in three or four weeks of this House sitting in Ocotober.

927
I have been puzzled by the last two reviews. As a simple Back-Bencher, I cannot help wondering whether my right honourable friend is receiving the best advice and whether he is directing himself to the questions to which he ought to direct himself when he undertakes what is not a discretion, as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, says, but a duty.
In October 1988 he said in his uprating Statement:
"I have never made any secret of my belief that this benefit is not the most effective use of social security resources."—[Official Report, 27/10/88; Col. 1714.]
The Secretary of State has always correctly described child benefit as a hybrid, combining social security benefits with the tax allowance. He also says—and we have heard this again and again from one source or another—that child benefit is a deduction, pound for pound, from social security means-tested benefits. When the Government tell us that an extra bit on the child benefit will not help those poor people on means-tested benefits, surely what that means is that by the Government's reckoning, child benefit is now little more than a replacement of the child allowance. So why does it have to be treated as having to come from social security resources?
Do not the Government accept that there should be horizontal equity between taxpayers with children and those without? This was a question which my right honourable and honourable friends put last night to the Government and to which there was no reply. I do not for a moment suppose that the Secretary of State is against child benefit. The trouble is that he appears to subscribe to the theory that the child benefit up-rating provisions are nearly meaningless or that if they have any meaning at all, it is merely that so long as someone somewhere is in a state of poverty then the money which would otherwise go to child benefit must go to uprate the means-tested benefits.
That is a theory to which I do not subscribe. In my view it was best expressed in another place during Committee by the late Mr. Penhaligon. On 7th July 1975, during the debate on the Child Benefit Bill, the then Secretary of State, the noble Baroness, Lady Castle, moved the amendment from which the present uprating provision is derived. It has to be said that she did so in order to defuse the united opposition demands that child benefit should be index-linked. Mr. Penhaligon said that he would lead his party into the Lobby against the amendment because importing the paper on which to print the provision in the Act would be a plain waste of money.
The Secretary of State seems to me to share that view. He sees himself trapped in a box with the Treasury outside. What he is saying is quite simply this: that one—and indeed the most important—of the relevant matters which he must consider is that the Treasury will not give him the money with which to uprate child benefit. I must reject that view of the matter. I submit that the Government should not split themselves into two in this way in order to defy the will of Parliament, as expressed in the statute.
My right honourable friend should review the benefit and he should not allow the Treasury to do it for him. The Government should see that the
928
money is available. I await with very keen interest the uprating Statement in October and I accept the amendments of the other place today.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, once or twice over the last 20 years I have agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. I just want to say that I agree with him today.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, was perhaps uncharacteristically less than fair when, at the beginning of her remarks, she referred to the Government's attitude to debates which took place on the Bill. Of course the noble Baroness took a leading part in those debates from the Opposition Front Bench. Before I leave the point I would just say to the House that my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale arranged meetings with noble Lords to discuss issues arising from clauses relating to equal treatment for men and women and the recovery from damages of sums equivalent to benefit. I know that appreciation was expressed of that as the Bill reached its last stages.
Then, in addition, during the passage of the Bill, the Government announced agreement on two matters which were of concern to your Lordships: reviewing the six months' qualifying period for attendance allowances for the terminally ill; and doubling the statutory disregard in housing benefit for war pensioners.
I think that my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter was justified in saying that the House does good work and has been doing good work on this Bill. I would go further and say that in fulfilling our revising role, your Lordships' House obviously has the right to ask another place to think again. My noble friend, Lord Elton, reminded us that we often do so successfully. When I heard that being questioned by some noble Lords on the Opposition Benches, I could only reflect that perhaps noble Lords opposite had not been following the Water Bill quite as carefully as some of us have been over the last months. Many, many amendments were made to it by this House and accepted by another place.
The revising role is an important right. I do not believe that it should be unduly restricted. But that said, I believe that where the other place has given as the Reason for disagreeing that:
"…this Amendment might involve charges on public funds, and the Commons do not offer any further Reason trusting that this Reason may be deemed sufficient",
we should have very much in mind that Erskine May says:
"This hint of privilege is generally accepted by the Lords, and the amendment is not insisted upon".
So I believe that on this occasion that is the sense in which the amendment should be decided. I therefore ask that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 1, for the reason given in Amendment No. 2.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, before the noble Lord resumes his seat, I wonder whether he could clarify one matter which has caused concern to a number of us. Before I come to the point, I wish

929
to make it plain to the House—and I am sure that those in all parts of the House would agree—that we have been meticulous in our observation of the 1911 Act. I am not aware that at any point we have ever sought to breach it. We should not wish to do that today.
Nevertheless there is a feeling on this side that the Government have used the sledge hammer of that Act to smash a matter of high principle. This is causing acute concern. But the basic point on which I would value the noble Lord's comments is the wording, namely:
"Because this Amendment might involve charges on public funds".
There is an ambiguity there which I and others have not observed before. The wording on previous occasions, as I recall, is:
"Because this Amendment would involve charges on public funds".
Before we proceed, I wonder whether the noble Lord the Leader of the House could explain that to us.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, if I may say so to the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition, I do not believe that it would be appropriate for me to attempt to look behind the wording of the Reason. But I am advised that exactly these words about which the noble Lord is questioning me have been used in the past in such a way as to give the "hint of privilege" referred to by Erskine May. There is therefore no question of another place attempting in some way to expand the bounds of financial privilege, if that is the particular concern in the mind of the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn. Equally, however, there can be no doubt that by using those words the other place has invoked its financial privilege in this matter.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, if the noble Lord assures the House that there is ample precedent for this wording, then I must accept what he says. However, I must repeat the point I made previously. There is a good deal of uncertainty on this side of the House about the use of those words on previous occasions.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, that is an uncertainty which I hope I have now dispelled.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
3 Clause 8, page 8, line 42, 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 Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason—
4 Because this amendment might involve charges on public funds, and the Commons do not offer any further reason trusting that this reason may be deemed sufficient.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 3 to
930
which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 4.
Your Lordships will appreciate that much of what I have said on Amendment No. 1 applies equally in this case. Again, another place has elected to exercise its financial privilege in this matter and I do not believe that it would be right for this House to look beyond that, even though I appreciate that your Lordships may wish to debate this matter once more. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 3 to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 4.—(Lord Belstead.)
Lord Carter: My Lords, I entirely understand and accept what the noble Lord the Leader of the House has just said, which is that we are entitled to debate the amendment again, but I shall not do that. I think it will surprise the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, that I intend to agree with him. The noble Lord may well look surprised because I think this will be the first and the last occasion. The noble Lord used the phrase "substantial charges on public funds" a number of times.
I wish to take up a few moments of the time of the House to show why I think that the Government are wrong in assuming that this amendment would have involved substantial charges on public funds. However, in passing, I must say that those of us who supported the amendment and who won the acceptance of the House find this a very sad day for the deaf blind and the severely mentally handicapped. The rejection of the amendment says a great deal about the Government's social policy generally with its combination of a steamroller majority and bogus statistics.
The general argument behind the amendment that the House accepted is the fact that a small group of severely handicapped people—it involves fewer than 8,000 people—should be receiving the mobility allowance but are not getting it. The amendment was well researched and was very carefully worded to ensure that it caught only this very small and carefully defined group. When we' discussed the problem on Second Reading, in Committee and on Report, I and others gave the House the numbers involved. As I have said, the figure was fewer than 8,000. Only on Report did the Government suddenly come up with the figure of 100,000 people who might benefit.
Those of us who supported the amendment gave the history of the attempts of the all-party disablement group and the disability organisations over the years to get the department to deal with this problem. The campaign started in 1981 and the all-party disablement group saw successive Ministers for the Disabled in 1985, 1987, and again this year. Each time there was a different Minister. Each Minister expressed considerable sympathy, but each found a different reason for inaction and delay. Indeed, the departmental ducking, weaving and procrastination over this matter make the Prime Minister's attitude towards joining the EMS look like a mad, headlong gallop.

931
The rejection of this amendment by the Government is based on completely bogus statistics. I shall not attempt to weary the House with statistical detail. However, after the debate on Report last week I was so concerned about the extraordinary figure of 100,000 people that I tried to find out how it had been calculated. It seems that the department has used the OPCS survey of disabilities and the data tapes which provided the raw material for the survey to cobble together a number of groups of disabled people to reach the figure of 100,000. I should make it clear that the OPCS survey of disability does not identify conditions or reveal the numbers of the deaf blind, the severely mentally handicapped, the autistic, the schizophrenic or whatever. It identifies symptoms such as problems of locomotion, behaviour or intellectual functioning based on a series of medical models. It certainly does not identify those who need continuous physical control by another person or, as I have said, the number of deaf blind or severely mentally handicapped people.
The department's figure of 100,000 people has nothing to do with the people affected by this amendment. For a start, the department has made no distinction, as the amendment does, between the mentally handicapped and the mentally ill. The department has added together various symptoms of disability, each of them varying in their severity. The department has made no allowance for episodic disability. Finally, it has had to make a wild guess at the number who, in the words of the department to me over the telephone, need to be accompanied by another person. The need to be accompanied is by no means the same as the need for continuous physical control by another person.
Noble Lords may remember that on Report the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, pointed out that the figure of 100,000 meant that one in 560 of the population would be affected. I agreed with the noble Baroness. However, I wish to apologise to the House as we were both wrong. The allowance is not available to those under five and people cannot apply for it if they are over 65. The departmental figure actually represents one in 444 of the population. According to the department, every 445th person is either deaf blind or so severely mentally handicapped that they need continuous physical control. This does not just defy common sense and insult the intelligence of Parliament, it is also just plain daft.
Noble Lords with a Biblical turn of mind may recall the parable of the wedding feast when the servants were sent out into the highways and byways to make up the numbers for the wedding. In their desperate trawl through the highways and byways of the OPCS study, the officials of the Department of Social Security make the servants in the parable look like new beginners.
Incidentally, there is no argument about the numbers of the deaf blind. I think we all agree that the figure is about 3,000. The figure of 4,400 people with severe mental handicap which was produced by MENCAP and used as the basis for the amendment which we moved and carried, was based on a government survey of the incidence of mental
932
handicap, unlike the OPCS study. That figure has an authority and an accuracy which is completely lacking in the department's figures.
I am aware of and respect the constitutional convention which means that this House does not divide against the rejection of an amendment in another place, if that rejection is based on financial privilege. However, I should say in conclusion that we have a situation where a few thousand —it is a few thousand—of the most severely handicapped people in our society, and those who care for them day and night, have been deprived of about £1,200 a year by the combination of a steamroller majority, bogus statistics and an argument so weak that the Government have had to hide behind financial privilege.
Let us consider the 1 million disabled people who are actually worse off as a result of various recent changes in benefits. Incidentally, the OPCS study showed that people with disabilities are some of the poorest in our society. That figure of 1 million includes the large number of people with disabilities who have received increases in benefits which are less than the rate of inflation, the disabled people in Scotland who have lost their rate rebates and are now having to pay the full amount of the poll tax, and the people with disabilities whose incomes are frozen because of transitional protection; and now there is this mean-spirited attitude towards the mobility allowance. If there is one group in our society which is longing and praying for the return of a Labour government, it is people with disabilities. For them the return of a Labour government cannot come a day too soon.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I wish briefly to associate these Benches with the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Carter. Once again, we accept the power of those who bear sway in another place to do what they have done. They have decided that they cannot help the deaf, the blind and the autistic, and those suffering from Downe's syndrome—in other words, some of the poorest and weakest groups in our society—at a very small cost, because the integrity of public funds will not permit it. I did not know that we were that poor a country and I am very sorry to hear it.
I am reminded of the younger Pitt who spoke in another place in 1799. He said that he would do nothing to relieve the famine for fear of infringing the sacred laws of supply and demand. I am very sorry indeed.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, I wish to follow up what my noble friend and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, have just said. I do not wish to rehearse the arguments. However, if one debates any proposition, one is entitled to a sensible reply as to why it cannot be accepted.
The arrogance of this statement is absolutely incredible. The amendment may involve charges on public funds. The Commons do not offer any further reason against it. If ever there was an argument for having a second Chamber this has to be it. In the small hours of the morning, a few Members of Parliament, dragooned by their Whips, voted on the

933
amendment. There are over 600 Members but on most occasions only 400 vote. Where are the other 200?
The Government probably do not want a warning from me, but if they are going to lose votes—and they are certainly going to lose them on the poll tax, so I do not need to worry on that score—this is the type of issue that will lose them votes.
My argument concerns the arrogance with which the other Chamber confronts this Chamber. We are told that we are entitled to look at and pass a Bill, which has to go through both Houses of Parliament. But if we dare to suggest that one aspect of that Bill could be improved our suggestion is rejected, not because there is anything wrong with the arguments but because it will involve charges on public funds.
I challenge the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, on this issue. I taught history. I do not believe that there are Acts of Parliament which state that this House cannot challenge Bills that involve finance. We have standing orders, and we have the sacrosanct Erskine May, but we do not have a British constitution. That fact is constantly reiterated. We obey the conventions because we are orderly people, but that does not mean that we are obeying a law. What would happen to us if we dared to vote against the other place? Would we immediately be taken to the Tower? What a marvellous argument that would be for the retention of the House of Lords.
We are the last bastion defending the people's rights. This is one issue which shows that the Government do not really care for the people but that they care for money. That is what they feel strongly about—the cost. We are now to be confronted with a situation in which people will be told that they might be able to have an operation or they might not depending on whether it will cost the National Health Service too much. This is another example of that attitude.
I reject that as an answer to our reasoned amendments. I know that we shall not do anything about it, but that will not stop me from making my plea. My God, if we cannot do something for the deaf and the blind what kind of a civilised society do we live in?
4.30 p.m.
Viscount Caldecote: My Lords, we have spent a considerable amount of time discussing the constitutional issues on this point. I believe that there are other issues of equal or perhaps greater importance. I do not believe that we should insist on our amendment.
I have had the privilege of being a Member of your Lordships' House for more than 40 years, albeit a bad attender in the past. From time to time I have heard arguments that we must insist on our opinion and on other occasions there have been critical cries of "Peers against the people". I do not believe that that is the issue today.
I believe that the issue is whether the Government were wise to advise another place to vote in the way that it did. I believe that they were not. First, it is a flagrant case of spoiling the ship of state for a hap'orth of tar. Secondly, it is damaging to the
934
unity of society. My party—to which I am proud to belong—makes the proud claim that it governs in the interests of society as a whole. I do not believe that this decision supports that claim.
I implore my noble friend the Leader of the House to ask his right honourable friends in future, as they consider their response to amendments which we pass in this House in good faith after full debate, seriously to consider the points that I have made taking account of the reputation of the party, and the reputation of the Government as one which governs the whole country as a united nation and in the interests of all sections of society
Baroness Seear: My Lords, am I to understand that the privileged objection is based primarily on finance? Will the noble Lord the Leader of the House examine again the point which has just been made by the noble Lord, Lord Carter? We were told by the Government Front Bench that we were talking about 100,000 people. Plainly the cost of dealing with 100,000 people is very different from the cost of dealing with 8,000. That is surely a matter of fact.
I do not know whether the not le Lord, Lord Carter, is right or wrong, but surely the Government can find out whether he is right or wrong and whether we are talking about 100,000 people or 8,000 people. If the issue turns on finance, the difference between those figures must be very considerable indeed. If it emerges that the decision has been based—quite sincerely and genuinely—on mistaken figures, is it not possible for the Government to think again?
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, in this debate very little has been said about the constitutional position because in the debate on the previous amendment there was general acceptance—whether noble Lords liked it or not—that the Commons was clearly within its rights. Therefore, on this occasion I shall not say anything on that point.
However, I was one of those who was very interested in this matter on its merits. I can well understand why the Government were unwilling to accept the amendment since there seems to be—as the noble Baroness has just said—an extraordinary disparity of view as to the numbers involved and therefore as to the cost involved. It may be that there will have to be further research before that point can be cleared up.
I rise simply to ask my noble friend the Leader of the House whether, assuming that your Lordships accept—as I am sure that we should—the Commons' rejection of our amendment, the Government will look at the issue involved. In particular, will they try to clarify the rather exasperating question as to how many people we are talking about? Would my noble friend also make it clear whether I am right in thinking that if the Government were to decide that a reasonably small number of people was affected—and there is no dispute that they are all tragic cases—it would be possible to proceed by way of regulation to provide some help for them? I appreciate that it may be some time before we have another Social Security Bill. Indeed, the Government's experiences with this Bill may contribute to that delay. However, I have the

935
impression that if the Government wanted to do something about the worst cases in this category it might be possible to proceed by regulation. That would mean that if the Government were convinced that it was possible and they wanted to do it they could do so quite quickly.
I am not sure whether it is fair to ask my noble friend the Leader of the House to say something on that aspect when he winds up the debate. If he could do so he would reassure a great many noble Lords who, like myself, take a totally different view of the merits of this amendment compared with the earlier amendment.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, perhaps I may begin by saying that I am no lawyer but I am quite confident that this could not be done by regulation. We went into that possibility with some care before proposing the rather restricted amendment.
I accept that we cannot quarrel with the decision of the other place taken on the grounds of privilege and that that is something that we must accept with good grace. Perhaps I may also say that I think that some of the speeches have been slightly less than fair to the Government in that the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, made it quite clear that this was something that the Government eventually wanted to achieve and that they accepted that there were merits in what was being proposed. However, I hope that the Government realise that the way in which, in the end, they have treated these two small groups will not do them very much good not only with those concerned and their families, but also with a lot of other people in the country, including many of their own supporters.
I go along entirely with what the noble Lord, Lord Carter, has said about the figures. He has discussed them with me. I remind your Lordships that as regards the mentally handicapped group we are talking about those who are severely mentally handicapped—the criterion which qualifies one for exemption from the poll tax—who in addition have behavioural problems requiring constant supervision. To say that that total comes out at 100,000 is so ludicrous that, if the statement had not come from a government Minister, one would simple have dismissed it as absolutely time-wasting.
The noble Lord, Lord Elton, referred to possible compromises in the handling of amendments made in this House with which another place disagreed. That prompts me to say that even the Minister did not quarrel with the calculation that there might be about 3,000 people who are both deaf and blind who do not at present receive the allowance. Nothing is being done for them either.
I can only say with some regret that I am glad that I am not a member of a party that is content to put off for years—the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, did not deny that it could be years—the possibility of the allowance being paid to, at any rate, that small group of most grievously disabled people.
Lord Renton: My Lords, it is, I think, obvious to all of us that the strength of your Lordships' House lies in its capacity as a revising Chamber and its
936
constitutional power to ask another place to think again. It would seem that our strength as a revising Chamber has, if anything, increased in recent years. But although we have the right to ask Members of another place to think again, I am sure that your Lordships would agree that we cannot ask them to think again and again, however important the matter may be and however wrong we may think they are.
On the Third Reading of the Social Security Bill, I was one of those who, along with 14 of my noble friends, voted for the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Carter. I did so because I thought that the other place—and that means the Government as well—should think again for two main reasons. First, there was such a strong case for the granting of mobility allowance that it should not be delayed too long. I had feared from the speech that I heard from the Front Bench on that occasion that we would be a long, long time awaiting before our dream came true. I should like to hear from my noble friend the Leader of the House, following the suggestion of my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, that—without committing the Government more than he is constitutionally able to do—the matter will be dealt with before long.
My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter said that he did not know whether we would ever have another social security Act. But there has been one in each of the last seven years, just as there has been a regular Finance Bill. In some years there has been more than one. I hope and believe that this could be done quite soon one way or another. I support what the noble Lord, Lord Carter, said, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, whose support of MENCAP we share. I support them in the view that talk of 100,000 is just unreal. It is nowhere near the truth. I hope that we shall hear nothing more of that today.
It would be quite wrong of us to resist the Commons further on this matter of privilege. However, in view of what has been said, I hope that this necessary improvement in our social service arrangements will not be long delayed.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I do not wish to detract from anything that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, said in the latter part of his speech and I hope that the Government Front Bench listened most carefully. However, I wish to pick up something that he said early in his speech; namely, that this House does not have the right to ask the Commons to think again and again.
It may well be that, in matters such as this, where financial privilege is involved, we should not ask the Commons to take them back again. We have the right, but it is not a right that we should exercise. However, on other matters that do not involve financial privilege we have the right to return things again and again to the Commons, and that is not a right that we should lightly set down. It is an important constitutional provision for Parliament in its exercise of scrutiny of the Executive. It is the fact that the Executive imposes its will in this way through a huge whipped majority in the Commons which bears no relation whatsoever to the voting power in this country that is at the root of the matter.

937
People have said that this House has been insulted by the Commons. That is a grave mistake. The people who have been insulted by the Executive are the deaf, the blind and the seriously handicapped.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Auckland: My Lords, there are many Members of your Lordships' House and another place who have worked with the deaf, the blind and the severely handicapped over many years, both on hospital committees, as I have done, and therapeutically. I do not propose to go into the constitutional argument here except to say in fairness that the other place has accepted at least in part, although perhaps not to the extent that many of us would like, a considerable number of amendments from your Lordships' House. I speak with 30 years' of experience in this House.
I believe that we must now accept what the other place has done. However, this is a matter to which the Government should give further thought. As my noble friend Lord Renton, with his enormous experience, has said, there are well over 100,000 people involved here—
Noble Lords: No!
Lord Renton: My Lords, I said that the figure of 100,000 given to us from the Front Bench during the Third Reading debate, is quite unreal and that I hoped we would not hear that figure mentioned again from the Front Bench.
Lord Auckland: My Lords, I apologise to my noble friend and to the House for that Freudian slip.
Many people have been blinded in the service of this country. Many people have become mentally handicapped and deaf in the service of this country. That is an aspect that the Government should consider, whether in regulations or elsewhere. I hope that my noble friend the Leader of the House and my right honourable friend the Minister, who is a very fair minded and caring man, will take those points on board.
Lord Rippon of Hexham: My Lords, I do not want to enter into the constitutional argument, but I should like to endorse entirely what my noble friend Lord Caldecote said about this issue.
I have worked for the Conservative Party all my adult life. I am totally appalled that a party that claims to follow in the traditions of Disraeli, Shaftesbury and Churchill should have committed what I believe to be—whatever the French translation may be—an act of social cruelty. That is the only way in which I can describe the way we treat the blind and the deaf. I have always believed that we should have a minimum standard of life and labour below which no one should be allowed to fall and, after that, competition upwards. We are not providing a minimum standard of life for people who are totally blind and dumb.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I too should like to associate myself with what the noble Lord, Lord
938
Carter, said, particularly as my name was down to the amendment approved by your Lordships, although I was unable to be present at that time due to a long-standing engagement.
Like other noble Lords, I hope that my noble friends on the Front Bench will take a careful and close look at the numbers of people involved. Some noble Lords have talked about people who are blind and some have talked about people who are deaf. The amendment refers to people who are both blind and deaf. If one is blind, one can hear traffic. If one is deaf, one can see traffic. But if one is both blind and deaf, one is in a totally enclosed world and one can only feel traffic. That may be the moment when the motor car hits you. This is why those who had their names to this amendment, as well as myself, feel very strongly that those people should have the mobility allowance so that they can be escorted in the streets. It is also very important for people who cannot control themselves because of mental disabilities and need to be escorted at the same time.
I hope that my noble friends on the Front Bench will take a very careful look at this matter. I hope that the Leader of the House when he comes to reply will be able to give some indication of when they will consider this matter and when they propose to take some action. I have a feeling that this is doing a great deal of damage to the Conservative Party and, no matter what party is in power, to the whole parliamentary system.
There was another point that I wished to raise but I cannot bring it immediately to mind. I shall therefore leave the matter there so that we can move on.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, in the past three-quarters of an hour a good deal has been said about the Government's attitude to the mobility allowance. Before replying very briefly to this debate, perhaps I may say that over the past 10 years expenditure on the mobility allowance has increased to cover not 95,000 people as it covered 10 years ago, but 580,000 people as it does today. The allowance is nearly two and a half times greater than it was 10 years ago and of course it was taken out of taxation in 1982. I believe that all those things are good.
What is difficult for the Government with regard to this amendment—and this is ground that we covered at Report stage when my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale replied and there was a vote—is that there is a disagreement about what statistically would be the effects of the amendment. Indeed, there was the question of the desirability of waiting—and now it will only be a very short tame before it appears—for the OPCS report and in the light of that report to decide on the best way forward for the future.
Many noble Lords, including many of my noble friends, have pressed me today to say a word about the future. In the light of all the interest in this House on this issue I should first say that of course the Government wish to resolve this matter as quickly as possible. However, there is a need to strike a balance between the wish for a speedy resolution, the need to listen carefully to the organisations concerned with disability and the need to arrive at

939
a resolution of this problem which is not at odds with any wider changes needed in disability benefits. This afternoon that is as far as I can go.
I believe that noble Lords, whatever their attitude to the reply from another place, have recognised in this debate that the other place has involved financial privilege. To advance the Government's view on the merits of the amendment would, I think, from me be to suggest to your Lordships that an alternative decision is possible.
As I sought to make clear when I spoke at the beginning of this debate, I do not believe that that is the case. I therefore urge the House not to insist on their Amendment No. 3 for the reason numbered 4.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Local Government and Housing Bill
4.54 p.m.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Arran.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD AYLESTONE in the Chair.]
Clause 4 [Designation and reports of head of paid service]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 72:
Page 6, line 14, leave out ("in his opinion").
The noble Lord said: When I first saw Clause 4 of this Bill I was puzzled to understand why the Government should wish to impose such detailed controls on local authorities vis-à-vis the role of what is now to be called "the head of their paid service" and what has always in the past been called their "chief executive".
I thought it was extraordinary that anyone could think it necessary for a local authority to designate one of its officers as "head of their paid service" and provide him with:
"such staff, accommodation and other resources as are, in his opinion, sufficient to allow his duties … to be performed";
or for anybody to think that it was necessary for the head of a paid service to have the right to report to the authority on the way in which its functions are co-ordinated or:
"the number and grades of staff required … the organisation of the authority's staff; and … the appointment and proper management of the authority's staff'.
I could continue; it is a substantial clause. But it seems to imply a lack of trust between a local authority and its chief executive which I did not expect to find in the mind of the Government and which I have not generally found in the local authority world as I know it.
However, as of last night I know the explanation. Those Members of the Committee who saw the
940
"Panorama" film—and I think rather more Members from the Government Benches than these Benches were available at that time to see the film—will have learnt about what happens in the City of Westminster. According to that film and the hearing which is now being conducted by the district auditor into the affairs of the City of Westminster, the leader of the Westminster City Council, Lady Porter, as I think is well known, for £1 has given away three cemeteries. It is now seeking to buy them back and will have to pay £5.5 million. That is a financial matter with which we may well be concerned in the course of our later considerations of this Bill.
The leader of the council clearly treated her then chief executive, Mr. Rodney Brooke, in a manner which in many ways justifies the Government's concern in bringing forward this amendment. A number of chief officers of the Westminster City Council have testified about the impossibility of working with Lady Porter. Mrs. Patricia Kirwan, a former colleague of mine on the GLC, who was Westminster's housing chairman said that she once saw a senior officer in the council who was upset and not particularly well being bullied by Lady Porter. She said:
"He did dissolve in tears and he was a decent man. He was trying his best. He was trying to explain something which she did not want to hear. I find that very upsetting because the officers are human beings and I don't like treating human beings badly".
A former chief press officer said that it was interesting and sometimes exciting working with Lady Porter but added that she could also be a tyrant and difficult to work for.
"Once you did not remain 'flavour of the month', as we used to say, she could drop you and demoralise you and make your working life very, very difficult".
More to the point, the senior officer who handled the controversial sale of the cemeteries told an internal inquiry:
"I've never had to work in a climate like I worked in here, and I've dealt with some pretty difficult socialist councils. If you put any opposition up, you were either 'not one of them' you were opposed to them politically, or you were 'negative' ".
Lady Porter has put forward the best arguments that I could have thought of for having Clause 4 in the Bill. I have modified my views about large parts of Clause 4 as a result of Lady Porter's activities. It is quite clear that any accusation that such bullying could take place in a Labour council has not been attempted. The Government have not at any stage during which this Bill has been before Parliament attempted to show that any Labour Council has behaved in that way toward its chief officers.
It appeared to be a matter of ideological spite to put forward this clause. We now see that it is a very clever and well timed proposal to restrain the activities of one of their least restrained colleagues who certainly is not only under fire from the media—and many people are—but is under fire in what appear to be well founded complaints to the district auditor.
In the circumstances I wish to concentrate in Amendment No. 72 on only one very specific point in Clause 4, which even with the justification that has now been given for much of the clause seems

941
to go not only too far but very much so. In Clause 4(1)(b) the Bill states that the authority shall,
"provide that officer with such staff, accommodation and other resources as are, in his opinion, sufficient to allow his duties under this section to be performed".
Mr. Rodney Brooke was treated very badly by the Westminster City Council but I do not think that he would ever have claimed that he did not have the staff, accommodation or other resources to perform his functions. What happened was that all his warnings were ignored by the Conservative leader of the council.
It is proposed that a significant part of the expenditure of the council—that is, the expenditure on the staff, accommodation and other resources of the head of the paid service—should be outwith the control of the elected members. It should be the responsibility only of a paid official rather than of the elected members, who have in turn to respond to the electorate.
I wish to suggest to the Committee that, however justified some of the other provisions may be, it is such a consitutional outrage—it is not constitutional because it is all delegated authority anyway—and such a departure from all the principles of responsibility of local authorities to their electors, their fiduciary duty to their electors, as the judges have termed it, that it cannot and ought not to be accepted by this Committee. The fiduciary duty has become a principle of the way in which the courts consider local authority expenditure. The principle would completely collapse if local authorities criticised for breach of fiduciary duty were able to say, "I am sorry, my Lord, I had no opportunity to control the expenditure of my council because the head of my paid service had the responsibility which we, the councillors, could not control to provide himself with such staff, accommodation and other resources as are in his opinion sufficient to allow his duties under this section to be performed".
If the elected councillors are to be responsible to their electorate, and if they are to carry out the task for which they are to be held responsible, they must be responsible for all of the expenditure of their authority. It must not be possible for an appointed paid officer to override the decisions of the finance committee and of the council as to what the expenditure should be. In this clause, with all its virtues on the control of the outrageous behaviour of Conservative authorities, these three words are an excrescence and they ought to be removed. I beg to move.
5 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: When I was very small my elders and betters always told me that I should be very careful about what I watched on television. Last night I was unable to have the benefit or the privilege of observing the "Panorama" programme. Not having seen it, I shall not comment apart from to say that this Bill governs the whole of Great Britain rather than just Westminster.
This amendment would remove the right of the head of the local authority's paid service to claim
942
the resources which he thinks that he needs for his functions under Clause 4 and leave him dependent on what the local authority thinks is sufficient. Let me say at the outset that in the vast majority of cases we can see no reason why there should be any difference in the assessment that a chief executive will make of what he needs and what his local authority thinks he will need. However, in legislating we cannot rule out the possibility that there will be differences of opinion. The Government have taken the view that in this one small area it is necessary to allow the officer's views to prevail.
The purpose of Clause 4 is to strengthen the management within local authorities by making sure that there is a focus—the head of the paid service—for all questions about management, and that proper professional advice is given to the authority about the steps that are necessary to ensure proper management.
I should mention the reason why we have used the term "head of the authority's paid service" rather than say, "chief executive". Most local authorities have a chief executive or chief executive officer. However, some have not chosen to use such a title. Basildon District Council, for example, has a town manager, while Harlow District Council has a general manager. We do not want to overrule such local usages. We therefore chose a term which, while clearly descriptive of the position, did not pre-empt the actual title of the post.
To achieve the purpose of strengthening the management, to which I have referred, Clause 4 therefore imposes a duty directly on the chief executive. If we impose a duty on an officer directly, then we have to take steps to ensure that he has the wherewithal to carry out that duty. We have therefore given him the right to claim such resources as he thinks are necessary. I should emphasise that this claim is only for his duties under Clause 4—reporting on management arrangements. The right does not extend to any other duties he may have as chief executive.
This follows the pattern set last year in the Local Government Finance Act 1988, when the chief finance officer was given a similar claim for the resources that he needs for preparing any reports under Section 114: his duty to call the council's attention to any unlawful expenditure or any budget deficit.
This in turn follows a pattern set elsewhere when officers have directly been given duties. For example, if a superintendent registrar is not provided with a suitable register office, he can hire one at the local authority's expense, because he personally is responsible for providing the service. The same principle has been followed in Clause 5 in relation to the monitoring officer in respect of his duties.
We do not expect that local authorities are likely to have a different opinion to their chief executives about what is needed. But if there is a difference of opinion, it is important that the views of the council's professional adviser on the management of that authority should be presented to the authority and that the resources for this to be done should be forthcoming.

943
It is for this reason that we resist the amendment of the noble Lord.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: The Minister begins by saying that we can dismiss or forget what happens at Westminster City Council, and that those of us who did not see the "Panorama" programme last night or read about the matter in every newspaper this morning can forget that it happened. In discussing local government and political interference or political judgments, how on earth can we forget such lessons? There is no doubt that Members opposite believe that they are on a winner when they talk of political interference. They talk of political interference from the Left. Yet we have the very good illustration that will run and run not only of how Westminster City Council has been so very badly interfered with politically but also of many others.
The Minister chooses to forget such lessons. I can assure him that on this side of the Chamber we shall not. We shall come back to the matter time and again. It is a good example of the disreputable way in which local government has been brought into disrepute.
Will the Minister take on board this aspect of what he has said? He believes that on very rare occasions there will be a dispute between the members and the chief officer as to the extent to which the chief officer requires resources. This clause provides that, when the chief officer does not get his way, when there is no agreement with the elected members, he has the right in limited circumstances to incur expense over the heads of the elected members. Who is responsible to the electorate for that expenditure? Who will have to stand up and justify that expenditure from election time to election time? Who will have to justify the community charge? Who will have to explain that this expenditure is preferable to other expenditure, for instance, on old people's homes, the disabled, the blind or the crippled? Can the Minister say how the Government will help a council which believes that the expenditure should not be incurred but is overruled. In future will there be a special element in what we know as the "rate support grant"? I believe that my noble friend Lord McIntosh fairly understood the genesis of the clause and gave good illustrations. However, many questions need to be answered.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Noble Lords opposite have made a perfectly legitimate political point about a programme shown on television last night which I did not see. However, I believe that they are arguing against themselves. The subsection protects a chief officer being disregarded, maltreated and not trusted by his authority. If the chief officer cannot have what in his opinion is essential to do his professional job according to the law he would be in trouble. He would be in a difficult position.
I have never been in that situation but I can picture circumstances in which councillors tried to get at the chief officer by failing to provide him with the resources he legitimately required. The Government appear to be justified in saying that he should have the resources which, in his opinion, are correct. It is
944
the only circumstance in which I can envisage it being correct. It would be a pity to remove the provision particularly in the light of the evidence that noble Lords have cited. They appear to be arguing against themselves. That was unconvincing; we should not support the amendment.
Lord Sefton of Garston: I am rather mystified although I admit that I did not read the clause before I entered the Chamber. I have had experience in local government because for five years I was the leader of Merseyside County Council; I was also chairman and leader of Liverpool City Council. We had a policy of always establishing a close liaison between the officers and the membership in those bodies.
I understand that the clause refers to the head of the paid service of a local authority. In Liverpool we never had one head. On the recommendation of a so-called expert management consultant we had complete autonomy in certain departments. Therefore, there was more than one head. I understand that even today plenty of councils like to operate that way. Who will decide the expenditure for the resources necessary for those officers to do their job?
I had an unpleasant experience when I was in Liverpool. The chief officer and the chief housing officer whom we placed in two separate compartments did not get on too well. Ultimately the elected members had to decide the differences between them. That, I believe, is the only way it can be done. However, the clause puts the matter firmly in the hands of one officer: I do not believe that to be practicable.
I am interested to note the number of people who did not see the programme last night. Evidently they have not read today's serious newspapers because they contain good résumés of a serious issue. Leaving that aside, what does the Minister mean by the head officer of the "paid service"? How will that officer decide the following issues? First, where a local authority has appointed two separate officers to look after their own area, who will take the decision? Secondly, who will decide resources to be made available to officers and members in one building and operated through one administration? This appears to be a recipe for complete chaos between the elected members and paid employees.
Lord Hesketh: The noble Lord will see that Clause 4(1)(a) provides that it is the duty of every local authority,
"to designate one of their officers as the head of their paid service"—
Lord Sefton of Garston: Will the Minister give way? Does that mean that the Bill is intended to order local authorities to organise their administration as the Government want?
Lord Hesketh: No, but obviously it is more sensible to have one person in charge than a number. The noble Lord, Lord Graham, asked how the councillors will justify the expenditure. We anticipate such expenditure to be a rare occurrence

945
but the behaviour of the councillors will have brought about the circumstances in which the officer must exercise the powers that he has been given. It is for their behaviour that they will have to answer.
Lord Sefton of Garston: The Minister did not reply to the other point that I raised. However, it is now clear that the Government intend to tell local authorities how to organise their affairs. One of the reasons Liverpool organised its affairs in the way I described was to reduce conflict between chief officers and members and chief officers. If the Government intend to tell a council such as Liverpool, "No, you must now designate one head", they really are heading for trouble.
Lord Hesketh: We are not in any way trying to tell local authorities how they should be run. We are merely trying to provide the tools to improve the management.
5.15 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The Minister could have fooled me. My noble friend Lord Sefton does less than justice to the Government, and the motivation behind Clause 4. After all, he comes from well-run authorities such as Liverpool and Merseyside where there would be no justification for the kind of detailed intervention proposed in Clause 4.
Clearly, the Government are concerned about the kind of abuse to which I referred and the issue goes much further. Westminster City Council—and it was only legal opinions obtained by the BBC and not opinions obtained by the council—proposed a homes sales policy which, according to the chairman of the Housing Committee, was deliberately intended to increase the Conservative vote in marginal wards. It was a deliberate attempt to gerrymander the electorate of Westminster in order to suit the Conservative Party. How will this clause and the Bill remedy that abuse?
The leader of Westminster City Council commissioned a pamphlet of profiles designed to discredit the Westminster Labour Party. In a paper called Keeping Westminster Conservative Lady Porter suggested employing five activists to work in the eight marginal wards and find out the background of Labour candidates so that skeletons in the cupboard could be exposed. How will this clause and the Bill remedy those abuses?
I suggest that the Government have been blindfolded and have so much tunnel vision. They have an impression of wicked Left wing councils behaving in a wicked way towards their electors and officers. Therefore they are missing the abuses which take place in a local part of local government—the part of local government in which we are now standing. If the Minister is to defend this part of the Bill, as well as this clause and the provision he must show what will be done to stop Lady Porter and others from behaving in such a way. It is unacceptable that such events should continue and that interference should be based on politically-
946
motivated grounds rather than de fence of the ratepayers.
The noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, appears to have misunderstood the purpose of our amendment. I return to the issue. It is simple and concerns only the provision of staff accommodation and other resources. We say that even in the worst-run local authority in the country—that is Westminster City Council in whose area we are now standing—it was never a complaint of Mr. Rodney Brooke, the chief executive forced out and given a large golden handshake, that he was not given the staff, resources or accommodation. That was not the complaint. This clause would not deal with his problems. The complaint was that his warnings were ignored and that the council, and particularly the leader of the council, did nothing to protect the ratepayers from blatant gerrymandering and political manipulation of the powers of the council.
If the Minister were to tell us that the Government have positive plans to deal with those abuses, we might be more sympathetic. However, at present this provision in Clause 4 is irrelevant to the problem which faces the worst-run councils of this country and it is in conflict with the more fundamental principle of accountability of councillors to their ratepayers for their expenditure. It is on that basis that I believe it is necessary to seek the opinion of the Committee on the amendment.
5.21 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 72) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 78; Not-Contents, 121.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Grey, E.

Airedale, L.

Hampton, L.

Amherst, E.

Hanworth, V.

Attlee, E.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Aylestone, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Birk, B.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Blackstone, B.

Jeger, B.

Blease, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Bottomley, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Lawrence, L

Leatherland, L.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Listowel, E.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Longford, E.

David, B.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Macaulay of Bragar, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Ennals, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Mountevans, L.

Falkender, B.

Mulley, L.

Falkland, V.

Nathan, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Peston, L.

Gallacher, L.

Phillips, B.

Galpern, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L [Teller.]

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Gregson, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

947

Rea, L.

Stedman, B.

Ross of Newport, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Rugby, L.

Tordoff, L.

Russell, E.

Turner of Camden, B.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Underhill, L.

Serota, B.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Shackleton, L.

White, B.

Stallard, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Layton, L.

Aldington, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Alexander of Weedon, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Long, V.

Arran, E.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Auckland, L.

Luke, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Lyell, L.

Belstead, L.

McAlpine of West Green, L

Blatch, B.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Blyth, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Borthwick, L.

Margadale, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Marley, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Merrivale, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Mersey, V.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Butterworth, L.

Munster, E.

Caithness, E.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Caldecote, V.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Nelson, E.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Nelson of Stafford, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Newall, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Cowley, E.

Orkney, E.

Craigavon, V.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Pender, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Platt of Writtle, B.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Quinton, L.

Donegall, M.

Rankeillour, L.

Dundee, E.

Renton, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Renwick, L.

Elibank, L.

Rochdale, V.

Elles, B.

Romney, E.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Elton, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Ferrers, E.

Seebohm, L.

Fisher, L.

Shannon, E.

Forbes, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Fortescue, E.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Strange, B.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Strathclyde, L.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Suffield, L.

Greenway, L.

Swinfen, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Teviot, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Henley, L.

Torphichen, L.

Hesketh, L.

Trafford, L.

Hives, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Trumpington, B.

Hood, V.

Ullswater, V.

Hooper, B.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Waldegrave, E.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Weir, V.

Joseph, L.

Westbury, L.

Killearn, L.

Wise, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Wolfson, L.

Kitchener, E.

Young, B.

Lauderdale, E.

Young of Graffham, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.28 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick moved Amendment No. 73:
Page 6, line 22, at end insert—
("(aa) the quality of the authority's services and their appropriateness in relation to the needs of the area concerned").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment is to broaden the role of the head of paid service to enable him or her to report on the quality of the authority's services.
In setting out the specific areas on which the head of service can report, the Bill makes a glaring omission. It makes no provision for assessment of the quality of services provided, the end product of local authority administration and the benefits which local people receive. The post holder addresses himself or herself to the mechanics of service provision, co-ordination of functions and the levels, grades and organisation of staff.
However, the result of all that co-ordination—namely, local services for local people—does not enter into the equation. For example, how can the head of paid service look at the numbers and grades of staff required by the authority for the discharge of those functions and yet not look at the quality of those functions? Most local authorities have indicated that the duties of this post would fall to their chief executive or his equivalent, who is sometimes known as the town clerk. The White Paper says that this function would almost certainly fall to the chief executive if there was one. How can the quality of service delivery be divorced from management co-ordination? If, as Ministers tell us, the Government are genuinely concerned about the effectiveness and efficiency of local government, they should accept this amendment which links resources with results.
Assessment of service quality is particularly important when services are increasingly being provided out of house due to government legislation imposing compulsory competitive tendering. The Government's maxim of "private sector, good; public service, bad" is not always borne out, as the experience of Wandsworth ratepayers and taxpayers demonstrates. Wandsworth, in the forefront of privatising services, sacked the ARA catering because the quality of private sector service to old people's homes was so low.
Surely, the head of the paid service who is reponsible for co-ordinating the discharge of the authority's functions and the agreed staffing levels in house, needs to look at the services being delivered.
There may be reasons why the Government are not worried about the quality of services provided. Perhaps Ministers have been reading a survey which was published in the March edition of Which? Scotland was excluded because of the imminent introduction of poll tax. The survey showed that 78 per cent. of the people interviewed were satisfied with local authority services generally; 75 per cent. were satisfied with the services given by their local council on the most recent occasions; 82 per cent. were satisfied with social services such as home helps and social workers; and 90 per cent. were satisfied with education services. Only 18 per cent. of people interviewed thought that central government would offer better value for money in providing services currently run by local authorities.
However, local authorities are not content to rest on their laurels. They want to ensure that services are reaching the people who need them and that the

949
quality of service meets public needs. The elected member needs to know the practical effects of policy decisions as they affect service delivery. After all, the elected members can be voted out of office and are accountable to their community.
The Bill requires the head of paid service to report, as appropriate, under the structure of the local authority. There should also be a requirement to report, as necessary, on the services which that structure has been put in place to achieve. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: This amendment would add a new item to the list of matters on which the head of the paid service is under a duty to report to the council where he considers it appropriate; that is, on the quality of the local authority's services and their appropriateness in relation to the needs of the area concerned.
In order to explain why we think it inappropriate to add this new requirement, I must take the Committee back to the underlying purpose of Clause 4. It has long been recognised that there is a problem in managing a local authority in that it is an organisation with a wide remit, covering many services, with many different interest groups to serve and many conflicting priorities. This problem is, if anything, made more difficult by the tradition of very strong functional departments which have sometimes almost become warring principalities for the committee chairmen or chief officers concerned. This point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Sefton, during discussion on an earlier amendment.
There has been a concern for many years to strengthen the overall management of local authorities. The Bains Report, which led to the emergence of the policy and resources committees and the posts of chief executives was one aspect of this.
After the 1974 reorganisation, nearly all local authorities appointed chief executives. More recently, however, there has been a drift away from this emphasis on central management leadership. A number of local authorities have given up the post of chief executive. We think that it is timely to re-emphasise the need for central leadership and to take an overall look at the way in which the authority organises itself. Our proposals in this field were almost simultaneous with the Audit Commission report on the role of the chief executive, and obviously many people compared them. The most noticeable difference was the emphasis which the Audit Commission placed on the role of the chief executive in carrying out a performance review, which does not feature in Clause 4.
It is therefore not surprising to find that the noble Lord is proposing that one of the duties of the head of the paid service—indeed, the first duty—is to carry out a review which might well be described as a policy review. The reason that we decided not to include such a review is apparent from the words that the noble Lord has had to use to describe his proposed new duty:
"The quality of the authority's services and their appropriateness to the needs of the area concerned".
950
This is set out in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey. I emphasise the words, "and their appropriateness to the area concerned." I have no doubt that any good local authority will want to ensure that such a review is carried out. But, in our opinion, it is for the elected members to decide what the needs of their area are, and what services are appropriate to them. Without, therefore, the willing co-operation of the members in a review of the kind proposed by the noble Lord, we doubt that the exercise would be worthwhile. We cannot legislate for that willing co-operation.
All that we can sensibly legislate for is the nuts and bolts of administration that are covered by the duties imposed by Clause 4. These are the details that any official leading an organisation should be expected to bring to the attention of the governing body as appropriate, and that the governing body should consider. The reason, therefore, that we have made no provision for a performance review of the kind advocated by the noble Lord is that it needs the willing interest and co-operation of the elected members. Only when they take up these questions will the authority properly address the purposes for which it is there. Only when they take an interest in the questions of what services are appropriate in their area—and I am sure that they will—and define standards to be achieved, can a proper review of this kind be carried out.
Our clause has no such high aspirations: it is aimed at the day-to-day details of the operation which are sometimes overlooked. We would in no way want to stop an authority commissioning the kind of review described. Indeed, we would want to encourage them to do so. But we do not think that we can do it by legislation, rather by example. For those reasons we resist the amendment.
Lord Dean of Beswick: I am sorry to hear the tenor of the Minister's reply because I think that the Government have got this completely wrong. It is nonsense to say that a chief officer, charged with a specific duty of being in charge of a particular service or area, can only report on the dimension of a problem and how to deal with it when requested by the local authority.
In my days on the Manchester City Council the five leading officers in all large authorities were known as the big five. I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, will concur with me on that point. They were the town clerk, the medical officer of health, the city engineer, the city architect and the chief public health inspector. Strangely enough that officer had wide statutory powers that could be invoked without reference to his political masters.
These officers had certain statutory duties which were not merely related to working for the council but were conferred on them as officers of a local authority. They could report direct to the council without the permission of the chairman of the committees because a statutory duty was vested in them historically by Royal seals and the granting of a Royal charter. I have to say that they did so quite fearlessly.
In Manchester we asked the medical officer of health just after the war to conduct a total survey of

951
the houses in Manchester. He asked how total we wanted it to be. He said, "It is going to be pretty disastrous if I report as I ought to do, and it is going to take a tremendous amount of time and money". Nevertheless, we said, "Get on with it". He wanted to do that in any case and he came up with a result similar to that in Birmingham and other big cities—namely, that there were about 100,000 slum houses that ought to be got rid of.
I make another comparison. The Government say that a chief officer—that is who we are talking about—can only act with the cognisance of his political masters. However, in Manchester from 1960 onwards we decided to organise a direct works department to do our building. We think that we did it particularly well, to the point where we had over 4,000 people working in that department building houses, schools and carrying out maintenance in the way that the other big cities were doing.
In 1967—a particularly bad year in local government for the Labour Party—we lost control of Manchester overnight. The first action taken by the Conservative controlled group was to ask the city treasurer, who was one of the big five, to report on the direct labour department's performance in Manchester.
It took the city treasurer some time. He was a very distinguished man in local government and within his national organisation. His report overwhelmingly found that, on balance, the direct works department in Manchester had performed well on behalf of the ratepayers. However, when he delivered his report to the city council the first charge made to him was from one of the leading members of the Conservative group—a former Lord Mayor who eventually had to leave Manchester under rather dubious circumstances. He accused this officer of great distinction and integrity of making a political report, because it was not the report that the Conservative group wanted. Shortly afterwards that officer and some other officers left the council.
I am not at all satisfied with what the Minister said. He needs to convince me that the Government have it right in this instance. One aspect that is apparent in far too many local authorities—and I think my noble friend and colleague Lord McIntosh indicated this—is that political masters can behave in very peculiar ways, such as the present leader of Westminster City Council is doing. I do not suggest that it is all on one side because there are similar cases across the board.
With my long experience in local government I would always want to see senior officers with a great deal of independence and able to speak as individuals and as professionals of character who have the right training, without always having to genuflect and bend the knee to their political masters before they can make public statements on the need for services, the level of services and their cost. They have a public duty to do so. It is then up to their political masters to decide on whether or not to act.
It is regrettable that the Minister's arguments adduced so far have not convinced me that the Government have got this right. If the Minister
952
wants to say something more on the issue I should be glad to hear from him.
Lord Hesketh: I was not for one moment expecting to convince the noble Lord. However, I believe we have reached the interesting position where on the previous amendment a great deal of discussion took place concerning the rights of elected members of an authority but the moment the Government propose to provide rights for an elected authority to make decisions it is immediately considered unacceptable.
Lord Dean of Beswick: Perhaps I may deal with this point. I am not arguing the case that the officer should make the decision. The officer has no right at all to make the decision. What an officer should do, and is charged with doing otherwise he should not be in post, is to tell his political masters about the situation and how to deal with it or how not to deal with it. It is for the political masters to make the decision. The Minister should not confuse the two issues. I am saying that the officers should be fearless and independent in reporting, but the decision on what to do about a report is obviously taken by the political masters. It cannot be taken by anyone else.
5.45 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: The noble Lord was right in one respect. He said that this was not necessarily a matter of public services being bad or public services being good. I could not agree more with that. I believe that we have some very fine local authorities who, managerially and in every other sense, are serving their local communities extremely well. Equally, there are some fairly awful private companies with poor management and poor delivery of service. I suppose that the difference is that if a public company is poor it usually finds itself going out of business. Sadly, if local government management is poor the ratepayers—or community charge payers next year—pick up the bill and the authority continues to exist. The tab is always picked up and that is the difference.
One of the real difficulties about public authorities in terms of management is the distinction between the role of the members of the body that should determine policies and strategy and the officers who get on with the operation and implementation of those policies. So often within local authorities that distinction is blurred because too many local authority members involve themselves in the operational day-to-day management of the authority.
There is nothing in this clause, as I read it, that precludes members from their primary function; that is, to determine policy. Local authority members quite rightly must do that. There is also nothing to preclude local authority members from having an obligation to hold a view about the quality of services. I believe it is possible for local authority members to determine how they are to measure output—something which we are not particularly good at in local government but which increasingly is being done and has to be done.

953
There is one point on which I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Sefton. He said earlier that it is not necessary to have one person running an authority and that there can be lots of chiefs. I believe that that has been a great failing in local authorities. There has to be somebody nominally in control of the authority—a head of management. That person should be co-ordinating and organising the authority to ensure effective implementation of the policies of the members of the authority. Quality of service, therefore, must be the preoccupation of the officers. The quality of service and the organisation of the authority must be his responsibility. The performance of the people who work within the authority is also a function of the chief officer, or chief executive, whatever one may call him. Therefore, it is a matter of separating the determination of policy and the function of operational management. Most of what I read in Clause 4 concerns the most effective delivery of services. Underlining all of that is making sure that it happens in a way that does not compromise an officer.
I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Sefton, is not present. I can remember being privy to a discussion on Widdicombe and the functions of local authorities. A leading member of an authority said that she was not interested in what was legal and constitutional and what was not legal and constitutional. If the members determined on action then it was the officer's job to carry that out. What we now have in the Bill is a framework where no local authority member can compromise a professional officer in that way. I see this as a protection clause for the officers and for the members. It gives a framework which separates the distinct functions for the better efficiency and provision of services.
Lord Ross of Newport: I agree with everything said by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, and I therefore do not understand why she does not want to add this provision to the clause.
I wanted to intervene earlier because I think the amendment would prevent the terrible political in-fighting that occurs when certain statistics are published. My former constituency contains a large number of elderly people and was always being attacked for not having enough home helps. In fact we had a whole range of services—tucking in services—which were highly satisfactory. The great difficulty was to convince political opponents that the social services within the Isle of Wight were run rather well; by a very good Geordie from Sunderland, as it happens. I believe he is still running them extremely well. However, it would be helpful if the chief executive was obliged to make annual reports on the quality of services and the needs of the various areas concerned because areas vary considerably.
I go very much along the same path as the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. This is a good clause and it strengthens the arm of the chief executive. It is right that it should do so. In a well run authority that is his position, as there are always a few renegades who will challenge his considered opinions, but they are
954
nearly always wrong and it is up to the other members to make sure that they are kept in line.
I still believe that in due course we shall have to reorganise local government so that chief executives are elected by the public. I am in favour of a directly elected mayoral system. I think that that will have to happen so that at the end of the day somebody at the top of the tree is responsible, can take back the can and get the policy through. The public can decide to sack him after his term is up or re-elect him. If T. Dan Smith had been elected it might have been a much better story in Newcastle. I cannot say that this is party policy, but I have been trying to sell it to my party for some time. Everything that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, said points in that direction.
Lord Underhill: I follow briefly the noble Lord, Lord Ross and the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. I ask the Minister to consider the four points on which the officer has to report. The first is:
"the manner in which the discharge by the authority of their different functions is co-ordinated".
How can he do that unless he knows what the quality of the services are and the needs which have been laid down? The second is:
"the number and grades of staff required by the authority for the discharge of their functions".
The same point arises, as it does with:
"the organisation of the authority's staff".
And the fourth:
"the appointment and proper management of the authority's staff".
How can he report on those unless he can look at the quality of the services in relation to the needs? As my noble friend pointed out when he introduced the amendment, no power is being taken away from the elected authorities. The Minister should read subsection (5):
"It shall be the duty of a relevant authority to consider any report under this … head".
Therefore it still rests with the relevant authority to consider the report. The problem with many of these debates is that the Minister has a brief to reject, irrespective of the common sense of our arguments, and that is his answer. I ask the Minister to consider these four points carefully in relation to the amendment which my noble friend has moved.
Lord Hesketh:In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, the officer in question should, if he is competent, already be aware of the facts concerning those four points in subsection (3). The difficulty is a straight difference of opinion concerning whether this should appear in the Bill, as the noble Lord, Lord Dean, feels, or whether such a review should be commissioned or requested by the elected members, which is the Government's view. It is a straightforward difference of opinion and I fear that it will not be resolved this afternoon.
Lord Dean of Beswick: I hope the Committee will allow me to give two quick examples of what I am talking about. I am thinking about the halcyon days of local government when local government was highly regarded in this country. The medical officer of health of Manchester used to publish an annual

955
report. It was not issued by the Labour group or the Conservative group, but it was his own report as the officer with the statutory duty to protect the general health of the City of Manchester. In those reports sadly he always had to say—I think it is still true—that Manchester had a far higher number of deaths from heart attack, still-born babies and deaths before the age of 12 months than the national average. Someone in Manchester then had to decide what resources could be made available to deal with the situation based on the health officer's report, which was produced without pressure from anybody else and based on his total professional expertise.
I can illustrate the difference between the officer making the decision and the local authority making the decision in this way. Manchester, which is a small city in terms of area, needed very quickly some additional sites to continue a building programme of 3,000 housing units a year. The city is only about a seventh the area of Leeds for example. The town clerk and his team of officers produced a report for the elected members concerned which showed that by 1967 Manchester would be in surplus for housing. He advised the then leader of the council, Sir Robert Thomas, that Manchester ought to stop building. That was the advice given by the town clerk as the chief executive officer of the city.
I remember my predecessor telling the town clerk that that was not the policy of the council. The town clerk had indicated what should be done but council policy was to keep building traditional style houses to get rid of walk-up flats. The town clerk had forgotten the walk-up flats in his equation. I shall never forget the town clerk saying that he had offered the best advice that he could, but that if he had to search for extra sites, at least he had put his views on record despite the fact that the elected members wished to go on. However, he accepted his place as the servant of the elected members. I hope the Minister understands the difference between what I am talking about and what is in the Bill. He obviously will not shift on this. We shall have to come back to it and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Blatch: Before the noble Lord withdraws his amendment can he show me the words in the clause that prevent the chief executive, the chief officer or any officer of the council giving advice to a member or members and the members being allowed to hear the advice but not heed it? There is nothing in the clause that prevents that from happening.
Lord Dean of Beswick: A short time ago I raised questions in your Lordships' House relating to the departure of the chief executive from the City of Westminster and the golden handshake he was to receive when he left. It was apparently over 1.5 million. He was under instruction that the deal would be carried out only on the basis that he would make no public statement about why he was leaving. That is the kind of thing that ought to eliminated, not what I have been talking about.
Baroness Blatch: I still do not see what there is in this clause that prevents that from happening.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: Before my noble friend answers again, we are in a different ball game, since the Government have been asking for compulsory competitive tenders. That means that the chief officer, whoever he is, has the greatest difficulty in seeing that tenders are being carried out to the specifications, once they have been accepted. Nobody is travelling around to see if the lawns have been cut every week, as should have been done according to the tender. That is an important aspect, as the Government have insisted on compulsory tendering. Somebody from the local authority must see that the money is being well spent, otherwise the elected local members can be accused of wasting ratepayers' money when it might not be their fault because the tender has gone out. For example, there is the recent example of the tender across the road in St. James' Park where, the deckchair tender having been given out, now with all the hot sunny weather only one-third of the deckchairs are available because the man who was given the tender has disappeared. How does the chief executive know that the people who have the tender are still doing the work? That is another problem to be solved.
My other point is that many local authorities are trying to co-ordinate their services in a given area. In an inner city area it is no good trying to provide better child care facilities if housing conditions, health provision and schools are not being taken together overall. The chief executive needs to have before him the opinions of the council to ensure that what it needs is a complete co-ordination of the services in the area. Local elected members have to ensure that the chief executive is monitoring these services.
Lord Dean of Beswick: I have little further to say. In one authority 11 officers left because, as professionals, they bitterly objected to their political masters overriding all their advice and treating them like office boys.
I have nothing further to add. We shall have to come back to this matter at a later stage. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4 agreed to.
6 p.m.
Clause 5 [Designation and reports of monitoring officer]:
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick moved Amendment No. 74:
Page 7, line 30, after second ("to") insert ("the Chairman of the authority and the Chairman of any committee of the authority which he considers to be concerned, and it shall be the duty of the Chairman of any such Committee so far as practicable to take steps within 21 days of receipt of the report to correct any defect and prevent its reassurance.
(4A) Where in the opinion of the head of the paid service no such action as is referred to in subsection (4) above is taken, or it is inadequate, he shall arrange for a copy of his report to be sent to").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment is to inject a little common sense and practicality into Clause 5. It attempts to provide a cooling off period of 21 days before a monitoring

957
officer has formally to report to the authority under the provisions of the clause. During that time he or she can offer advice to the authority, committee, sub-committee or officer. The authority, committee, sub-committee or officer then has 21 days to comply with that advice.
Subsection (2) sets out the duties of the monitoring officer in relation to what he or she has to monitor. It is worth analysing the subsection. The officer has to watch for,
"any proposal, decision or omission by the authority, by any committee, sub-committee or officer of the authority or by any joint committee on which the authority are represented".
I shall give an example. In Greater Manchester, 10 monitoring officers—one from each of Greater Manchester's constituent districts—would have to monitor the Greater Manchester Fire Brigade and Civil Defence Authority, the Greater Manchester Police Authority and the Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Authority. There would perhaps be a little duplication. They would have to monitor these in respect of any contravention of law or code of practice, which in law might be only a code of practice to which regard must be had, and anything leading to maladministration or injustice.
The breadth of issues covered by these criteria is staggering. The number of times in a large authority that deeds are done, decisions are taken or proposals are made which could come within the remit of the clause must run into thousands. Ministers must have an idea of the scale of monitoring operation implied by the clause. Every time such a transgression comes to the notice of a monitoring officer, he or she must prepare a report to the authority. In most cases the authority means the full council, which may meet only every four or six weeks. This amendment recognises that transgressions or potential transgressions are better dealt with quickly and by giving the transgressor or potential transgressor a chance to reconsider his actions or proposals.
Similar arrangements exist with the local ombudsman by which wrongs can be righted before the ombudsman's powers are fully involved. I cannot see why that arrangement cannot be built into this provision. I am sure that everyone would benefit from it. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: As this is the first time I have ventured to intervene in discussions on this Bill, perhaps I may say how surprised I am that Parts I and II contain so much purely administrative direction to local authorities. That is especially true of Clauses 4 and 5. With all the experience that local authorities have gained over the years I should have thought that it was unnecessary for Parliament to take up its time with so much purely administrative detail. I have looked through the later parts of the Bill to see where enforcement of these provisions is set out. I cannot find it. Perhaps we can be told how these provisions will be enforced.
The amendment will increase unnecessarily the amount of purely administrative instruction, direction, persuasion and advice—call it what you will. In a well run body—whether central or local government, a business organisation, a quango or a
958
nationalised industry—those things ought to take place in the normal course of dealing; between the officers of an authority and the elected members and between the elected members themselves. For the chairman of the authority to be given this further instruction—as to, for example, copies to be sent internally—does not seem to be a matter with which we should be concerned.
The fifth line of the amendment reads:
"the report to correct any defect and prevent its reassurance".
In that context, what can "reassurance" mean? It puzzles me.
Baroness David: Surely the word should be "recurrence". There is a mistake in the amendment.
Lord Hesketh: My noble friend Lord Renton has spotted an obvious flaw in the amendment, and the noble Baroness, Lady David, has discovered the cure. The Committee will agree that what she says makes sense.
The aim of the amendment is to require the monitoring officer to report to the committee chairman rather than the council. If what is wrong is an illegality or an impropriety it would be for the council to consider it. I do not believe that there will be as many cases as the noble Lord suggested. The monitoring officer will first try to set the matter right unofficially and will report only if he cannot solve the matter unofficially. However, we oppose the amendment because it operates on a completely different basis from the intentions of the clause.
I would also criticise it on some matters of detail. Chairmen of committees obviously guide their committees in their work, but they cannot on their own have any function to take action. The High Court has made it clear that the power to delegate functions which all local authorities enjoy does not extend to giving individual elected members a power of decision on behalf of the local authority. Although the Widdicombe Committee recommended the legitimisation of the powers of chairmen to take action in an emergency, the Government believed that other devices were workable which were consistent with the fundamental rule that members do not act on their own. The amendment comes near to breaching that fundamental rule.
Secondly, we do not think that it is appropriate, even if one accepts the idea that the chairman should on his own take action, for an officer to be put in the position of deciding whether to appeal over the head of a councillor to the full council about a decision by that councillor. The duties which we have given to the monitoring officer and the chief finance officer are to draw to the attention of all members of the council the cases where the authority is about to do something illegal or improper, judged against objective standards and not where they disagree with a matter of judgment. For that reason the amendment therefore seems to give officers greater power to stand in judgment over the performance of members than we, or I suspect the officers themselves, would judge to be appropriate or suitable. It is in the light of those considerations that we resist the amendment.
Lord Dean of Beswick: Once again I am not very happy with the Minister's reply. I should like to press him on one point. Very often when another specific duty is laid upon an authority—I am not talking here about officers—it is often decided, in order to expedite the business, to form a sub-committee and to give that committee powers of delegation to deal with a particular situation or a particular function. What would be the Government's view of an authority if it decided to do just that?
I must say to the Minister that it is quite a new idea that the locally elected members of local authorities will decide who has transgressed the law. Traditionally, if a member of the council is breaking the law, local authority officers do not report that fact back to the council. There is a statutory duty, if it is a financial matter, to send the papers direct to the DPP, without recourse to anyone. The local authorities do not decide in any respect who among their members can be prosecuted in issues which concern the council. That is done quite separately for obvious reasons. Therefore I do not know why it should be any different in this situation.
I think that if a particular officer is endowed with those powers, and if he has to report back, he should be in a position to act in the capacity of an official officer. We seek to stop matters at an early stage when they could possibly be stopped to everyone's benefit, instead of going through the whole rigmarole and producing thousands of cases some of which—or, I have no doubt, the majority of them—may well be thrown out. It may well be that if someone decides to put the matter right within the 21 days specified, it can be done. That would be on the basis, naturally, that the officer would report back to the local authority periodically as often as is deemed necessary. But for the Minister to stand back and say that it should be the local authority which decides for the locally elected members is a nonsense. That has never happened in local government before.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: Can the noble Lord explain the duties of the "monitoring officer". It is a new nomenclature in local government. However, if I am incorrect in that, I apologise to Members of the Committee. This monitoring officer reminds me very much of the Housing Corporation and its monitoring officers. It is a title which the corporation uses. In that case the idea of a monitoring officer is that he visits each of the housing associations once a year (twice a year, if he is not a very capable officer); a report is made; and a rating of A, B, C or D is given. If many D-ratings are received, another monitoring must be carried out.
Is this the thin end of the wedge that local authorities will come under the same kind of monitoring? Will the monitoring officer bring forward his report and give some indication of whether a department is in the A class, the B class and so on? I am not sure that I understand why we must have someone monitoring something if the information is not being gathered for statistics. If this is being done merely to pass on good advice, I should have thought that we do not need to nominate someone for that title. I may be entirely wrong in what I say, but I should be glad if the Minister could
960
tell me what the monitoring officer will do with the statistics when he has collected them.
6.15 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: There seems to be some misunderstanding about the purpose of the clause. My noble friend Lord Renton was surprised, and I think probably also saddened, that the early clauses in the Bill were necessary. However, perhaps we should take the country as a whole and look across local authorities. Let us take, for instance, the example I gave to the Committee earlier. I heard a leading local authority member say that a member's job was to determine policy, and whether it was legal or constitutional, or illegal or unconstitutional, it was the officer's job to implement that policy.
Therefore, I think that it is very important for there to be some form of protection for the officer, who will from time to time be required, in an atmosphere of intimidation, to give advice. He may have to warn a single member, a small sub-committee or the council as a whole that they may well be heading for a situation which is unconstitutional or illegal. For that reason I think that all authorities should have someone nominated within the authority to ensure that all that the authority is doing in carrying out its functions is being done within a constitutional and legal framework.
Lord Dean of Beswick: Can the noble Baroness enlighten me on what she really meant by her remarks? Was she talking about my remarks as regards the City of Westminster, or did she misunderstand something I said as regards the officer? Did she think I said that the officer would have to carry out something which was legal or illegal? I never attempted to convey that fact. But, if she was referring to the City of Westminster, I did not use the word "illegal"; I said that in my view the severance pay was given on the basis that no statements were made. I would not want to breach the sub judice rule, because I understand that at present an investigation is taking place in regard to a large area of the council's activities and also in regard to the types of policy which the leader of the council has adopted. That is as far as I went. I did not accuse anyone of acting illegally because I have no evidence to that effect at this point.
Baroness Blatch: I must make it clear that I was not referring to the City of Westminster; I was referring to any local authority anywhere contemplating either wittingly, or unwittingly, a particular proposal which may well turn out to be illegal or unconstitutional. It seems to me to be appropriate that someone within the authority should have the responsibility to advise and try to prevent such a situation from occurring. Further, where a particular member or members insist upon a particular proposal, then it is absolutely necessary to invoke this clause and to present a report. Moreover, I believe that it is right that that should go to the whole council.
There have been situations where officers have been compromised and there have certainly been

961
situations where such has been the intimidation that an officer has been reticent about publicly giving advice to an authority. I think that this Clause provides the kind of protection which at least strengthens the arm of the "proper officer", as we would call him in my authority of Cambridgeshire, where he is backed by law and has not only the authority but also the duty to tell a member, members or the authority itself where they may be going wrong.
I make my remarks simply in answer to the two points which I think were raised by the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher of Rednal. The noble Lord appeared to interpret this clause as being the only avenue for the monitoring officer to pursue. I believe that if the monitoring officer is doing his job he will try everything short of having to produce that report; in other words, he will try holding meetings, private meetings, talking to members off the record and using all the avenues which are open to him to prevent such a situation. Therefore early intervention is certainly not precluded by the clause.
The noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, asked why we needed such an officer. I have probably answered that by saying that the monitoring officer is needed as a longstop for those isolated occasions when someone is, as I said, wittingly or unwittingly unconstitutional. It is appropriate that there should be someone in the authority who has the duty to ensure that that does not happen.
Lord Dean of Beswick: Such an officer already exists. It is the chief officer or the town clerk of the authority. I have known cases where some members have tried to pressurise junior officers in regard to planning permissions. Junior officers in the planning department have gone to their chief, who has then gone to the town clerk/chief executive, who has sent for the leader of the group involved. He warns the councillor involved to behave himself or else.
The monitor would not be able to decide whether the matter goes to court when it is a question of the law being broken. I do not see that that is his function. If someone breaks the law it is the town clerk's responsibility to invoke the necessary proceedings without asking his political masters. That point should be made clear.
Lord Hesketh: The noble Lord, Lord Dean, is of course correct, because, with regard to enforcement, the monitoring officer is only part of the process. When something has happened, it is up to the party who feels aggrieved to take the matter to the courts. After that, the matter has nothing to do with the monitoring officer.
The noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, referred to the descriptive term at the top of Clause 5 and asked whether the monitoring officer would just be providing friendly advice. As I said earlier, we want to reduce the number of cases. We hope that we shall be able to settle matters by giving advice rather than going to due process. That is obviously far more satisfactory in any walk of life.
962
The noble Lord, Lord Dean, asked about the forming of a sub-committee. That is legal. What is not legal is to give a single elected member the powers of the council. That is my answer to his point on the sub-committee.
Lord Dean of Beswick: Before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may put to him one further point. For the purposes of an election the chief officer of the local authority, be it the parish clerk, the district clerk, or the county clerk, is also the returning officer, in whom statutory duties are resposed. I am not sure that we are not wasting too much time on this point about laying down guidelines under which the town clerk can say, "You do not qualify, because you do not have a residential qualification." We may have to return to this point. If the Minister is not going to rise again, we shall have to debate a t a later stage what the amendment is trying to do. On that basis I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 5 stand part of the Bill?
Lord Renton: Perhaps I may ask my noble friend if he will be so kind—I hope that I am not being unfair—as to deal with the point I made when we dealt with the amendment that has just been withdrawn. We have here a great many administrative instructions, but, as I said, I cannot find where in the Bill there is a reference to what is to happen if, as my noble friend Lady Blatch said, something which is illegal or unconstitutional is done or not done. Fortunately, we always have the process of judicial review. The jurisdiction is always dependent upon the exact wording of the statute. Judicial review can sometimes be used and sometimes it cannot. Apart from judicial review, is there anything to which my noble friend on the Front Bench can point which will assure us that the provisions in Clause 5 can be enforced?
Lord Hesketh: The Government propose that the monitoring officer will draw the council's attention to any illegality. If the council persists, it is for those concerned to pursue the matter before the courts.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clause 7 [All staff to be appointed on merit]:
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 75:
Page 10, line 37, at end insert—
("(aa) section 15 of the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944 and section 3 of the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1958 (Provision of Sheltered Employment by Local Authorities)").
The noble Lord said: I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 76 and 77. The group of amendments is intended to ensure that nothing in Clause 7, dealing as it does with appointment on merit, will cut across such things as sheltered placement schemes or positive employment policies geared to those with physical or mental disabilities.
Amendment No. 75 refers to Section 15 of the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944 and Section 3 of the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1958, which deal with the provision of employment facilities for people with disabilities. In some cases that involves the local authority acting as the employer of disabled people. Under the sheltered placement schemes, businesses provide work for disabled persons, but the sponsor is often the local authority, which is the legal employer of the disabled person.
Clause 7 as it stands means that jobs will be given to those who are best able to do them. That is clearly inconsistent with the aims and objects of the various placement schemes for disabled people, whose whole purpose is to provide employment for those who are unable to do jobs as well as others.
A similar situation occurs with mentally handicapped people, who are mentioned in Amendment No. 76. There is a growing understanding that genuine employment is the best way to help people with mental handicaps. The problem seems to arise in Clause 7(1), which refers to "employment under" a local authority. Clause 7(2)(a) refers to Sections 9 and 12 of the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944. That applies only to the registered disabled and to a maximum of 3 per cent. of the employed workforce. We are sure that it is not the Government's intention to create a discriminatory situation in the employment of disabled people by local authorities, either in the normal way or under the sheltered placement scheme. The disability organisation—I know that the Minister is aware of this—are concerned. They have helped in the drafting of the amendments which are intended to clear up the confusion.
Amendment No. 77 is a rounding-up amendment to ensure that there is no misunderstanding of the policy towards the employment of disabled people. As I said, I am sure that the Government do not intend that confusion, so I hope that the Minister can explain the situation for us. I beg to move.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I rise with great pleasure to support the case made by my noble friend Lord Carter. Nothing more needs to be said about the substance of the amendments. On Second Reading, the Minister said that a placement under a sheltered placement scheme is not an appointment to the service of a local authority. My noble friend Lord Carter has pointed out the difficulties. I hope that the Minister recognises that disabled people already bear an enormous burden because of their physical incapacity. If in addition they are of an age where they would normally expect to find work and be gainfully employed there might be problems—I shall not say difficulties or disbarments.
I hope that the Minister will listen to the voices of those who seek to persuade us that the legislation, however well drawn for general purposes and general situations, bears unfairly and punitively upon those who are disabled. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, is a worthy advocate and so is the noble Lord, Lord Renton, who wants to make sure that those who have an incapacity, whether physical or mental,
964
are given fair treatment. We would also ask the Minister—and here I include the noble Lords, Lord Renton, and Lord Carter—that it be not just fair treatment but that it be more than fair treatment.
I shall listen very carefully to what the Minister has to say as to why the amendments cannot be accepted. They seek to make sure that the protections which already exist will not be superseded by the words on the face of the Bill. I think that is very important; perhaps the Minister will give a helpful answer.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: Before the Minister answers, perhaps he can tell me whether or not Sections 9 and 12 of the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944 include those people with a sensory handicap—that is, people who might be blind or partially sighted or who are suffering from deafness.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: I hope very much that by the time I sit down I shall be able to answer the point on sensory handicaps raised by the noble Baroness.
These amendments would add various provisions relating to the provision of employment facilities for the disabled to the list of enactments which are not to be overridden by the requirement that local authorities make all appointments to paid office or employment on merit.
Let me say at the outset that there is nothing between the Government and the proposers of this amendment as to the policy which should be adopted. We have no intention whatever that the requirement that local authorities should make appointments on merit should cut across the admirable work that they do in providing employment facilities for the disabled. The only difference between us is one of legislative technique in achieving this common aim.
The proposers of the amendments are concerned that, unless there is a specific disregard for these provisions, there would be a conflict between the requirement to appoint on merit and the provisions on the provision of sheltered employment when it came to offering disabled people employment in the various sheltered facilities that are provided.
We have carefully considered the point. As the Committee will see we have provided a specific disregard where a provision for the benefit of the disabled could come into conflict with the requirement to appoint on merit. These are the provisions of Sections 9 and 12 of the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944. Here the requirements about quotas and employment specifically reserved for the disabled could conflict with a requirement to appoint on merit. We have accordingly provided that the provisions for the benefit of the disabled shall prevail.
The provisions of Section 15 of the 1944 Act, as applied by Section 3 of the 1958 Act, and of Section 11(1) of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984, however, are not capable of giving rise to that conflict. Section 15 is not concerned with who should be employed to do a particular job; it is about

965
providing facilities to enable the disabled to obtain employment. Likewise Section 11 is concerned with the provision of training for persons who are mentally handicapped.
The activities undertaken by local authorities for the purposes of these provisions are only capable of benefiting the disabled. There is therefore, we believe, no need to disapply the requirement to appoint on merit, since it can have no application in this field. To include the disregard of these provisions might indeed cause confusion, since it would raise the question of whether the requirement to appoint on merit could have applications in other areas where one might not think that it did.
I have no doubt that your Lordships would not welcome a lesson on statutory interpretation from me.
Lord Renton: Why not?
Lord Hesketh: The point is that if we include a provision saying that something does not apply when at first sight there could be no question of it applying, then we raise the question of why it was necessary to say that. And the answer will sometimes be that by a side-wind effect one has extended the scope of the original provision further than one intended. That, I believe, could happen here.
As I have said, we have no doubt that there is no clash between the requirement to appoint on merit and the provisions mentioned in the amendments. We entirely share the aims of the promoters in ensuring that the requirement to appoint on merit should not cut across the valuable work of these facilities. We do not think that it could do. We therefore believe that the amendment is possibly superfluous. It could give rise to confusion in other contexts where one would not at first think that a conflict existed. However, as always, I shall pay the greatest attention to what the noble Lord, Lord Carter, has to say on this matter, on which he is an accredited expert.
Lord Renton: I am sure we should all be grateful to my noble friend for that reply, including what he called his lecture on interpretation. I must say that I greatly welcomed it.
The clause is a very generous one. We must remember that it applies to every person in paid office or in the employment of a local auhority. That means not only the top executives, the accountants and the specialists of various kinds; it also applies to the office cleaners and the road sweepers. Even they must be appointed on merit, which is a fine conception.
The Government, wisely and in a caring way, have made the merit test subject to these various other provisions, especially the provisions of the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act, or at any rate Sections 9 and 12 of that Act.
In that connection, I hope that I am right in pointing out—as I believe I am—that the word "disabled" includes the mentally handicapped. Indeed, the largest single group of disabled people
966
in this country is the mentally handicapped. To an extent, that answers the point which the noble Lord, Lord Carter, was making.
So for those reasons and for the other reasons which my noble friend has given, I think that it would be better and also in the interests of those whom we are trying to help, to keep the clause as it is. For the interpretation reasons which my noble friend gave, if we accepted either Amendment No. 75 or Amendment No. 76, the clause could give rise to some confusion and lead to an unextended extension of previous statutory provisions.
I have to confess—and I am sorry to do so at this relatively late stage in the discussion on these amendments—that I am puzzled by the wording of Amendment No. 77. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, did not invite us to consider it in detail.
Lord Carter: I am extremely grateful to the Minister. This is one of those situations where, as the noble Lord said, all we want is the technique in order to achieve the answer on which we are all agreed. I take the point that the noble Lord made about the first two amendments. However, the third amendment, Amendment No. 77, is a rounding up amendment to make sure that the intention is clearly understood—that nothing earlier in the clause should affect the selection of any person who is disabled.
I am not sure whether the Minister would like to answer this point. If that first amendment were included, would it help to prevent the confusion? Obviously I shall not press the matter to a Division and perhaps later we could write to each other about it. But he might like to consider whether the inclusion of the third amendment in the Bill might help to prevent any confusion. Having heard his answer we are a little concerned about that, but we are reasonably happy and I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: Can the Minister reply to my question?
Lord Hesketh: I apologise to the noble Baroness. I am not sure that I have the entire answer to her question. However, my understanding as regards Sections 9 and 12 is that they are concerned with the registered disabled. Thus all those who are registered disabled are covered. However, I am not sure whether that satisfactorily covers her sensory point. I should be grateful if the noble Baroness will allow me to write to her on the sensory point.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn
[Amendments Nos. 76 and 77 not moved.]
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clause 8 [Duty to adopt standing orders with respect to staff]:
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 78:
Page 11, line 6, leave out ("provision") and insert ("core provisions").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 78, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 79, 80,

967
81, 105, 106, 107, 108 and 109, as they all have a bearing upon the amendments that I wish to move. Clause 8 lays down a duty to adopt standing orders with respect to staff. The purpose of the amendments is to limit standing orders to be imposed by regulation to specific core standing orders, while maintaining the maximum degree of local discretion.
I think most people recognise the value of a code of practice, a set of standing orders, or regulations which are flexible, in that they can be guidelines or they can be measures which need to be taken into account. Certainly they are always measures which can be referred to. However, that which is laid down more or less as the rule or guidance needs to be the subject of maximum consultation before it is laid down. Any provision that is laid down needs to be relevant to the job in hand.
The current model standing orders, which were prepared for guidance only and which do not have the force of law, were drafted in 1963. Local authorities generally have agreed that further guidance, more suited to the current scene, would be helpful. It is important to note that a local authority's own adopted standing orders are legally binding and that courts will require a local authority to comply with its own standing orders. Decisions taken in breach of these may be declared invalid.
The new standing orders to be prepared as regulations in accordance with the provisions of Clause 8 of the Bill will have the force of law. This principle further shifts the balance from establishing satisfactory local arrangements, with the reserve legal power to be invoked when such arrangements are clearly improper, to ensuring that local government is run as central government wish. That is the first jib. Those of us on both sides of the Committee who have experience of local government will, I hope, support the general premise that I am taking in these amendments, which is that we should be careful before we shifted every single aspect of town hall power and direction. We should be careful before we establish leads coming from the centre rather than leaving them in local hands.
The White Paper, in addressing such issues as standing orders, members' allowances, pecuniary interests and the national code of local government conduct, proposes that discussions should be held with local authority representatives to explore the extent to which local government is prepared to introduce changes on a voluntary basis or to agree a basis for legislation at a later date. The underlying presumption as regards both the draft legislation and discussions between the local authority associations and the Department of the Environment has been that the most serious issues will be addressed through legislation. There is little reserve about the powers in the Bill.
I make the general case that, rather than plunging into legislation, the Government should stand back and see how local authorities respond to a new set of standing orders prepared for guidance. In many areas a consensus has been reached within the locality, if not on details at least on principles. I believe that the Minister, and certainly his advisers, will understand that we are sensitive about, first, the
968
purpose of this clause and, secondly, the extent to which standing orders relating to staff will be enshrined in their totality in this clause. I shall be interested to hear the Minister's response to the amendments. I beg to move.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Renton: It may be that with increasing longevity I failed to take on board the ever, increasing richness of our language. But I must confess that I am unable to tell what is the difference in the statute between a provision and a core provision. It may be that I have missed something out. I ask this question rhetorically to see whether any Member of the Committee can give an answer; we are after all only at the Committee stage. Has this become a term of art in our statutory language, or is it just an attempt by the noble Lord, who is always trying to help, to add a new concept to local government law? What is the difference in statutory effect between a provision and a core provision? That is my first comment on these amendments. Quite frankly I doubt—I shall not go into detail at the moment—whether Amendment No. 80 is necessary, bearing in mind the provisions we already have in Clause 8(1), and elsewhere in the Bill, where we find the power on the part of the Secretary of State to make regulations. I would very much doubt whether it is necessary to add this further power.
As for leaving out subsection (3) of Clause 8, which is very long and detailed, I must say that I find that the most attractive of the amendments which the noble Lord is to move. If it were possible to do without this mass of detail in subsection (3), I should say very good luck to him.
Baroness Blatch: I hesitate to rise because I thought we were going to have a definition of the word "core". I have the same difficulty as my noble friend Lord Renton.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I shall try to help the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. Both the noble Lord, Lord Renton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, will be very familiar with the word "core" because they supported the concept of the core curriculum. Members of the Committee remember that term immediately, now that I have reminded them of it. While this may well be a modern manner in which to be precise, I should say that the idea of a core curriculum, as opposed to referring to matters within a curriculum, and were, the idea of core provisions, is to give strength to a basic group of provisions which can be added to if, in the light of experience, one needs to expand on them. That is the concept here. The provisions here could very well be limited, more precisely defined and then agreed upon.
Lord Renton: I am sure that we are very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Graham, for giving us the reason for his ingenuity. But I do not think, with great respect, that his analogy is quite correct, because there are so many different kinds of provisions. If we start saying that some are of greater weight than others and some are more central than others, I should have thought we would be getting into very fine and artificial distinctions, whereas, on

969
the curriculum, we are not dealing with such a wide spectrum. We are dealing with a number of subjects which can be the subject of education. I should have thought that in that case the use of the word "core" in relation to curriculum was justifiable, as everyone felt when the Education Bill went through, although noble Lords opposite did not agree with the concept of picking out those particular subjects. But I think that in the context of this Bill to use the expression "core provision" could be confusing.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am rather taken aback by the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, who is so expert on legislation. He says that it would be wrong to give some elements more weight than others. All legislation gives some elements more weight than others; it puts some on the face of the Bill and some in schedules and it allocates some to regulations. Legislation by this Government is almost entirely by regulation, presumably on the basis that it is given less weight than provisions which appear on the face of the Bill.
The Government propose that every single item of standing orders for a local authority shall be laid down by government. We do not really like it, but we shall have to agree to provision for the Government to lay down core standing orders—those which they consider to be essential for every local authority. However, local authorities may have separate or local needs. They may need to add other items which should not be in conflict with the core standing orders, and local authorities ought to have the right to do so. I do not think that in moving the amendment my noble friend has said anything out of keeping with existing legislative procedures or the way in which local authorities operate.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I shall set aside that point and the definition of "core". I think that we could go round in circles discussing whether it has a proper place in the amendment.
I wish to address a different point. One of the most important tasks of any local authority is to employ good staff to provide the services that have been determined by the membership of the local authority. Again we come back to the distinction between the roles of members of the council and the roles of officers. As someone who has worked in and been a member of a local authority, I have to admit that there is a temptation to involve oneself in the appointment of officers. It is a natural temptation. Some members do so for the wrong reasons: they believe that appointing someone friendly to their political views is the way forward. Some of us believe that appointment on merit is the way forward, subject to the criteria which we discussed earlier in relation to the disabled and racial and sexual discrimination. But we have to resist the temptation to become involved if we want our authority to run efficiently.
Despite the length of this clause—and my noble friend Lord Renton constantly chides us on the length and size of Bills—I believe that to have a specific and precise framework within which to
970
appoint staff in local authorities is helpful to both members and officers.
If members carry out their proper functions—namely, determining policy and priorities—their only other occupation is to see that those policies are properly carried out. If staff are appointed on merit, subject to the caveat of the previous clause, the chances are that the authority's performance will be sound. The mechanism by which members ensure that the right staff are imposed involves measuring the quality of services and output of the authority. It is important that systems of accountability are put in place so that the officers making the appointments are accountable to the membership of the authority for the performance of their various departments and of the council as a whole.
The duty of the officers is to carry out the will of the council. The quality of the service to the customer is the concern of the membership. Members should resist the temptation to become too involved in the day-to-day management of the authority. With the kind of framework set out in the Bill it is much easier for such a system of accountability to operate and for the distinction between officers and members and their particular roles to be made very clear. For that reason I hope that the amendments will be resisted. I shall certainly support the clause.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the amendments conveniently form a package, since they would make very similar alterations to Clause 8, which deals with requirements for standing orders affecting staff, and to Clause 19, which deals with requirements for other standing orders.
The first twin pairs of amendments—Amendments Nos. 78 and 79, and 105 and 106—would replace the present references to "provisions" with a reference to "core provisions". I am reluctant to debate matters of style with the noble Lord. My view is that we should be guided by the expert parliamentary draftsmen and not put unnecessary words into the Bill. However, I suspect that I shall have to fall back on the support of my noble friend Lord Renton, who has his doubts about the use of the word "core" in these circumstances.
It is quite clear that these provisions are intended to be a core to which local authorities would be free to add such other items as they think fit. There is, for example, no suggestion that the provisions will impair the ability of local authorities to make standing orders under their other powers in so far as those other standing orders do not conflict with those required under these two clauses. Indeed, one of the tasks of the joint working group of local authority and departmental representatives is to revise the set of model standing orders last revised over a quarter of a century ago and to offer guidance on how matters not dealt with under these clauses may best be drafted. I therefore suggest that this aspect of the Bill should be left as it is.
The next pair of amendments—Amendments Nos. 80 and 107—would, in almost identical words, limit the power under the clauses. Instead of allowing local authorities generally to be required to make standing orders on certain lines dealing with staff

971
matters and other procedural questions, they would permit action to be taken only in the case of specific authorities where it could be shown that such action was necessary to preserve the probity of the authority's operations.
In relation to staff matters this seems to us to be the wrong approach. We do not say that there is widespread concern about the probity of personal operations of local authorities. We do say that there is increasing politicisation of local authorities. In those circumstances, the Government believe that it is prudent to introduce controls generally to reinforce traditional standards so that the spread of politicisation does not lead to any drop in the high standards which local authorities have established over many years. The government proposal is intended to prevent problems developing rather than to cure them after they have arisen, which seems to be the intention of the noble Lord's amendment.
In the past we have been able to rely on the innate tradition and good sense of local authority councillors and officers. When the whole environment becomes more sharply politicised, such virtues are put under strain. The basic thrust of the Widdicombe Report was that such strains should be resisted by making more formal the rules under which local authorities have operated.
The appointment of staff is one area where this is important. We have built up a great tradition in local government. We want to maintain that tradition. If the natural pressures of increased politicisation may undermine it, we think that action generally is needed, rather than waiting until the signs are manifest that the horse has bolted and then trying to shut the stable door.
The scope of Clause 8 as drafted is wider than matters of probity alone. Clause 8 proposes limited but necessary rules on the appointment, discipline and dismissal of staff. So far as concerns appointments, the matters to be covered would include, for example, the posts which may be reserved for appointment procedures involving councillors and a requirement that the councillors involved in interviewing and taking decisions on appointments should reflect the composition of the council.
Clause 8 also provides that standing orders may require councillors to consider an independent report before taking a decision and that no disciplinary action can be taken which is more severe than that recommended in the independent report. I urge the Committee to resist the amendment.
Turning to Clause 19, the new provision would again limit action under the the clause to individual cases where it was needed to ensure probity. I do not think that that would be right here either. The clause concerns standing orders. The purpose of standing orders is, among other things, to hold the balance between the dispatch of business and the rights of minorities. We believe that there is an advantage in ensuring that certain minimum standards of protection of the rights of minorities should be built into all local authority standing orders. This is another case where the pressures of politicisation have led to the disappearance of
972
traditions of even-handedness. There are cases where the rules have been manipulated, denying minorities the right to put their case. I am prepared to accept that that is not the prerogative of any one party, but wherever it has happened it should stop. In many councils such arrangements are not necessary, at least yet.
We believe that there may well be a case for allowing any such otherwise mandatory arrangements to be set aside by general agreement. I understand that the working group to which I referred earlier has made good progess towards devising such a system.
I therefore do not believe that intervention by the Secretary of State on a case-by-case basis would be right; nor do I think that probity is the right description for what we are aiming at. That has the overtones of preventing corruption and, while noble Lords used that word yesterday in an extended or antique sense to describe situations to which they objected, I do not think that it properly covers the aim of the proposed core provisions; namely, that of holding a balance between the dispatch of business and the rights of minorities.
I turn next to the amendments that would delete the existing proposals—Amendment No. 81, which would remove subsection (3) of Clause 8, and Amendment No. 108, which would delete subsection (2) of Clause 19. Amendment No. 81 is consequential on the new subsection, but it also has the unfortunate consequence that it removes the list in Clause 8(3) of specific topics with respect to staff which the Secretary of State can by regulations require local authorities to adopt. By removing the list, it introduces doubt as to whether the regulations covering the matters referred to in Clause 8(3) would be within the scope of the power which the amendment does not otherwise alter.
On the other hand, Amendment No. 108 would remove certain improvements to the statutory provisions on council procedure. What these amendments would delete is rather different in kind to the provisions that the similar amendment to Clause 8 would delete. Subsection (2) would enable three changes to be made to the provisions in Schedule 12 of the Local Government Act 1972 which would govern the proceedings of local authorities. These have come out of the deliberations of the joint local authority working group on standing orders which has been meeting throughout this year. The Government are therefore responding to requests from the local authorities rather than trying to impose something that is not wanted.
Finally, Amendment No. 109 would return to the old scheme of consultations. I hope that what I have been saying has shown that, on both these clauses, real consultation is already taking place. The working party has been meeting and has made good progress. I very much hope that there will be a high degree of agreement on the detail that is proposed by and emerges from that working party. For those reasons, I urge the Committee to reject the amendments.
7 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I am grateful to the Minister for the care and time that he has taken to

973
make his case and demolish mine. However, it is quite breathtaking to say, on the one hand, that the working party, which was created without the force of law in 1963, has been looking at the guidance for standing orders—the noble Lord paid tribute more than once to the collaboration and good progress that has been made—and, on the other hand, that, "In the meantime, we have decided that, with the force of law, we shall include in the Bill matters that may well be to the liking of the working party". I can assure the Committee that some of those matters are not to the liking of certain elements in the working party.
I believe that that attitude displays a certain arrogance on the part of the Government. They are so concerned to put across their own point of view and to exercise their own political nostrums in this field that they are not prepared to wait and do the decent thing; namely, to satisfy either by legislation or in some other way, the wishes of the people at the sharp end.
The Minister tells us that this issue stems from the increased politicisation in local government which he and his colleagues have noted and disliked. Perhaps he will tell us what kind of regulations will be promulgated to deal with the disgraceful situation at Westminster Council about which we now know. Will he tell us what he and his colleagues had in mind to deal with that and similar situations? I hope that that situation is unique. It is certainly disgraceful. If it is unique and perhaps unforeseen by the Minister, that could well be an excuse, but it is not the kind of situation that is being revealed. As the Minister knows, there is more to come. When that has been revealed, how does he intend to explain matters?
The purpose of the debate is to try to encourage the Minister to tell us what he has in mind. What regulations and standing orders will be brought forward? In opening the debate, I said that the principles enshrined in Clause 8 shift the burden which has hitherto been held locally on to the Minister and his colleagues, so it will now be held centrally. That is another illustration of the Government's refusal to allow local government of whatever persuasion the right and ability to be flexible. That is why we referred to the core provisions, although that may be a clumsy phrase, which are central, basic and could be added to rather than having to enshrine every item in statute.
The Minister said that that was not the case. He said that there would be two sets of standing orders. There would be standing orders that comply with the Bill and, if a local authority wishes, there will also be local by-laws or local standing orders. If that is the case, the provisions prescribed by the Minister and his colleagues will be the core provisions which can be added to by a local ordinance.
All that the Minister has demonstrated to the Committee and to people in local government is that what they experience at the sharp end, in practice, will not prevail. We hope that there will, at least initially, be something whose relationship to reality it is possible to assess. If that turned out to be
974
accurate, there would be no disturbance, but, if practice showed that there was a need for addition—that would be done by consultation—that would be possible.
We have other evidence that the practice of Conservative politicians at the sharp end of power varies greatly from the aspirations of the Minister and his colleagues at the Dispatch Box as regards what they want to see happening in local government. There is a long course to run in the Bill. There will be many opportunities for us to remind noble Lords and the Minister that he has some difficulty in bridging what he tells us he wants to see in local government and what we know certain elements of local government under the control of the Conservatives are doing.
Perhaps the Minister will deal with one question: what kind of regulations will be laid down under the clause to deal with the situation at Westminster?
Lord Hesketh: I have had to cover a familiar piece of ground again today. Noble Lords opposite constantly refer to a television programme that was broadcast last night while I was here in the House. I arrived at the department this morning and, surprising though it may seem, I have not had a chance to read a newspaper today. The noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, then asked me a hypothetical question about what we shall do about allegations in a newspaper. It is with the greatest sorrow and respect that I must tell him that it is physically and mentally quite impossible for me to provide an answer to his question, much as I should like to do so.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I appreciate the difficulty. Perhaps I may draw the Minister's attention to an article in one of today's newspapers which does not concern allegations, In a debate yesterday evening, the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, was concerned about the manner in which certain headmistresses and deputies exercised political influence that was outwith what she considered to be the bounds of propriety in respect of their duties. The newspaper article to which I referred states:
"Conservative Central Office is planning a campaign this autumn to put pressure on heads and teachers to make a `Conservative educational agenda effective in their day-to-day work' in schools. Mr. Peter Morrison, deputy chairman of the Conservative Party, has set up a special unit inside Central Office to increase party political influence in schools, contrary to the official stance of the Government to keep politics out of education. The Conservatives' initiative has been disclosed in a letter leaked from Central Office to Tory MPs seeking help to launch the campaign".
Further on in the report there is evidence from a Mr. John Spiers:
"who Central Office confirmed last night was working for the Better Schools Unit set up in April. Mr. Spiers says that Mr. Morrison has invited him to edit a new termly Conservative publication for school governors, to be launched in September. Central Office confirmed yesterday that this was going ahead".
I realise that that is just one remove from an allegation. I appreciate that the Minister said that he was not familiar with it. However, against that background we on these Benches are puzzled, on the one hand to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, and the Minister say that they are determined to

975
keep politics out of local government and schools; yet on the other hand to have evidence that by another underhand way they are attempting to introduce politics.
Lord Hesketh: It is my recollection, and I hope that I am not wrong, that the noble Lord, Lord Graham, supported the Government's position when I responded last night to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. I find the noble Lord's remarks rather confusing. He is now taking a new line and presenting evidence in a different light.
Lord Harris of Geenwich: I have just one thing to say to the noble Lord. I recognise the heavy pressure that he must be under in dealing with this Bill and that he did not have quite as much time as he would have liked to read this morning's newspapers and the quite extraordinary set of allegations that have been made against the leadership of Westminster City Council.
I should like to put one point to him. Let us assume for a moment that the programme in question had been about a Left-wing Labour council which behaved in anything approaching the same degree of gross impropriety as was involved in Westminster Council. Does the Minister agree that in that case one of his officials would have drawn his attention to the matter before he came to this debate today in order to strengthen his arguments? I find it very surprising that not a single official from his department drew his attention to that matter. Is that what he is saying to the Committee?
Lord Hesketh: If the Committee had been lucky enough to have had the attendance of the noble Lord, Lord Harris, during its other sittings, he would know that I have gone to a great deal of trouble from the very start of this Bill in order not to reduce the debate to a low level slanging match about who said what or did what. I have gone to a great deal of trouble to do that. I had hoped that in a way we might have avoided going on to an area which I feel will be completely unproductive to the Committee. I should like to think that the noble Lords, Lord Graham and Lord McIntosh, are conscious of the effort that I have made in that direction and possibly appreciate it.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I should appreciate it more if the Minister had made any attempt to answer the question that I put to him. It is not a matter of a low level debate. We are discussing an extraordinary set of allegations made against the leadership of the Westminster City Council. The Minister was asked a question by the noble Lord, Lord Graham, and he has not answered it. I put to him that I find it quite incredible that on an important matter of this character, which is highly relevant to the issues that we have been debating on this Bill, the noble Lord has nothing whatever to say; whereas, in fact we all know perfectly well that if that programme had concerned either Liverpool City Council or Islington Borough Council the noble Lord would have an immense amount to tell the Committee.
Baroness Blatch: I, too, am blissfully ignorant of the programme that was screened last night; neither have I read the press this morning which apparently catalogues the happenings at Westminster Council. I understand that the situation in Westminster is sub judice anyway. There is an inquiry taking place at the moment and until there is some proof of what has happened I should prefer to reserve my judgment. However, if any impropriety has occurred, I should like to think that these parts of the Bill apply as much to Westminster City Council as to any other council.
With regard to my amendment last night which referred to head teachers and their deputies, I believe that I probably upset as many Conservatives across the country as I did Labour and Liberal colleagues, who are concerned about what they see as a restriction of the freedom of teachers to become involved in local politics.
I happen to hold a very strong personal view that being involved in local politics is something in which teachers should not engage, whether they are Conservative, Liberal or Socialist. I believe it is imcompatible with the professional work of a teacher. I said that I was not in the business of cataloguing abuses because as long as it is legal to do so anybody who becomes involved in local politics is not in fact abusing his or her position. I think it is important to get the record straight. I was not accusing anybody of abuse. I was simply saying that dabbling in local politics is in compatible with the professional job of a teacher.
I should like to think that, whatever the complexion of the authority—be it Conservative Liberal, Labour or any other party—wherever impropriety takes place or unconstitutional or illegal behaviour—it will covered by this Bill.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I should like to respond to the specific point made by the Minister when he challenged me to agree with him that he had not been taking specific cases and had not been making particular allegations about individual councils. That is certainly correct and I can confirm that. That applies also to the noble Earl, Lord Caithness.
On the other hand, a number of his colleagues on his Back Benches have been making such allegations. It is difficult to believe that some of these comments have not been orchestrated and that the Conservative Party as a whole, if not the Government, has not been attempting, as it has been over a number of years, to blacken the names of a very large number of Labour councils by exaggerating the faults of a very few.
I think it is necessary to say that in this Bill the Government are proposing very drastic restrictions on the freedom of action of local authorities. We do not feel that it would be wrong for the Government to give examples of the abuses that they are seeking to correct with this Bill. Our complaint is the opposite of that which the Minister seems to think we are making. We do not say that he is blackening the name of individual local authorities; we say that he is not giving evidence—other than the evidence

977
that we have given about Conservative councils and Westminster City Council in particular—that such abuses exist or that they exist on a scale to justify the provisions of this Bill.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I shall certainly be withdrawing the amendment in due course. I share the view of my noble friend regarding the tenor of the Minister's remarks and conduct in these matters. These Benches did not ask for this Bill. The Minister's arguments on a Second Reading did not persuade us at all, nor has the manner in which this issue has been debated. The Bill has been brought forward by the Conservative Party with the clear intention to deal with what it believes is the rottenness in the conduct of local government, especially in Labour-controlled areas.
Certainly we expect evidence to be produced. Then we should have the job of evaluating it, perhaps agreeing with much of it and defending it. I do not believe that anyone in this Chamber ought to be upset (certainly these Benches are not) at the robustness of a debate which names names and cites places. Otherwise the Committee would be composed of charlatans.
We are dealing with a situation in which we literally have the power of life and death over councils, councillors and council officers. The ability to earn a living can be a matter of life or death. We therefore take the Bill very seriously indeed.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, told the Committee last night—and I challenged her for evidence to support her point of view—that substantially this Bill was endorsed by a very large number of people who had attended the Conservative educational conference earlier this year. I simply say that that was evidence of support. I certainly hope that it is not the view of the majority. She is entitled to persist in her personal view, but I hope that she sees the evidence that I have read into the record from one of the local papers. If it is correct, or if she wants to confirm it, I hope that she will get in touch with Central Office and say, "If this is true, I deplore it and intend to stand up in the House of Lords and denounce it at every opportunity".
If she were to do that there would certainly not be rejoicing on this side of the Committee but there would be agreement. We have had a good debate. It has not been a very satisfactory one and we reserve the right to come back at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 79 to 81 not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 82:
Page 11, line 32, leave out ("proposed").
The noble Lord said: With Amendment No. 82 I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 83, 84 and 85. We made substantial changes yesterday to the definition of politically restricted posts. To that extent the rather extreme powers and duties that are given to the monitoring officers under Clause 8
978
of the Bill are not as serious as they would have been had the Committee not taken the decision that it did about the salary bar on politically restricted posts. However, it still seems to us that the provision that the monitoring officer should be required to prepare a report to the authority in respect of every proposed appointment of a person to a politically restricted post goes much too far. Our amendments attempt to simplify and reduce this intervention by the monitoring officer both to a level which is administratively feasible rather than bureaucratically impossible and to a level which is politically meaningful and which would produce effective results.
Amendment No. 82 leaves out the word "proposed" and restricts the intervention of the monitoring officer to a person selected for appointment. If the monitoring officer is to involve himself with every candidate for a politically restricted post presumably it will not be enough for him just to add some inquisitive questions about politicial activities to the candidate's application form. He will have to go further. If he is to be satisfied, he will have to verify that the candidate's claims are true and that the candidate has not been involved in political activity that he is not admitting. Other parts of a candidate's application are verified by the use of referees. What will the monitoring officer do to satisfy himself that these candidates, these proposed appointments, do not offend against the standing orders regarding staff?
Amendment No. 83 seeks to restrict the category of politically restricted posts to chief officers deputy chief officers or third tier management posts in respect of any matters which may be relevant to the political restriction applying to that post. We talked about the black and white nature of the political restriction provisions in the Bill and how much worse it is than the Civil Service code of practice. As the Bill is drafted at the moment, the monitoring officer has a quite impossible task. In respect of all candidates for restricted posts he has the task of applying the full range of limitations of political activity; whereas if the Civil Service example were used, those restrictions could be used selectively. They could be used more severely when appropriate, and less severely when appropriate.
Amendment No. 84 would restrict his intervention to where there are one or more elected members on the panel. If the appointment is to be made by officers, presumably they are senior officers to whom the restrictions on political activity already apply. To accuse them—which appears to be implied in the clause at the moment—of political bias in making the appointments seems to us quite unjust and excessive in the light of any evidence that has been produced about any level of abuse.
Finally, Amendment No. 85 brings the matter together by suggesting that the words,
"when it appears to him that any contravention of standing orders may have occurred",
should be added. That means that it will not be necessary for the monitoring officer in a well run authority—and it has been agreed on all sides of the Chamber that virtually all are well run authorities with the exception, of course, of Westminster City

979
Council—to intervene in every single case of an appointment. The amendment will give him the discretion only to intervene and to make a report to the authority when it appears to him that any contravention of standing orders may have occurred.
These are rational limitations on what would otherwise be not only an excessive bureaucratic power but an excessive intervention in the normal process of appointment of staff in the local authority service. I beg to move.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: Amendment No. 82 proposes the deletion of the word "proposed" before the word "appointment" in Clause 8(3)(c). The effect of the amendment would be that the monitoring officer would be required to submit a report only on an appointment to a politically restricted post after the appointment had been made. There would be no time limit by which the report was required.
The amendment raises the question of the best way of making sure that, where councillors are involved in making appointments, everything is done properly. We believe that it is desirable that the monitoring officer should apply his mind to every case and say positively that everything is satisfactory before the appointment is made. To do so afterwards would simply be too late.
We feel that it is enough for the monitoring officer to sign a clearance report without having to submit it before the appointment is confirmed. This should ensure that, except where an appointment has not been properly made, appointments are not delayed.
Amendment No. 83 would limit the scope of the standing orders that the Secretary of State can require local authorities to adopt. Clause 8 would authorise the Secretary of State to make regulations requiring relevant authorities to make standing orders requiring, among other matters, their monitoring officer to prepare a report to the authority in respect of every proposed appointment of a person to a politically restricted post. The amendment proposes that such standing orders could apply only to proposed appointments down to third tier management posts within a local authority. The monitoring officer would have to report only on matters considered relevant to the restriction applying to that post.
The Government's intention is that this power to require a report by the monitoring officer should be used only in respect of posts where councillors are involved in the appointment process. We believe that the public should in those circumstances be entitled to confirmation that no unlawful actions have been taken.
To understand the importance of this safeguard, we have to look at the underlying rationale for the whole clause. The Widdicombe Report confirmed the generally acceptable view that party politics are playing an ever more important role in local authorities. The increasing politicisation imposes strains on the long-standing traditions of local government. One of the areas into which these pressures are very likely to spill over is the appointment of staff. We think that it is desirable to
980
strengthen the safeguards to ensure that the tradition of an impartial local government service supporting the whole council is maintained.
The arrangements whereby the monitoring officer has to check and report that all is well seems a useful element in this strengthening. We do not think that it imposes too great a burden on the monitoring officer. He will not personally have to attend every meeting to appoint staff. He will need to ensure that there is a place in the system that is designed to bring to his attention any questionable cases. But with such a system in place he will be able to rely on it. In line with our general approach there is no question of giving a monitoring officer power to override the council. If he cannot give a clean bill of health there will be a report and it will then be for the authority itself to decide what to do. If it wishes to press ahead despite the report it will be free to do so. There is therefore no question of giving the monitoring officer a veto.
The joint government/local authority working party has already been considering the details of these proposals for some months. I understand that it has reached general agreement on the details of the scheme. In due course this will be reported to Ministers and the local authority associations. There will then be an opportunity for further consideration before the details are converted into regulations.
I believe that this shows that the scheme is workable and should be acceptable to the vast majority of those concerned. In short, we think that this positive report that all is well has an important part to play in strengthening the tradition whereby local government staff serve a council of any political complexion impartially. We think that the duty to report should be positive so that in every case someone has the answer to the question, "Is all well?" We think that the duty should cover not only questions of whether standing orders have been complied with but also whether other statutory provisions have been observed and whether any relevant considerations have been taken into account. I therefore resist the amendment.
Amendment No. 84 would appear to be aimed at restricting the power under Clause 8 to require the monitoring officer to report on appointments to cases where the interviewing panel would include elected members.
The Government's proposals extend only to requiring such a report in cases where members have been included in the appointment process. That is not quite the same as saying that it would be restricted to cases where members have formed part of the interviewing panel. There is no requirement that the interviewing panel should necessarily be the organ of the local authority that actually makes the appointment. And there are other earlier stages in the process where members might be involved, such as selecting the short list or settling the terms of the advertisement.
I do not think that there is any particular mystery about the Government's proposals under this clause. A joint working party between government and the local authority associations has been working at this

981
for some months now. Drafts have received wide circulation and comment.
An amendment such as the one proposed would not restrict necessarily the introduction under this clause of measures other than it specified since the whole of subsection (3) is illustrative and without prejudice to the general provision of subsection (1). I do not therefore think that as a legislative technique it is very sensible to try to restrict an illustrative example of a use that might be made of a wider power. Therefore the amendment would go too far in resricting both the posts which might be covered and the nature of the matters to be considered.
Amendment No. 85 would add to the provision that the monitoring officer may be required to report on appointments the restriction that this was only to be done where he considers that there has been a contravention of standing orders. This amendment shows some misunderstanding of the relationship between paragraphs (c) and (d) of subsection (3) of this clause.
Paragraph (c) introduces the idea of the monitoring officer making a report on appointments to politically restricted posts. Paragraph (d) goes on to spell out the content of those reports. The first subparagraph identifies as a matter to be covered whether the appointment can be made without contravention of any provision made by or under Part I of the Bill. These provisions will include the standing orders relating to the appointment of staff for which this clause provides. The Bill therefore already provides for reports by the monitoring officer to address the question of whether standing orders have been contravened.
The purpose of the amendment therefore seems to be to rule out any need for the monitoring officer to make a report if the standing orders have not been contravened. I can see that there is an argument for having a report only if there is something to which attention needs to be called. However, I think that there are two reasons why we should not adopt that approach.
First, paragraph (d) requires the monitoring officer to address a wider range of questions than simply whether standing orders have been breached. In the first place he is directed to consider other provisions in Part I. Principal among these will be the requirement in Clause 7 that all appointments shall be made on merit. Secondly, he is directed to consider whether any irrelevant considerations appear to have been taken into account.
The amendment would restrict him to reporting only where there is a breach of standing orders. These other points, which are of equal concern, will not necessarily arise in the context of a breach of standing orders. I therefore suggest that the amendment will impair the aim of ensuring that there is a check that all is well in the appointment of senior staff.
Secondly, we think that there is merit in having a positive check that all is well. This is the practice in the Civil Service: appointments are certified by the independent Civil Service Commission. The monitoring officer would in any event have a duty
982
to report under Clause 5 if he was of the opinion that the council were proposing to act in an illegal way. What this provision adds s the positive safeguard of a check. The monitoring officer will be required to address his mind in every case to the question of whether everything has been done properly.
We do not have any proposals to use the power to introduce reports on monitoring officers on appointments and cases where it has not already been discussed in a joint working party. It may be that when we come to discuss the outcome of the working party with the local authority associations other ideas will surface. Subject to that caveat, which must go with all proper consultations, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I have two difficulties with that response. First, it reminds me of nothing so much as the Left wing GLC and the Islington, Haringey and Camden borough councils having their women's and race relations committees. In every report it was their job to say that there was no race relations or sex discrimination. It mattered not whether it was the provision of a sliding pole for a fire station or any other non-controversial business.
The Government are introducing a provision which will inevitably become a nonsense. Even if no positive report is made, in the vast majority of councils which are well run the monitoring officer will find himself repetitiously, expensively and frequently doing totally unnecessary work.
Secondly, the Minister is throwing us titbits from the process of joint consultation with the local authorities. He is asking us to be satisfied not only that the final regulations will meet our objections—a point which he did not effectively answer—but that they will also be satisfactory to the local authority associations. We have no assurance on either of these points. We are being asked to take on trust a process of negotiation which ought to have been completed before the Bill was introduced. By introducing the Bill and giving the Secretary of State virtually unlimited powers to make such regulations as he thinks fit the department is interfering in the consultation process which, as the Minister rightly said, is already taking place and which I am glad to hear is proceeding well.
There were scraps of comfort in the Minister's reply—for example, the involvement of elected members in the appointment process. I must read his reply carefully before deciding whether to bring back the matter at a later stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 83 to 86 not moved.]
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clause 9 [Assistants for political groups]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 87:
Page 12, line 39, at end insert—
("(1A) The following provisions of this section shall apply to any authority which has not, with the concurrence of any

983
minority party or parties (as the case may be) agreed or confirmed having obtained the advice of officers such local arrangements for the provision of political assistants to elected members as it may consider appropriate.").
The noble Lord said. This is another example of heavy-handed intervention by the Government in the affairs of local authorities particularly those affairs which really concern them and no one else. The clause lays down that assistants for political groups shall be restricted to not more than three on any council. There is also a restriction on salary which we shall deal with in the next amendment.
The purpose of tabling the amendment is to demonstrate the fact that there are a large number of councils—I have been given examples, particularly from Scotland—where the provision of only three political assistants would mean that nearly half the Scottish local authorities would be unable to allocate political assistants to all the representative groups. Therefore, a large number of councillors organised in political groupings would be deprived of political assistants.
I appreciate that some Members of the Committee believe that there should be no political assistants. I had anticipated amendments from Government Back-Benchers prohibiting all political assistants. On behalf of the Minister I am relieved that that is not the case. However, it is a nonsense to have political assistants under these restrictions which mean that they are not available on a fair and equal basis to political groups of all types.
The amendment is not put forward in the interests of the Labour Party. It has a large number of councils either in majority or as the largest opposition party and therefore inevitably receives political assistance. It is tabled on behalf of those benighted parties such as the Social Democratic Party which is now down to about 12 councillors in England. I should not like to see them deprived of political assistants although I am sure that the calibre of their councillors is such that they can do without them.
However, the restriction is unfair. With adequate precautions we propose that where there is a decision of a full council acting on the advice of officers—in other words, reflecting the position of political groups in the council, agreed or confirmed on the advice of officers—there should be different provisions for political assistants and local councils should have the ability to appoint them. After all, if they kick over the traces and appoint too many political assistants there is no doubt that they will be criticised publicly and that they run a severe risk of that being used against them at a subsequent election. There is always the democratic process to be borne in mind as the ultimate deterrent to abuse. However, surely a full council acting on the advice of officers could hardly be accused of abuse. The present provisions are much too restrictive and in our view should be modified in the way proposed by this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Trafford: I hate to disappoint the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. I am one of those who in general does not like the idea of political assistants. I accept that they have a part to play and I accept that since the late 1960s or possibly early 1970s they have
984
been accepted in central government—brought in by Ministers as advisers. However, when we are talking of political assistants we should distinguish between two types. The first type is those who are paid by party organisations or other organisations and are not in any sense a charge on the authority concerned, and in this case we are talking about a local authority. I believe that it would be very difficult to deal with a situation like that. That would be unfair to the small or smaller parties. In terms of their general national organisation or finances, there would be difficulty in providing remuneration for those people. However we are not talking about those people but about paid employees.
I think I am right in saying that, although this came from the Widdicombe Committee, in the White Paper the Government rejected the idea of political advisers. However, after due consideration with local authorities, they came round to accept this modified form of only three. Therefore, it was almost predictable that the noble Lord would move an amendment which suggests that we should have more than three for two reasons.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Nothing in my amendment says that there should be more than three. There could be fewer than three if that seems appropriate.
Lord Trafford: Perhaps I should have said that it would have been predictable for the noble Lord to try to change the numbers or make them flexible in the sense that a local authority should decide how many it wished to appoint.
To my mind, the objection to this is that the local authority could then, by various manoeuvrings, if it so wished employ a very large number of such people. The noble Lord puts in the amendment the protection—and I see the point—of the agreement of officers which adds some weight to the amendment. I am now speaking as one of those who the noble Lord suspected was sitting on these Benches. I do not like the idea of publicly paid political advisers to party political groups on local councils. I believe that that allows or could allow—and I do not say that it would—a creeping number of this particular type of person in publicly paid employment for the purpose of promoting party political activities.
I must confess that I much prefer the original White Paper suggestion that none of those people should be employed to the Government's present agreement after consultation that three such people should be allowed. Therefore on the grounds of personal prejudice and the practicality of the likely consequences, I hope that the Government will resist this amendment.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: The effect of Amendment No. 87 would be that a local authority, with the agreement of all parties and after having obtained officer advice, could opt out of the restrictions on the appointment of assistants to political groups and adopt such alternative local arrangements as they wish. We believe that such matters as the number, remuneration and allocation of such posts need to

985
be regulated. This was the view of the Widdicombe Committee. We believe the amendment would lead to a proliferation of such posts, which could in individual authorities lead to the creation of alternative administrations within the council, not responsible to the council as a whole but to a particular political party group.
This would be an inappropriate use of public funds and could seriously undermine the position of the permanent staff of the council. We believe that it was proper to follow the pattern for special advisers in central government who are subject to careful limits on numbers, pay, functions and length of appointment.
Furthermore, on this amendment it is true that I like to think I am the voice of moderation between the appeals of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and the views held by my noble friend Lord Trafford. It may be that the number of three is about right. Therefore, I hope that the Committee will resist the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: If the Minister is going to be moderate, he should accept that the Government's position is rather extreme, that the noble Lord, Lord Trafford, is really extreme and that I am the moderate in this matter, as is so often the case.
The Minister has not really answered my point that there are a large number of councils—and I can give some Scottish examples—where the number of political groups is quite large and where the restriction of three would mean that a significant number of councillors in political groups would be deprived. I only give the number for groups in the regional councils in Scotland without going on to the district councils: Borders, four; Central, five; Dumfries and Galloway, four: Fife, six; Grampian, five; Highlands, four; Lothian, four; Strathclyde, five; Tayside, four. In all those cases significant political groups on the council would be deprived of political assistants. That cannot be right and is simply loading it in favour of the larger and better established parties. I do not believe that the Conservative or Labour parties should do that.
I believe that we should have rather more democratic concern for the minority parties. Let us beat them at the polls and not beat them by depriving them of the privileges which we have. I am very disappointed with the Minister's response. I shall think again about what to do. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 88:
Page 13, line 6, leave out from ("secure") to ("that") in line 8.
The noble Lord said: In some ways the stuffing has been knocked out of Clause 9(4) because the Committee decided yesterday that the £13,500 limit for politically restricted posts was not appropriate. I concede at once that there is not a direct analogy between a level above which a post is presumed to
986
be politically restricted and a maximum sum allowed to be paid to a political asssistant. I can see that in one sense they are different issues.
However, many of the detailed problems to which I referred when moving Amendments Nos. 27 and 28 also apply to Clause 9(4) because the £13,500 grade is very arbitrary and would cause great difficulty in different parts of the country. For example, in Scotland it would indicate 32 on the scale which is in the lower half of grade APV; in the rest of the country that would indicate 35 on the scale, which is well up into the principal officer grades. Therefore, it works differently in different parts of the country and all the difficulties referred to about London Weighting, any overtime payments which there might be or any of the other difficulties could well apply to the posts of political assistants. The result would be a provision which, because it claims to be simple, would in fact work differently in different parts of the country and unfairly in some parts of the country.
I hope that the Government will recognise that the general concern that the Minister and the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, acknowledged at the close of the debate on Clause 2 also applies to the £13,500 limit here. I shall not press this amendment because it provides no alternative ceiling and I accept that the Government may feel so strongly that they wish to impose a ceiling.
Having regard to the spirit of the responses which the Minister made to the Clause 2 amendments yesterday, can he indicate that the £13,500 ceiling, simple and crude though it is, is perhaps not the most appropriate way of dealing with this matter? It should be dealt with on a grade basis rather than a salary basis, and preferably on a higher grade basis for the larger local authorities. The political assistants in those cases will have very substantial tasks, bearing in mind the responsibilities of those local authorities. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: I find some difficulty with regard to this amendment because I do not approve of political advisers at any price. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, ran a local authority. I am not sure whether or not he ran it with paid political advisers.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I have not run a local authority.
Baroness Blatch: Perhaps I ascribe greater things to the noble Lord than I ought to. I thought that the noble Lord was leader of his authority. I wonder if the leader of the authority ran it with paid political help. Many local authorities throughout the United Kingdom function extremely well without the help of paid political advisers. It is possible to obtain political advice if it is required, but I do not think it right to use ratepayers' or community chargepayers' money to pay for political advisers. It is not just that one is employing an individual; one has to provide office space, office equipment and very often clerical assistance, etc.
I find it almost impossible to support the idea. I said at Second Reading that I opposed the idea of political advisers. We are trying very hard in this

987
Bill to depoliticise the running of local authorities. This amendment would put a very real political dimension back into local authorities.
When I was leader of Cambridgeshire, I found that there were facilities available to me—for example library facilities, data from the various departments and a research department within the authority. I had all the information that I required to help me perform my task as leader of the authority. I found that to be adequate. I would not have wanted to have had a political adviser superimposed on that.
With regard to the removal of Section 4, there is a difficulty about the ceiling of £13,500 for all the reasons that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has given. Some of the arguments were deployed in relation to parts of Clause 2 yesterday.
I hope that my noble friends on the Front Bench will heed the point—that there should be a ceiling at around £13,500. That figure may be too high. In some parts of the country it would be excessive and in other parts it would be about right. I believe that there should be a method of determining the ceiling, perhaps inflation-proofing it so that it moves with the times. I think that it would be open to abuse if the ceiling were removed. If a ceiling were to be found, it might have to be different for different parts of the country. I think that it is absolutely right that there should be a limit, but I should like to see the whole clause removed from the Bill.
Lord Hesketh: I feel that once again I am rising somewhere in the middle as the voice of moderation.
The effect of these amendments would be to remove the salary limit of £13,500 proposed for the assistants of political groups. There is obviously room for debate on this matter. We are anxious to underline that these political assistants are not intended to be a source of policy advice and competition with council chief officers, who we believe should be available to assist all political groups.
This, it seems to us, argues for the maximum pay being set at a sufficiently low level that such a post would not be seen as an alternative career for the ambitious. The aim would be to attract good staff. We doubt that it would be appropriate for such posts to be a lifetime career.
The Widdicombe Committee suggested that such posts would be graded as senior officers. We think that a point within the senior officer range, which is also the bottom of the principal officer range—namely the £13,500—is about right as a maximum. We therefore think that the figure in the Bill is correct and urge the Committee to retain it. We recognise that there will be variations in different parts of the country, as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, pointed out. However, the £13,500 figure is a ceiling, not a recommended pay level. For those reasons we urge the Committee to reject the amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: When the Minister said that he was in the middle, my noble friend Lord Graham and I barely resisted the temptation to think "pig in the middle". However, I must remind the
988
noble Lord that those who stay in the middle of the road often get run over. It is a serious risk.
In reply to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, I have served as a committee chairman on two local authorities, one of which had political assistants, and one of which did not. The one which did not was a London borough council with very much more limited responsibilities than the one which did. I managed on the borough council. I do not think that I could have managed without political assistants on the larger council. I am certainly not convinced that, although there may on occasion be abuses, the political assistants are not a valuable addition to the power of local authorities in enabling them to do an effective job.
The fundamental problem is the same as that which arose on the previous amendment. It is easy for the large parties, and particularly easy for a large and rich party like the Conservative Party, to provide political assistants for its councillors out of central party funds. My noble friend gave the example of Conservative Central Office deliberately setting out to intervene to introduce politics into our schools. That is not just a disgrace in terms of intervention in our educational establishments, but it is an indication that the Conservative Party has the funds to do that kind of thing. The Labour Party could not do that even if it wanted to, and I doubt whether the smaller parties could either.
Political assistants are a way of ensuring that the smaller parties have the same kind of help that the Labour and Conservative parties are more likely to get from their own resources. This amendment is not an attempt to promote the position of the Labour Party.
I had hoped that the Minister would acknowledge the difficulty of the £13,500 limit. He acknowledged that it would operate differently in different parts of the country. If we are not going to make any greater progress, maybe we ought to concentrate on that matter at a later stage. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 89 not moved.]
Lord Ross of Newport Lord Ross of Newport moved Amendment No. 90:
Page 14, line 23, at end insert—
("( ) Any group shall have a right of appeal to the Secretary of State if it believes that it has been the subject of unfair treatment due to (a) the regulations in (5), (6) or (7) above or (b) the actions of other political groupings on the authority.").
The noble Lord said: I deliberately kept my trap shut because I gathered that we wanted to make progress with this Bill tonight. However, I feel able to say something about political assistants. I am, I am afraid, a hawk. I am not in the middle of the road. I have always been accused of being in the middle of the road as a Liberal, but I am a hawk too. I do not like political assistants in local government.
It is true to say that Widdicombe recommended (5). The Government, it is perfectly correct—the noble Lord, Lord Trafford is right—wanted to cut it out altogether.
I admit that I have never served on such an authority as a regional authority in Scotland. They

989
are very much larger than a county council like the Isle of Wight and no doubt some of the city councils in London. Basically I am against the idea and I regret their introduction.
I am also against the idea of monitoring officers. The clauses in the Bill which deal with monitoring officers and political assistants will lead to all kinds of problems and quarrels. That will not achieve anything. The answer is for the public to finance the political parties—but I will not go into that. It would get the Labour Party off the hook with the trade unions, it would give us a chance and it would be to the advantage of the Tories as well.
At a time when we had high unemployment of over 18 per cent. I appointed Mr. Alan Curtis as a consultant. He was chairman of Lotus Cars. He was a good paid-up Tory. I did not know that at the time, but never mind. However, I recognised that he did a very good job for us and I am still a friend of his. I suppose that, without political assistants and as leader of the council for three years, I cannot have done too badly because we were re-elected and re-elected again this time. Everybody thought that we were not going to hold on, but we did.
However, I come back to the amendment. If we are to have political assistants, and there are all kinds of things in the clause about that, and if we are to have regulations yet again on this whole issue, we suggest that there will probably be problems in some councils for the smaller political parties and that therefore there should be a right of appeal to the Secretary of State. It appears elsewhere in the Bill so can we have it here?
Perhaps the right of appeal will appear in regulations and if the Minister confirms that then I shall quickly withdraw the amendment. The system may work well in 80 per cent. of cases but there are bound to be squabbles and, therefore, if we must have these people—and again I say that I wish that were not so—then perhaps there should be appeal to the Secretary of State where there is disagreement on a local authority. I beg to move.
8 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: This amendment would give political groups in local councils a right of appeal to the Secretary of State if they think that they have been treated unfairly over the arrangements for political advisers. I think that I may fairly say that I was surprised when I saw that the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Newport, on the Liberal Bench had put down this amendment. It would give the Secretary of State wide and undefined powers to intervene in the internal affairs of a local authority if a political group believes that it is being treated unfairly.
This seems to me the wrong way to go about matters. Local authorities are elected to discharge their own functions. There will be cases in which it is desirable to lay down rules about how they shall conduct their affairs, but within those rules our tradition is that they should take their own decisions. The amendment considers two cases: one where the unfairness arises from the regulations; the other
990
where the complaint arises from the actions of other political groups on the authority.
If the regulations work unfairly I am sure that any reasonable Secretary of State—and all Secretaries of State are required to be reasonable in the discharge of their statutory functions—would want to consider the regulations to see if they can be improved. To that extent, therefore, the amendment is unnecessary.
The second case considered is where the other political groups have ganged up on the one which complains to do something unfair. If what the other groups have done is unlawful, then the remedy is clear; it is for the courts to decide what is unlawful. If it is not unlawful then it is a matter of discretion and I think that it would be unwise to introduce the precedent of giving the Secretary of State a general power to intervene in the internal workings of a local authority to overrule a lawful discretionary decision of that authority.
To sum up, in part this amendment is unnecessary because if the regulations are wrong any sensible Secretary of State will want to correct them, not to have an undefined power to intervene. If what is complained about is a lawful discretionary decision of the authority about its internal affairs, then it is an unsound principle to give the Secretary of State power to intervene. I hope that in the light of these comments the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Ross of Newport: I have to say to the Minister that that is a pretty ripe reply. The Secretary of State is interfering all over the place with local government. To say as an answer that it is to be left to local discretion, after all the regulations that he has laid down, is beyond belief.
There is a situation that fortunately has never occurred in my part of the world, though it did in one of the boroughs for a short while. The opposition party, which happened to be my party and which had a large number of councillors, was denied any place whatever on the policy and resources committee. That has now been put right. However, it is happening in other parts of the country. Minority parties are deliberately being omitted from certain committees on which they have a right to sit.
This Bill may put that right but there will be arguments over political assistants and whether or not a minority group should have one. An overwhelming Labour or Conservative majority may want to claim two and leave one to the opposition with nothing for the third party. That is why the appeal procedure was suggested. I am willing to withdraw the amendment but I ask the Minister not to reply that the Government are leaving this to the local level because everything has been taken away from local government.
Baroness Blatch: Perhaps I may be allowed to ask a question on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Ross. We may both be interested in the answer. Given the prescriptive mechanism for setting up political advisers and allocating them to particular groups, and the mathematical calculations that will have to be done, if a minority group was unfairly treated

991
would it not have recourse in the first instance to the monitoring officer within the authority? Would that not be a breach of the provisions of the Bill?
Lord Hesketh: My noble friend is entirely correct. I did not mention it because the next stage after that, if there is still dissatisfaction, is to go to law.
Baroness Blatch: But the fact that it is on the face of the Bill would give protection to the minority groups. They would not need something as dramatic as recourse to the Secretary of State.
Lord Hesketh: If something illegal had occurred, yes.
Lord Ross of Newport: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that intervention. It had occurred to me that the monitoring officer might be the person to turn to, but having already criticised the role of the monitoring officer I thought it better not to mention that possibility. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 9 agreed to.
Clause 10 [Limit on paid leave for local authority duties]:
[Amendments Nos. 91 to 95 not moved.]
Clause 10 agreed to.
Clause 11 [Confidentiality of staff records]:
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 96:
Page 16, line 18, leave out ("Subject to subsection (3) below").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I speak also to Amendment No. 97. These amendments are designed to ensure that the public sector has the same degree of accountability as the private sector in terms of the information that it is required to disclose regarding the numbers and salaries of its employees. The new Clause 11 of the Bill allows ratepayers to identify the salaries of named individuals.
The intention of this amendment is to place employees of local authorities on the same footing as private sector employees regarding information publicly available about their salaries. The Government claim that Clause 11 of the amended Bill will restore law to the position the Government understood it to be prior to the Northampton case; that is, individual ratepayers—and from 1st April 1990, poll tax payers—will be able to see the gross salaries of named local authority employees.
One argument against this clause is that it creates a "snooper's charter". Given proposals in Part I of the Bill to link political restriction to salary, gross earnings are now sensitive information. But it is more important to address the increasing imbalance between disclosure required in the private sector and disclosure in the public sector, particularly in the light of the Companies Bill now in another place.
The 1985 Companies Act required disclosure of the number of employees "remunerated at higher
992
rates"—that is, earning over £30,000 per annum—set out in salary bands. The Act describes how those bands are to be calculated, and it is to those provisions which paragraph (a) of this amendment refers. Paragraph (b) provides for disclosure of the numbers of staff employed within different categories as determined by the head of the paid service; that is, caretakers, home helps and so on. That again is in line with the provisions of the 1985 Act.
At the same time as deciding that named local authority employees must have their gross salaries open to inspection, the Government are proposing to drop the provisions of the 1985 Act for private sector employees. In the Committee debate on an Opposition amendment to retain the current disclosure provisions, Mr. Eric Forth said:
"I do not believe that simply knowing what highly paid employees earn is vital for public accountability. … It could become increasingly burdensome to provide such information".
He later continued:
"It would be burdensome and would allow people's pay to be revealed, albeit inadvertently".—[Official Report, Commons, Standing Committee D, 6/6/89; cols 173–177.]
This argument emanates from the same Government who are quite happy for all local authority employees, however little they may be paid, to have their individual salaries disclosed. In the interests of public accountability, the provisions of the 1985 Act should be retained in the new Companies Bill.
The Government do not know what they mean by "public accountability". It would be charitable to say that they take a flexible approach to the term, to the detriment of shareholders' rights on the one hand and to the privacy of local authority employees on the other. In the private sector, top level salaries have increased well above inflation, with a further bonus by way of the tax cuts this year. Yet this information is now to be kept secret from shareholders. In the public sector, where a salary of £13,500 is sufficient for an employee's civil rights to be abrogated, that employee's name and salary falls within the public domain. There is clearly a double standard, based on feeble arguments. Shareholders and ratepayers (poll tax payers) equally should be able to see how money is being used. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: Clause 11 restricts the information which is available to the public when exercising their rights at the time of audit to inspect the accounts of local authorities and certain other bodies. Only information about payments gross of any deductions made by an authority to each of its employees would remain open to inspection. The clause provides that the information which is purely personal, such as tax and national insurance deductions would not be open to inspection.
These amendments aim further to restrict the information which is available so that it would include nothing about individual members of staff. The amendments would limit the information to numbers of staff employed, identified only by salary band and by categories of employee. I should say that we do not consider that these amendments will work. But, as my right honourable friend said in

993
another place, we have a great deal of sympathy with what the noble Lord opposite is aiming to achieve. Indeed, we are of the view that it may now be possible to go some way to meet the real concerns that have been expressed here and in another place. And while it is important to keep the right balance between personal privacy and public accountability, I am hopeful that it may even be possible to provide the kind of protection for individual employees that these amendments seek.
We shall consider these proposals and the points the noble Lord has made before deciding what should now be done.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I am not likely to get a fairer offer than that between now and half past eight when the proceedings on the Bill will terminate. I am grateful to the Minister. I can sense a genuine desire to seek agreement in a very sensitive area. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 97 not moved.]
Clause 11 agreed to.
Clause 12 agreed to.
Clause 13 [Voting rights of members of certain committees: England and Wales]:
[Amendments Nos. 98 and 99 not moved.]
Clause 13 agreed to.
Clause 14 [Voting rights of members of certain committees: Scotland.]
[Amendment No. 100 not moved.]
Clause 14 agreed to.
Clause 15 [Duty to allocate seats to political groups]:
8.15 p.m.
Lord Ross of Newport Lord Ross of Newport moved Amendment No. 101:
Page 23, line 27, at end insert—
("(e) that no body consisting of 5 or more members shall exclude a political group comprising 20 per cent. or more of the nominating authority or authorities, and no body consisting of 10 or more members shall exclude a political group comprising of 10 per cent. or more of the nominating authority or authorities.").
The noble Lord said: I have tried to make sense of Clause 15. It is fairly complicated. The amendment attempts to clarify the subject of proportionality. I hope that the Government will consider it in that light. It is fairly straightforward and the amendment seems to me to be less complicated than what is proposed in Clause 15. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: The intention of the amendment is to guarantee that any political group which constitutes at least 20 per cent. of the authority is represented on any body comprised of five members or more, and any political group which constitutes at least 10 per cent. of the authority is represented on any body comprised of 10 members or more. I
994
appreciate what the noble Lord is seeking to achieve and I feel gratified that his proposal is very much in the spirit of the principle of the pro rata representation which we have embodied in the Bill. However, although we have tried to keep the rules for determining the allocation of seats to political groups as simple as possible, they are nevertheless fairly complicated.
We believe that the amendment would make the rules even more complicated and to that extent it is undesirable. The amendment also seeks to deal with a situation which is likely to arise only very rarely. The current rules normally provide for a political group representing 10 per cent. of the members to be allocated a seat on a 10-member committee. The only circumstances in which such a group might not be entitled to a seat would be if the majority group, having only a small majority, were entitled to six out of the 10 places. If there were several such committees, a political group with only 10 members may not be entitled to one of the four minority group places on some of the committees. A similar situation could occur if there were several five-member committees. Noble Lords will appreciate how unlikely these circumstances are to occur when I add that a 10 per cent. group would always be entitled to a seat on committees consisting of 11 or more members and a 20 per cent. group on committees with seven or more members.
I hope that the Committee will agree that it would be wrong further to complicate the rules to deal with an arithmetical possibility which, practically speaking, is rarely likely to occur. Instead we should concentrate on the enormous good that the rules do to restore true local democracy and to allow minority parties to play a meaningful and effective role in local government after being overlooked for so long in some authorities.
Our measures will ensure that at least one minority party is represented while quite properly allowing the majority party a majority on all committees and sub-committees. I should point out, however, that the provisions of the Bill do not prohibit local authorities from allocating seats in line with the amendment or in any other way, provided that there is unanimous agreement to do so.
I trust that the Committee will therefore recognise that the measures we have provided in the Bill are sufficient to secure the principles of pro rata representation for all political groups. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Ross, will feel that he is able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Blatch: I have sympathy with the amendment because I believe the Bill goes further than any other framework we have had in the past to protect the rights of minority groups. That is right. But there are practical difficulties and I see two. One is where the 10 per cent. in numbers turns out to be, such as in my local authority, 7·7 members. The idea that they could be represented on every single committee that is greater than five would be a physical task beyond the ability of just seven members. There is another practical difficulty, which I do not think would be excluded under the Bill. My own local authority allows each individual group the

995
right to form a policy planning committee. In other words, it allows it officially within the rules of the council to receive advice from officers to plan, to think and work out its own policies and priorities. The protection and confidentiality of each group meeting is protected. If it were any group consisting of five or more members that reflects the political makeup of an authority, that would exclude or preclude that kind of gathering. It is important for all groups, even minority groups, to have thinking time on an authority and to be able to work out priorities and policy planning without necessarily being out in the cold because the group is not the majority group. Therefore there is sufficient protection within the Bill for minority groups and I believe the amendment would present practical difficulties.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I am genuinely interested in what the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, has been saying. I have served on a local authority where in my time—which perhaps dates me—there was a clear understanding that council officers did not attend what the noble Baroness has described as group meetings; that is, meetings which are restricted to members of one political group. I appreciate the integrity of council officers who would be there to assist. But can the noble Baroness tell me whether the same officer attends the same groups or whether an officer could attend different groups in the same cycle, for example, and therefore could be privy to the political intelligence and the political opportunities which are created by each of the separate groups inside the Council? When I was a councillor a council officer would come to our group from time to time to explain the broad strategy of a development plan. Perhaps the noble Baroness can help us further.
Baroness Blatch: I can speak only of how it happened in Cambridgeshire. It was thought that for the officers to be available to give advice and information to the ruling group alone was not appropriate. The rules are very specific. The meetings must be recorded and they must take place within Shire Hall. We discovered that one group on the council was having meetings in the private homes of councillors. Party members attended those groups and officers advised. We felt that that was unhealthy; so we came to an all-party agreement that individual groups could have access to information and advice from officers but that information and advice from the same officers would be available to the whole council.
We have a strict code of confidentiality. For example, at budget time, in addition to the ruling group working out its strategy it should be possible for other groups—the main opposition group and minority groups—also to have information and advice to help them to determine their strategy. The officers do not advise on how to behave politically. They give advice and information. That has worked very well. The meetings are exposed and are recorded as having taken place. So far we believe that it has worked to the benefit of all councillors. We have found that our officers are loyal to each of the groups.
996
We as Conservatives would never be told what went on between an officer and another group. As long as it is open and above board and the rules are written down we have found that it works.
Lord Ross of Newport: That example is absolutely correct and I support it. I received a fair reply from the Minister. I realise that a slight problem could arise with my amendment. I should put it on the record that we recognise the steps the Government are taking with the Bill to give rights to minorities. We welcome it very much. With those words, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 15 agreed to.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Clauses 16 and 17 agreed to.
Clause 18 [Members' interests]:
Lord Ross of Newport Lord Ross of Newport moved Amendment No. 102:
Page 25, line 7, after ("member") insert ("and officers who attend committees or are involved in any tendering process").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 2 seeks to extend the declaration of interests to officers. Many officers have powers devolved to them by local authorities. It probably happens less now but when I was first elected to the Isle of Wight county council in 1967 many of the older members would come in opening their envelopes. They had not studied the business. They left almost everything to the officers. Officers have to deal with tenders and negotiations with potential contractors. Should they not also declare their interests? There is something in this. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: This amendment seeks to extend the provisions of Clause 18 to enable the Secretary of State to require officers who attend committees or are involved in any tendering process to provide information about their own pecuniary interests.
The noble Lord is right to be concerned about the pecuniary interests of officers. They may make important decisions on behalf of councils, and it is vital to ensure that they are not influenced by personal pecuniary considerations. Section 117 of the Local Government Act 1972 already requires officers to give notice of any pecuniary interest they have in contracts with the council. This does of course cover only a limited range of interests and requires disclosure only when a conflict of interest actually arises. We accept that some further safeguards are needed but propose taking a different approach from that which the noble Lord has put forward in his amendment.
The reason for this different approach is that, unlike members, officers are employed by the council, and it is the council's responsibility to assure itself as to the proper conduct of its staff. In doing so, the council is able to impose requirements on its employees and back these up with disciplinary measures in a way that it cannot do with members. Some councils have already used this to require officers to complete a register of interests.

997
We believe it is important to build on this, and we are therefore considering using the provisions of Clause 19 of the Bill to require councils to make provisions in their standing orders for officers to declare their pecuniary interests. This will leave responsibility for ensuring, and enforcing, the proper conduct of officers where it belongs—with the council—while at the same time making provision to ensure that councils carry out that responsibility uniformly.
We are discussing details of the proposed model standing order with the local authority associations in the context of the joint working group which we have set up to review the model standing orders. I hope that, in the circumstances, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Before the noble Lord decides whether to withdraw his amendment, I have some sympathy with what he is trying to achieve although I am more attracted by the Government's approach to it. What really worries me is the combination of this amendment and the next amendment which would extend the declaration to non-pecuniary interests. That really worries me.
Lord Ross of Newport: I thank the Minister for that detailed and helpful reply. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Ross of Newport Lord Ross of Newport moved Amendment No. 103:
Page 25, line 10, leave out ("pecuniary").
The noble Lord said: I now stand in fear and trepidation of moving this amendment; I shall do so very quickly. Clause 18(1)(a) requires that members should declare direct and indirect pecuniary interests. Should that not go rather wider? We suggest that the word "pecuniary" should be taken out of the Bill altogether. I think that we should widen the need for members to declare interests. I refer not only to pecuniary interests. There are other interests which may not necessarily involve finance. I have in mind people making planning decisions of one kind or another. They may be involved in running properties and so on. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: This amendment would extend powers and enable the Secretary of State to require members to disclose their non-pecuniary interests. We considered very carefully, in the context of the Widdicombe Report, whether members should be required to register non-pecuniary interests. Such interests can be as important as pecuniary ones in influencing a member's behaviour. There is no question that where such an interest arises members should not vote or take part in proceedings. However, the existing criminal sanctions which apply in relation to disclosure of pecuniary interests at meetings do not apply to non-pecuniary interests. That is because non-pecuniary interests are, by their very nature, difficult to define and it would be wrong, in these circumstances, to make disclosure subject to criminal sanctions.
998
The proper way of dealing with non-pecuniary interests is, as now, through the national code of local government conduct. The code is quite clear that non-pecuniary interests can be just as important as pecuniary ones and should be treated in the same way. The code will be strengthened by the provisions contained in Clauses 29, 30 and 31 of the Bill which provide for the code to be statutorily prescribed and for councillors to be required to declare on taking office that they will be guided by the code. The local ombudsman will also be required in his reports to name councillors who have breached the code where this has resulted in maladministration by the authority.
I hope that your Lordships will agree that the clause, together with the provisions for the national code of local government conduct, provide sufficient safeguards in relation to non-pecuniary interests. I ask your Lordships to resist the amendment.
Lord Ross of Newport: I am grateful to the noble Lord. It is worthwhile having that on the record. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Strathclyde: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Bill
8.30 p.m.
Read a third time.
Clause 6 [Complaints involving matters within the jurisdiction of industrial tribunal]:
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Lyell)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Lyell) moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 5, line 25, after ("President") insert ("or Vice-President").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment which stands in my name on the Marshalled List this evening follows on from a series of amendments which I moved at an earlier stage of the proceedings on the Bill. Your Lordships may remember that this large series of amendments—I think it is called, "the Lyell Package"—provided for the creation of the office of vice-president of the industrial tribunals and the Fair Employment Tribunal. The proposed new amendment is purely technical and consequential upon the group which I moved at an earlier stage.
At present in Clause 6(1) we make reference only to "the President". The amendment which I propose will substitute a reference to "the President or Vice-President". It will empower the vice-president to act in place of the president when the latter is not available and a matter arises concerning a complaint involving matters within the jurisdiction of industrial tribunals. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 54 [Redundancy]:
Lord Prys-Davies Lord Prys-Davies moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 46, line 29, leave out from ("employer") to ("and") in line 31.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment relates to the Bill's redundancy clause. Noble Lords who were present at the Second Reading debate will recall that the Minister told the House that the Government would be bringing forward an amendment in the area of redundancy, and here I quote the words of the Minister,
"to avoid any erosion of gains towards fair participation in the workforce of individual firms through existing redundancy practices".—[Official Report, 28/6/89; col. 798.]
We did not see the amendment until last Thursday. It is now incorporated as Clause 54 of the Bill. I believe that it is fair to say that we all found this amendment to be baffling. Moreover, I am not sure whether I understand it even today.
An employer's redundancy policy can affect the structure of the workforce just as much as the promotion policy. For example, if an employer uses affirmative action programmes to rectify imbalance in the workforce but is then forced two or three years later, because of difficulties facing the company, to make employees redundant and bases his redundancy policy on the traditional practice of last in, first out, then the attempts made over the preceding years to secure equality of opportunity would be eroded and, possibly, negated.
When on Report the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, asked the Minister a simple question—that is, whether this amendment would adequately cover the last in, first out point—it seemed to the House that the Minister was unable to give a specific and clear answer to the question. I have since had an opportunity to read the words of the Minister but they are no clearer; indeed, they are woolly. That will not help employers when they have to implement the provisions of this Act.
In our view the confusion is probably—although, I am cautious in my comments—caused by the last limb of Clause 54(1)(a). The aim of the amendment is to remove those words. Therefore if our amendment is accepted, an employer can ignore the practice of last in, first out without having to construct an affirmative programme and without his policy being in accordance, and here I quote, "with an agreed procedure"—whatever those words may mean.
We urge the Government to accept this amendment. By doing so, the employer will know that he can ignore the old practice of last in, first out without having to call in aid an affirmative action programme and the agreed procedure. I beg to move.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, will forgive me—and I am sure that your Lordships will be happy—if I reiterate briefly how we see Clause 54. We have constructed this clause very carefully and with great sensitivity because of the way in which—and I explained this at an earlier stage—we are dealing with redundancy.
1000
First, unlike recruitment, training and promotion issues, which are constructive issues with which we have been dealing most of the way through the passage of this Bill and which relate to entry into, or movement within, employment, as your Lordships will be aware, redundancy is something emotionally different. It involves exit from employment. That difference and that aspect of the matter is fully recognised by the Government.
Secondly, Clause 54 as drafted strikes the right balance between providing protection for employers who wish to preserve gains in the percentage of an under-represented group in their workforce. That is the core of the argument and of the discussion which has prevailed through the proceedings on this Bill from 31st January of this year, when it started its journey in another place, right through until this evening. It provides protection for those employers who wish to preserve such gains. But, on the other hand, the clause avoids instrusive interference in very delicate industrial relations matters.
Thirdly, like Clauses 53 and 55, Clause 54—as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, will appreciate—is basically an enabling clause. It gives employers the necessary flexibility to look at and to address redundancy schemes when they wish to preserve the gains made by an under-represented group.
Fourthly, I should like to stress to the noble Lord the fact that Clause 54 is consistent with the definition of affirmative action, which, as he will be aware, involves two kinds of action to secure fair participation; namely, the adoption of practices to secure fair participation and the modification or abandonment of practices that have or may have the effect of restricting or discouraging such participation.
Further, Clause 54 respects the consensus which we believe should underlie all industrial relations matters and the need for a sensitive approach to redundancy. The clause gives employers security of protection from both direct and indirect discrimination when they are negotiating—this is important—an agreed redundancy procedure with the unions or workforce representatives. I shall clarify that point briefly later.
Finally, Clause 54 is at the heart of this part of the Bill which is designed to avoid selection for redundancy on the basis of religious belief or political opinion.
The noble Lord, and the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, at an earlier stage, referred to the question of last in, first out, which is one possible method of selection for redundancy. I have stressed that the purpose of Clause 54 is to protect those gains. It is a matter for negotiation between employers and the unions or workforce representatives. That is why there is no specific reference to last in, first out. Any gains in representation of an under-represented minority are likely to result from those most recently recruited. If an employer and a union were, off their own bat, to conclude a last in, first out agreement those gains might be dissipated. The amendment allows employers and unions collectively to address that difficulty, and, as part of an affirmative action

1001
programme, negotiate a method of redundancy other than last in, first out.
Employers and employees, or their representatives, could decide to base a redundancy scheme on criteria other than last in, first out; such as the skills of the individuals, the need to retain certain skills, the possibility of releasing those workers with skills for which the demand may be disappearing, or other factors such as qualifications or disciplinary records. If such a redundancy scheme is negotiated in preference to a scheme of last in, first out, or replaces one of that nature, the effect of the amendment is that the employer is protected against direct and indirect discrimination even though the object of the scheme is to preserve affirmative action and even though the scheme will have a disproportionate effect on the over-represented community in that particular workforce.
I hope that the noble Lord will see that we believe that Clause 54 as drafted should continue at the core of the Bill that we have pursued consistently for more than six months now. The noble Lord felt that there was no definition of "agreed procedure". We believe that "agreed procedure" has a meaning in the Bill. As we understand it, it means a formal agreement between the employer and his trade union or his workforce representatives. The inclusion of the term is fully consistent with the basic principle and practice of consent which I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Blease, will accept should underlie all industrial relations matters. The agreed procedure gives full respect to trade union negotiating rights in respect of redundancy by making the adoption of any scheme, conducted as part of affirmative action, conditional upon trade union support or that of the workforce representatives.
I am sorry if I disappoint your Lordships, but we believe that Clause 54, as drafted, provided flexibility for employers. Flexibility and good practice are the best method to deal with the sensitive issue of redundancy. To put explicitly into the Bill one scheme which may or may not be agreed or may or may not be used by that workforce or in that area would be giving false guidance and would remove the flexibility that we believe to be essential. For that reason, I am afraid that we cannot agree with the noble Lord and accept his amendment.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the noble Lord a question before he sits down. I am not disappointed. I am totally bewildered. I cannot understand what we are being asked to accept. What happens if there is not an agreed procedure? It is as simple as that. Why should there be an agreed procedure? To take the first in, last out as an example, why should the unions abandon that principle? If they do not abandon it, what then happens? That is what I should like to know. That is what I cannot as yet understand.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I stress that we want flexibility. I did not raise the question of last in, first out. It was the noble Lord's
1002
noble friend who raised it at an earlier stage. I gave the same answer. The principle of last in, first out has preoccupied the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, and the noble Baroness. I gave an answer. We believe that we need flexibility.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his lengthy explanation of Clause 54. The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, asked the simple question: how will the clause affect the principle of last in, first out? That is a practice deeply rooted in custom and history. As I understand it, a substantial part of the difficulty in Northern Ireland is how to overcome such practices. The Minister failed to answer that simple question. The clause fails to do so.
The Minister says that we have to show that the redundancy policy is in pursuance of an affirmative action programme, and we have to be satisfied that it is in accordance with an agreed procedure. Have there been any discussions with the trade unions in Northern Ireland as to whether the proposal is acceptable? Whatever his answer to that question, the critical question which the Government must answer is: how do we overcome those deep-rooted practices and customs?
We have been told more than once that the problem is not that of direct discrimination; it is of indirect discrimination, which is deeply rooted in practice, custom and history. If the Government attach importance to affirmative action and to enhancing equality of opportunity, it would assist the employer considerably if the last limb of Clause 37(1)(a) were deleted.
I do not propose to take this matter any further tonight. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, for raising the key questions that he did. The Minister expanded the explanation he gave last time. It will now be up to our colleagues in another place to reflect upon his explanation. Having listened to him, my view is that the clause provides hostages to fortune. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Bonham-Carter Lord Bonham-Carter moved Amendment No. 3:
After Clause 58, insert the following new clause:
("Repeal of certain provisions of Fair Employment (Northern Ireland Act) 1976
Subsections (2) and (3) of section 42 of the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1976 (certificate that act done for the purpose of safeguarding national security, or of protecting public safety or public order to be conclusive evidence of that fact) should cease to have effect.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the amendment standing in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies. I do not apologise for raising this matter yet again. It was raised on Second Reading, in Committee and on Report and we raise it now at Third Reading. I do so simply because the arguments which were deployed by the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, did not seem to me to answer the case which was put by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, and by me for removing Section 42(2) and (3) of the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1976. Subsection (2) reads, and I ask noble Lords to listen to this:

1003
"A certificate signed by or on behalf of the Secretary of State and certifying that an act specified in the certificate was done for a purpose mentioned in subsection (1) shall be"—
and this is the heart of the matter—
"conclusive evidence that it was done for that purpose".
Those are the terms of the subsection which I regard as unacceptable.
I do not want to hear the noble Lord tell me that it is essential that the Secretary of State should have the right to issue Section 42 certificates. The point is that if the use of that power is not to be a source of suspicion and controversy, there must be some independent element, there must be some kind of appeal.
At Second Reading, in Committee and on Report the noble Lord argued, first, that for reasons of security the Secretary of State needs this power. If he wants confirmation of that he will find it in cols. 204, 678 and 824 of Hansard. Let me remind the noble Lord that none of us denies that. No one is saying that the Secretary of State should not have that power. No one is trying to take it away from him; no one is trying, in the words of the noble Lord himself, "to dismantle it".
Secondly, he argued that since the passage of the 1976 Act, the power under Section 42 had only been used on 17 occasions. Let me remind the Minister once more that that is not the issue about which we are arguing. The point is that if the power had been used on only one of those occasions, if on only one of those occasions a certificate had been issued wrongly or based on false information, an individual would have been the victim of an injustice, an injustice for which he had absolutely no redress. The amendment is directed at that.
It is a very serious situation in this country that a person can be the victim of an injustice based on secret information and he has no redress—there is nothing he can do. He does not merely not get the job but he is marked for life on the basis of evidence which he believes to be false. I find that absolutely unacceptable and I cannot but believe that it is contrary to the European Convention on Human Rights.
Thirdly, the noble Lord argued that to provide a wider scrutiny of matters such as this would jeopardise sensitive information. Perhaps noble Lords will look at col. 204 of Hansard in this regard. I must ask the Minister this question. If that is so, why under the sex discrimination order is a certificate subject to judicial review? Why is wider scrutiny of women of a different order from wider scrutiny of people on grounds of their religion or political persuasion? The Minister will have an opportunity to explain that.
Fourthly, he argued that applications for Section 42 certificates were not treated lightly. I am sure that is true; I am sure that his right honourable friend takes the utmost trouble and most conscientiously examines what is put before him. No one supposes that he does that lightly, but once more it is not the point that I am driving at. What we are talking about is human fallibility. People can make mistakes. What we want to do is to protect the noble Lord's right
1004
honourable friend from his own fallibility. We want to provide redress for victims of human fallibility. That fallibility is not confined to the Secretary of State; there is the human fallibility of the security services who provide the Secretary of State with the sensitive information on which he has to base his judgment.
These are the questions which the noble Lord must answer. After his years of experience in Northern Ireland, he must be conscious of the suspicious scrutiny with which any action taken by the Secretary of State is examined. He must also be aware that the reputation of the security services who supply this information in Northern Ireland is not totally beyond reproach. Whatever one may think of it, after Stalker, Kincora, Colin Wallace, Peter Wright, etc., it is more than ever necessary to be scrupulously careful in dealing with matters such as those which we are discussing.
I plead with the noble Lord on this occasion to address himself to these serious arguments which we have now put to him on no fewer than four occasions. Moreover, he admits it. He says that ever since 31st January he and his colleagues have been examining administrative procedures. I do not think those procedures are all that difficult. We have proposed one here. He has a precedent in the sex discrimination legislation. But we have to ask him for how much longer he will be examining these administrative procedures. We further have to ask him whether it is an administrative matter that is at the heart of this issue. It is my view that it is not an administrative matter but a judicial matter providing the individual who is caught under this clause with redress if he thinks that he has been wrongly or unjustly treated. I hope that the noble Lord will address himself to that and that he will also inform us of the progress he has made since 31st January in dealing with the problem which prompts this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, from these Benches I wish to support the amendment which has been so ably moved by the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter. I wish to emphasise that it is the duty of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, when issuing a national security certificate, to act fairly and to be seen to act fairly.
That is not a novel principle. It is the concept which governs administrative procedures in this country. We therefore assert with as much conviction as we can command that the person who is affected by the Secretary of State's certificate has the moral right to know that the Secretary of State had acted fairly in issuing the certificate. The best way to give him that assurance is to give him the right to lodge an application for judicial review. Yet, as the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, has pointed out, as it stands, the law of this country denies him that moral right. He has been denied it for 14 years. It is surely irrelevant and inconsequential whether the number of certificates which have been issued is 17 or one. However, we are entitled to ask the Government for how much longer such a person is to be denied the right to judicial review.

1005
We obviously accept that we have to seek a just balance between the legitimate interests of the state and national security on the one hand and the legitimate interests of the individual on the other hand. However, to the best of my recollection, the Minister has not dwelt on the need to strike that just balance. We say that the department must grasp the need to seek that balance and therefore that the Secretary of State's exercise of this power to issue a certificate must in all cases be accompanied by effective legal scrutiny of the decision. We ask for the fourth time that the Government respond favourably to this amendment which, as I said earlier, has been so ably moved by the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter.
9 p.m.
Lord Blease: My Lords, the essence of this amendment was dealt with on Report and in earlier parts of the debate on this Bill. It has been very ably moved by the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, and supported by my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies. There is little I would wish to add to the arguments that have been presented, other than to stress what has already been mentioned. Living in Northern Ireland, I know only too well the difficulties of implementing this provision. In so far as it is humanly possible with my capabilities, I have tried to put myself in the position of a Secretary of State. I would welcome this provision because I think the Secretary of State and his ministerial colleagues are under a constant siege. I believe this provision adds protection to the decisions of the Secretary of State.
Further, I believe the provision reinforces public confidence in that the facts of the matter under review will not be made public, so the danger of potential leaks regarding security matters is not a risk. However, it would certainly give added confidence to the public that what is being done is being done in their name and in the name of justice as regards those concerned. I merely wished to add those points from a Northern Ireland point of view.
Lord Fitt: My Lords, at the outset I wish to apologise for not having taken part in the debates on this legislation to the extent that I wished. I had a family illness and I was not available to speak on the legislation. However, I have read the report of the debates with a great deal of interest and concern. I was one who took part in the Committee stage of the original fair employment legislation when the two clauses which have been referred to this evening were drafted. I remember very well, particularly in Committee, that we were all imbued with the belief that, some way or other, the legislation which we were then proposing would have the effect that we so desired of taking into consideration the awful problem of discrimination that had existed in Northern Ireland for so long. Sadly, in 1989, we find that that legislation will not be as effective as we wish it to be. This evening the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, in moving his amendment, brings back vivid memories of the way in which we view legislation concerning Northern Ireland. That legislation is always caught up with problem of security.
1006
The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, and my noble friends on these Benches will not be unaware of the serious discussions and concerns which were expressed here on the passage of the prevention of terrorism legislation. One of the big concerns that we expressed concerned exclusion orders. We were told that the Home Secretary was privy to some information which would allow him to take decisions in which the victim of the decisions would have absolutely no say. The victim's elected representative and his legal representatives could make whatever inquiries they thought necessary, but they would be faced with the fact that the Home Secretary had made the decision because it involved security.
We are faced with exactly the same problem in this legislation. Throughout the many years I was an elected representative in Northern Ireland, people used to come to me who had a very enviable record in Her Majesty's Services, or in His Majesty's Services during the last war. They had given their all in the Army, Navy and Air Force, but they had the awful impediment of being Catholics. That impediment existed even though they had given service during the war. After the war ended, as they were ex-servicemen, they were given some slight priority in the terrible contest that was taking place for jobs not only in Northern Ireland but indeed in other parts of the United Kingdom. I have vivid recollections of their visits to my advice centre. I was an elected representative, but not limited by the constituency. An elected representative in Northern Ireland does not restrict his representation to the constituency.
I remember a painter who had 22 years' service in the Royal Navy. He told me that he was working in Palace Barracks, which was an Army establishment in Holywood, County Down. One Sunday afternoon, completely out of the blue, his superior officer told him, "You have been dismissed". When he asked why, he was told that it was for security reasons. He pointed out that he had 22 years' service in the forces of the Crown. I took the case as far as I could—to the Minister of Defence, to the Home Secretary, and to all the other agencies which appeared at that time to be in a position to give some redress. They could give absolutely none.
That is why I share the concerns which have been expressed about the Bill and support the amendment moved so ably by the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter. Security can be an excuse for discrimination. In Northern Ireland security can be the be-all and end-all in relation to the maintenance of the status quo.
I believe the Bill to be sincerely motivated. I believe that this Government, albeit a Tory Government, are motivated by the same concerns which motivated the government in 1976. I also believe that the American influence had no mean part to play in the promulgation of this legislation. I do not believe that this legislation is perfect. I do not believe that any legislation in this field could ever be perfect. However, as I see it, if it does not do any good at least it will not do a great deal of harm. But the amendment would ensure that where there was the slightest hint of injustice the victim of that injustice would have the right to have his case

1007
looked into. Justice would have to be seen to be done in every aspect of the legislation.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, this ground has already been covered at various stages of the Bill. The speeches of noble Lords have had a common strand of great sincerity and commitment, and if I may so so to the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, no little eloquence. In his opening remarks—I hope that I paraphrase what he said correctly—the noble Lord said that no one was trying to dismantle the certificates. There has been no dissension in relation to the other common theme which runs through this subject, namely security.
The noble Lord, Lord Fitt, need make no apology when he speaks on Northern Irish matters in your Lordships' House. He tempted me into some dangerous areas on the last occasion. My name was splashed over the newpapers, not always in the most flattering light. It was said that some of my comments were not far from the truth. I thank the noble Lord for taking me down that particular avenue.
The noble Lord, Lord Fitt, and the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, have drawn attention to two aspects of problems in relation to Section 42 certificates. In his closing remarks, when we last discussed the matter, the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, emphasised that justice must be seen to be done, particularly in this context. I shall come to that point in a minute.
The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, mentioned one aspect which I took to heart. I have had the honour of serving in Northern Ireland for five and a half years. Every day that I serve in Northern Ireland the more I realise I have to learn. When dealing with the particularly difficult area of security and when signing the certificates we are discussing, I consider and balance the arguments that have been put so persuasively by your Lordships. I am occasionally convinced by those arguments. Then one must look at other aspects and, little by little, come to a decision on the balance of all the factors that are drawn in together.
I have stressed the vital security interests that surround these Section 42 certificates. I beg the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, to accept that at no time do any of us who have to deal with these matters use security as a mere blanket. The noble Lords, Lord Prys-Davies and Lord Bonham-Carter, have perhaps taken to heart what I said at an earlier stage, that the fairly fierce power available to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has been used 17 times in 13 years. It may be thought that that is 17 times too many without the safeguards that the noble Lords seek.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords—
9.15 p.m.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, perhaps I may finish. We are in danger of getting out of order. If the noble Lord raises another point we shall be out of order. I shall conclude my remarks in a moment so perhaps he can contain his patience until then. I have listened to his views on the matter and perhaps he will now
1008
do me the courtesy of listening to mine. He may wish to correct me at the end.
That is an overriding factor that we must take into account. It is a question of people's lives being at stake when matters of this delicacy are discussed. One needs no further graphic illustration than that of the gentleman who was kidnapped and found murdered yesterday. No one yet knows why that happened, but the reasons for it are not apparently a matter that would necessarily concern the Government. However, the noble Lord and all noble Lords who know Northern Ireland will understand that the issue of security is particularly relevant to the lives and safety of people in Northern Ireland.
The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, said that he felt that scrupulous consideration of the certificates and the factors was necessary. I do not recall him stressing that that was what he was after. It seems to me that the thrust of the amendment is concerned with judicial scrutiny.
I do not think that I can go further tonight than I have gone at earlier stages, but the noble Lord raised one point about sex discrimination and Section 42 certificates. There may be an apparent anomaly between Section 42 of the 1976 Act and Article 53 of the Sex Discrimination (Northern Ireland) Order of 1976. That was amended by a 1988 order regarding sex discrimination. So far as the 1988 order concerns Northern Ireland, it removed from sex discrimination legislation in Northern Ireland the certification procedure which still exists under Section 42 of the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1976. That amendment order was a consequence of what was known as the Johnston case in the European Court. That case was concerned solely with equality of opportunity between the sexes. It was not concerned with equality of opportunity between people of different religious beliefs or—and here we come into murky waters—political opinion. We believe that the case is not of direct relevance to the legislation before us tonight.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, stressed once again tonight that the certificates must be seen to be fair. I find it particularly difficult to know how, or how far, one can satisfy the noble Lord on the security aspect. We have tried to do so. I have with me the words, chapter and verse, of the erstwhile noble friend of the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, speaking from this position in December 1975. He quoted almost the same words as I am quoting this evening. I do not believe that the factors regarding security in Northern Ireland have changed that much in those 13 years. The issue is bi-partisan.
However, there is one aspect that may concern the noble Lords, Lord Prys-Davies and Lord Bonham-Carter, who have put their names to the amendment. They seem to believe that it preserves the certificate and the procedure. But in fact it may allow judicial review, having preserved the certificate. However the amendment that is before us this evening as drafted repeals the provision under which the certificate can be issued. If that was the intention, I am sure that it will be made clear but it seems to me that there has been a slight lack of clarity in the understanding of the noble Lords who have moved and spoken to this amendment.

1009
I was very grateful for the support of the noble Lord, Lord Blease, in this area. I am sure he will accept that we take very seriously the issue of the certificates.
In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, I stress that we are not now dealing with exclusion but with a fairly narrow aspect of fair employment and equality of opportunity in employment for people of different religious faiths and possibly of political opinion. That is the area with which we are dealing tonight. I apologise to the noble Lord and all noble Lords who have spoken but our position has not changed over the consideration of this particular Bill since the first time I spoke. I cannot recommend that your Lordships accept the amendment in the names of the two noble Lords who have spoken.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, replies to the Minister, perhaps I may point out that the amendment moved by the noble Lord and supported by me leaves intact the power of the Secretary of State to do any act, and that includes issuing a certificate:
"for the purpose of safeguarding national security, or of protecting public safety or public order".
Subsection (1) of Section 42 remains untouched by our amendment. What are affected by our amendment are subsections (2) and (3) which provide that the certificate shall be conclusive evidence.
I believe that the Minister's comments on the amendment are out of order.
Lord Fitt: My Lords, with the leave of the House I think I should give the Minister an opportunity to assess and take into account the impact of what he said during the course of his reply. He referred to a murder that had taken place in Northern Ireland yesterday in rather strange circumstances. He said—and Hansard will confirm it or otherwise —that the reason for that murder was something about which the Government should not be terribly concerned or take into account.
I know exactly what the noble Lord meant; namely, that it was not a case of terrorism or the person who was killed being a member of the IRA but that certain doubts had been expressed that he might have been involved in other illegal activities. However, I suggest to the noble Lord that every death that occurs in Northern Ireland which has been brought about by terrorism is the concern of the Government.
I rise only to give the noble Lord the opportunity to speak again. I know that he did not mean his words to sound as they will sound in Northern Ireland had not I risen to my feet to give him the opportunity to express an otherwise opinion.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I have listened with great care to the words of the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, in reply to the amendment which I and the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, tabled. I am disappointed that in point of fact he did not move from the arguments that we heard at Second
1010
Reading, in Committee and on Report. He goes on reiterating that the overriding factor is security.
No one denies that security is essential. No one wants to remove the right of the Secretary of State to issue Section 42 orders. All we are saying is that in view of the situation in Northern Ireland, it is more than ever important that security measures should be seen not to override justice to individuals. I do not believe that it is impossible to provide—by means of the proposal that we have put forward—precisely that security to the individual without affecting the security of the state.
The Minister agrees with this in his reiterated statements that the Government are considering administrative measures to deal with this problem. It has been going on since 31st January. I do not propose to press this amendment but I can tell the noble Lord that I shall be asking a Question once every three months to see whether he has made any progress in dealing with the problem which I regard as of the highest importance not merely to Northern Ireland but to this country in general. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 2 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
Lord Prys-Davies Lord Prys-Davies moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 54, line 31, at end insert—
("(4) Paragraph 2 does not apply unless the President or Vice President has directed that the complaint under this Order shall be heard and determined by the Fair Employment Tribunal under section 6(2) of the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1989.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is an amendment to an amendment introduced by the Government at Report stage. The Government's amendment is to be seen between lines 20 and 30 on page 54. This part of Schedule 2 addresses the situation where, on the same facts, there can be a complaint of unlawful discrimination under the sex discrimination order and under this Bill. If we correctly understand the government amendment, the effect of this schedule as it stands is that the hearing of the case under the sex discrimination order will be delayed until the proceedings under the fair employment legislation have been disposed of.
At Report stage we said that this solution raises grave problems. We believe that it may well be in violation of Community law, because the relevant part of the sex discrimination order is derived from Community law. We believe that people will be drawn to challenge its legality under Community law.
I asked at Report stage whether the Government had obtained advice from counsel experienced in Community law. I am not sure that we received a positive answer to that question. That is one part of our concern about the schedule as it stands. However, we believe that the schedule is inconsistent with Clause 6(2) of the Bill. Our amendment draws attention to that clause. Under Clause 6(2) the president of the Industrial Tribunal (which is the tribunal that will consider a case under the sex discrimination order) has a discretion—I emphasise

1011
that it is no more than a discretion—as to whether or not a matter may be heard by the Fair Employment Tribunal.
In reply to a question that I asked on Report, the Minister interpreted paragraph 29 of Schedule 2 to mean:
"That tribunal"—
that is the Fair Employment Tribunal,
"would hear both sex and religious discrimination cases simultaneously."—[Official Report, 17/7/89; col. 682.]
Surely that cannot be correct. In our view there is nothing in Schedule 2 to warrant that interpretation.
As the Bill stands, and having particular regard to Clause 6(2), it is in the discretion of the president of the tribunal to decide whether it would be appropriate for an action proceeding under the sex discrimination order to be transferred to the Fair Employment Tribunal. If the Government's amendment to Schedule 2 is valid, we submit that Clause 6(2) should be amended in line with our amendment in order to regularise the position.
That is a technical point. The point of substance is that we believe, as we believed at Report, that in this respect the Government's amendment to Schedule 2 is in violation of Community law.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, noble Lords will have grasped that we are dealing with a special situation when a case of sex discrimination is under way before an industrial tribunal, and a complaint of religious discrimination is or can be made in addition to the complaint under the sex discrimination order. Under the Bill as drafted, there would be an opportunity for the president of the Fair Employment Tribunal to consider whether or not to give such a direction that the sex discrimination proceedings should be heard by the Fair Employment Tribunal. The amendment would leave the president no reasonable opportunity to consider the giving of a direction. The amendment would have the effect that proceedings before the industrial tribunal would continue, and could reach a conclusion, before the president gave a direction. That would nullify the existing provision in Schedule 2 which is there for the precise purpose of permitting the president to draw breath, as it were. It would be quite unworkable to require the president to take his decision while an industrial tribunal continues its deliberations.
Furthermore, the amendment would seriously diminish the advantages of Clause 6. Clause 6 is there to ensure, as far as possible, that there is no need for facts to be heard twice by both an industrial tribunal and the Fair Employment Tribunal. But the amendment before your Lordships ignores that consideration. The amendment would seek to have the industrial tribunal proceed with its deliberations even though there was a threat and a very strong possibility that those deliberations would not be brought to fruition. I wonder whether the noble Lord has considered how he or any of us could justify that considerable waste of time and effort by the
1012
industrial tribunal, the complainant, the respondent and any representatives and witnesses.
We believe that the amendment should be rejected because it would not help good management, personnel relations or, more importantly, the judgment process. We believe that Clause 6 gives all the discretion and the flexibility required by the president or vice-president in this sphere. We believe that that flexibility is needed by all parties: the complainant, the respondent and all the representatives and witnesses. I do not think that the noble Lord means to put such a grave obstacle in the way of very good personnel relations. All the powers of flexibility which may be needed by the president and vice-president are contained in Clause 6.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I have listened carefully to the Minister's response. The argument is highly technical and we shall have to reflect upon his words.
However, my immediate reaction is that he does disservice to our amendment. We say that, as the second schedule and Clause 6(2) stand, there can be a conflict. There is nothing in the Bill to resolve that conflict. Our amendment in no way takes away the discretion from the president of the tribunal. We say that in the event of a conflict the decision of the president will prevail and, in arriving at his decision, the president will have regard to all the evidence before him. However, if he determines that the case is to be transferred to the tribunal, that decision will prevail.
I ask the Minister and the department to consider the relationship between the schedule and Clause 6(2) and to consider the point which we have made that there could be a conflict. Our amendment would resolve that conflict. However, I shall not press the matter further this evening and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass. At this stage it is my happy and pleasant duty to sum up what we have discussed and considered during our deliberations on all stages of the Bill.
Your Lordships will agree that this legislation will shape the practice of the equality of opportunity and employment in Northern Ireland in the years ahead. I hope that that may be even longer than the period since the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, was in this position. I hope that this legislation will be a benchmark in this matter of equality of opportunity in the employment field in Northern Ireland.
In order to achieve that, the legislation must provide clear guidance on duties and obligations in the workplace. It must also set in place suitable and equitable arrangements to ensure the development of sound, defensible and, above all, practical employment practices. It is for that reason that my right honourable and honourable friends very much welcome the careful attention and immense effort and scrutiny which all your Lordships have given to the Bill. I am very grateful to all noble Lords who

1013
have contributed so eloquently, lucidly and in such detailed way to consideration of the Bill.
At Second Reading I indicated that we believed that firmness and fairness were two qualities of the Bill. Discussion in your Lordships' House has emphasised both of those qualities. It has also shown the importance of establishing a point of balance between them. On the one hand the Bill must be tough and effective; on the other hand it must be even-handed and flexible. Our views may differ on how we reach that point of balance and that objective.
However, in sending the Bill to another place for consideration of the work that we have done upon it, I should like to stress the very wide degree of support that exists throughout your Lordships' House for the principal provisions in the Bill and the very significant and substantive points on which we all agree.
At the outset we agreed that a new Bill was necessary. The 1976 Act and the very great achievements which flowed from it were considerable. We have taken them into account and we have admired them. However, it will not have escaped your Lordships' notice that here and elsewhere it has been thought that new and tougher legislation is required. We took the initiative in proposing new legislation.
We have consulted very widely. Some of your Lordships may say that we have consulted too widely and for too long. However, we have listened very carefully to the views and concerns that were put to us both before and after the first drafting of the Bill. The provisions in the Bill follow detailed and comprehensive consultation with employers, trade unions and the existing agency, the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights, as well as a range of other special interest groups. We are very grateful for all the comments which have been put forward. In particular, we found that the report on fair employment which was produced by the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights was very helpful and influential.
Your Lordships will all agree that in order to have fair employment there must be employment in the first place. Every single one of us wants to see more jobs for both communities, and indeed for everyone in Northern Ireland. We should also like to see those who profess an interest in fair employment in Northern Ireland putting their efforts and commitment into the promotion of increased investment for the Province. A sincere commitment to fair employment is incompatible with the promotion, let alone the endorsement, of measures which advocate disinvestment. They threaten existing investment and very often make it more difficult to attract new investment into Northern Ireland.
There is a campaign associated with the vague platitudes which are known as the MacBride principles. This campaign has not created one single new job in Northern Ireland for anyone, Catholic or Protestant, let alone attracted one single dollar of investment into the Province. It incorporates very
1014
damaging economic consequences, and that is one reason for our firm and unrelenting opposition to that campaign.
We have agreed on the crucial importance of affirmative action and on the need to ensure that employers can implement affirmative action programmes, particularly in the fields of training and the encouragement of applications, without fear of attracting charges of discrimination, be they direct or indirect. We see the use of goals and timetables in the Bill as well as voluntary and enforceable undertakings between employers and the commission as most significant elements in this area.
We find more common ground between us on the need for effective enforcement measures. The introduction of criminal penalties, the imposition of monetary penalties by the tribunal and the use of economic sanctions for enforcement are all seen as essential elements in giving this important legislation for Northern Ireland effective bite and teeth.
Understandably, there is a different degree of emphasis between the Government and Opposition but both are broadly agreed on the basic design of the engine that drives this Bill forward. The Government have had many points pressed upon them. We have tried to explain our approach in each case. We have taken on board suggestions and brought forward amendments throughout the progress of this Bill both here and in another place to accommodate many of the important points raised. However, if differences remain they are differences of approach to a common and shared objective.
We have spent many productive and, I hope, fascinating hours considering this Bill. I believe that it has been substantially improved during that consideration. Your Lordships have shown generous concern for the cause of fair employment in Northern Ireland. I pay tribute to all noble Lords who have spoken but in particular to the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, who during my career in the Northern Ireland Office has followed all aspects of Northern Irish affairs with courtesy and understanding. On this Bill the noble Lord has performed in a manner he should be proud of. I am grateful for the way he has put forward his arguments. I hope I have managed to meet some of them. Certainly, I have taken on board the points raised, and if I have not been able to meet them all I hope the noble Lord will accept that it is merely that my approach is marginally different to his. We are immensely grateful to him for what he has done.
The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, and the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, have been of immense help in their specialist fields. They have brought great knowlege and detailed study particularly to the later stages of the Bill. We are grateful for the courtesy with which they have argued their case.
The noble Lord, Lord Blease, of course has great knowledge of everything that goes on in Northern Ireland in regard to employee participation and discussion. We are grateful for the points that he raised tonight and during the various stages. We believe that we have done a very great deal for the noble Lord as well as for everyone who is involved in employment in Northern Ireland.

1015
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, need never apologise for any comments that he might make or for his attendance. We know that the noble Lord attends on almost all the occasions that we discuss Northern Ireland. We are grateful for his support of this Bill.
The Bill started in another place on 31st January this year. Tonight your Lordships send the Bill to another place for consideration of our improvements to it. I believe that our work on the Bill shows the efforts of your Lordships here tonight and also those who were present at earlier stages. Your Lordships' House has been shown in the very best light and for our part we want to express our gratitude. That gratitude will be shared by everyone who has Northern Irish employment, the economy and the well-being of every person in Northern Ireland at heart. We are extremely grateful for what has been done. I commend the Bill to your Lordships.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Lyell.)
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, as the Minister has said, this is a very important Bill for Northern Ireland. It has provided us with an opportunity, not likely to be repeated for many years to come, to remove a major mischief; namely, unfair practice in employment in Northern Ireland. It is also a complex Bill containing baffling clauses and many interrelated provsions.
I believe that the House will support me when I say that the timetable in your Lordships' House for the consideration of the Bill—unlike the timetable in another place—has been inadequate to enable the House properly to discharge its historical role as a revising chamber. The Second Reading of the Bill was held no more than three weeks ago on 28th June. The Committee stage took place eight days later on 6th July when the Government tabled about 37 amendments to their own Bill. A significant number of those amendments were substantial by any account. The Report stage took place on 17th July when the Government tabled a further 22 amendments. Today, 20th July, three days later, the Bill completes its passage through your Lordships' House.
How can the House deal effectively with such an important Bill within the constrictions of this timetable, bearing also in mind that the duty of scrutinising Northern Ireland Bills, because they are Northern Ireland Bills, is borne by very few Members of the House? The work of scrutinising the Bill has fallen to very few of us. It has been suggested to me by one shrewd observer of this House that this may be some evidence that the Brits are growing tired of Northern Ireland. I should like to place that on the record.
The Bill, notwithstanding the kind words of the Minister, leaves the House with our work unfinished. In a few respects we have been able to improve the Bill. In many other respects the Bill has been weakened by amendments introduced by the Government. One does not normally expect a government to weaken their own Bills. In at least four vital parts, the Bill in our view leaves the House ill-defined and unclear.
1016
I refer in particular to the provisions governing indirect discrimination and to the definition of that term, the Government having decided to ignore recent case law on the definition of "indirect discrimination". The provisions relating to affirmative action to protect training schemes are ill-defined; the protection of those redundancy schemes which depart from the practice of last in, first out are in our view inadequate; and finally, the resolution of the conflict between the sex discrimination order and the Fair Employment Act appears to us to be in conflict with Community legislation.
We have tried to the best of our capacity to protect the Government from their own mistakes, but of course we should be delighted if time were to show that our worries were unfounded. But what if we are right? If experience shows that our concerns are well founded, the people who will suffer are the people of Northern Ireland. I say that because it will be that much more difficult to attract the billions of pounds of inward investment that is necessary to meet the chronic weaknesses of that Province.
I wish to thank the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, for his unfailing courtesy and for his immense patience and kindness. Whatever criticisms I have levied from time to time at the Bill, they have not been aimed at the Minister or at any of his colleagues in the Northern Ireland Office. I regret to say that they have been aimed at the Department of Economic Development. The history of the Bill in your Lordships' House, with the Government introducing amendments which have the effect of eroding their own Bill and of failing to honour the commitments that have been made by Ministers, suggests to me at least that there may be deep-rooted problems within the Department of Economic Development in Belfast.
Finally, I want to thank the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, for his immense support. It has been a pleasure for me to work in common harness with him. Given his experience, expertise and ability, his support at all stages has been invaluable. I value very much the guidance I have received from my noble friend Lord Blease, who is deeply rooted in the history of industrial relations in Northern Ireland, and from the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, who has not been able to devote as much time as he would have wished to this Bill for the reasons which we well know. I must also place on record my appreciation for the help I have received at every stage of the Bill from the two specialist advisers who have assisted the Official Opposition and to whom I have looked for guidance.
10 p.m.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I associate myself with the words spoken by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, about the Bill and its passage through the House. In particular, I concur with his view that the usual channels misjudged the size of the task which confronted this House in dealing with it.
As the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, pointed out, there have been amendments not only from our Benches and his Benches but also from the

1017
Government Benches. It is a Bill which is of the greatest importance not only to Northern Ireland but also to the United Kingdom. If we cannot deal constructively with the problems in Northern Ireland, it will be a terrible failure on the part of this country for which we shall all pay. This is not something which we can just shove off as being across the sea, as it is rather tempting for some people to do and to which, obliquely, the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, referred.
In a sense it has been a hard fought conflict because in point of fact we all supported the principles which lay behind the Bill. Therefore we were all committed to doing what we could to make it better and more effective. Of course it is when you are working towards a common objective and differ about means that the most acute difficulties often arise between friends.
Therefore we are—or at least, some of us are—inevitably disappointed that we did not get our way on a number of matters such as those mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies. In particular, I was disappointed as regards the amendment which I moved today which was about this very fundamental issue of human fallibility. Unless we in politics take this matter really to heart, we shall go on making very large mistakes which will affect most seriously our fellow human beings.
We were trying to protect the Secretary of State, for whom I at any rate—and I know many others—have the greatest respect, from his own fallibility and the fallibility of his advisers. I think that that is most important and something which we should remember not only on this occasion but also on other occasions.
We have spent a great deal of time on this piece of legislation and I do not propose to detain your Lordships much longer. However, I must join in the tributes which have been paid to those who participated in the proceedings on this Bill, not least those in another place and in particular Mr. McNamara who made a substantial change to the Bill.
I also welcome the willingness of the Government to accept amendments to the Bill, both here and in another place. I should like to join the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, in the tribute he paid to the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, whose industry and conscientiousness in dealing with every single clause in the Bill can only be a source of admiration and of respect to those who work with him. I should also like to thank and pay tribute to the work of the noble Lord, Lord Blease, the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, and my noble colleague Lady Seear. All of them have helped in our common efforts to make this an effective and constructive piece of legislation.
Finally, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, who has had to preside over this extremely difficult measure, which incorporates very complex notions such as that of indirect discrimination, in combination with other legislation on the subject which sometimes leads to what appears to be conflict. I should like to thank him for his courtesy, his patience and his kindness to those of us who must
1018
have appeared at times to be obstinately putting difficulties in his way.
I hope that the reservations which we have suggested in relation to the Bill may prove to be unfounded and that it helps to achieve its object to change the imbalance of opportunity in Northern Ireland which lies at the heart of many of its tragic problems.
Lord Blease: My Lords, when the Minister introduced the Bill on 28th June he claimed that it was the most comprehensive and incisive piece of legislation ever placed before the House. After some 16 hours of debate, I would describe the Bill somewhat differently. I consider it, as others have already said, to be complex, tortuous and unclear on a number of important definitive legal and administrative matters.
When I spoke on Second Reading, I declared myself firmly in support of the Bill's principles and objectives, as did other noble Lords. I have since been disappointed by the Government's unwillingness to accept reasoned and helpful amendments and the principled and pragmatic approaches which have been put forward. However, this evening I wish to confirm my support for the legislation and to join other noble Lords in wishing every success to the declared objectives on the face of the Bill, namely,
"the promotion of equality of opportunity in employments and occupations in Northern Ireland between persons of different religious beliefs".
I declare my support because, while unhappy with some aspects of the Bill, and however difficult it may prove in human terms, I believe ii to be more constructive to light a candle than to curse the darkness.
A number of professionally interested people in Northern Ireland and many representative organisations such as the Irish Council of Trade Unions, the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights, the Confederation of British Industry and the Churches have all meticulously followed the parliamentary progress of the legislation. Some have already publicly expressed their disappointment that the measure falls far below the high expectations raised in the White Paper and the Government's pronouncements about the Bill.
However, I am sure that those interested people will join noble Lords in wishing all those who carry direct responsibilities and duties for the administration and implementation of the measure every success in the achievement of the Bill's objectives. Among those upon whom the Bill places direct responsibilities are officials of the Department of Economic Development, the president, vice-president and members of the tribunal and the Fair Employment Commission and its staff.
Noble Lords will be aware that on 26th April the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the right honourable Tom King, announced the Government's intention to appoint Mr. Bob Cooper as chairman of the new Fair Employment Commission. Mr. Cooper has been chairman of the Fair Employment Agency since its formation in

1019
1976. He has carried out the extremely difficult and controversial task with a sense of great purpose and justice. He has shown distinctive, strong and effective leadership. I am sure that noble Lords will share the Secretary of State's confidence in Mr. Cooper's proven ability to give sound, sensible and fair leadership to the new Fair Employment Commission. We wish Mr. Cooper success in the challenging days ahead in which he has to play a key part in the commission's work.
I wish to join other noble Lords in thanking the Minister for the courteous and kindly way in which he has steered the Bill on its passage through the House. I agree with the sentiments already expressed about the manner in which he has handled this difficult Bill. The Minister dealt gallantly with a difficult brief. I felt at times that his measured tone mellowed the harsh negative ring of the facts that he had to deliver. At the same time, we are pleased with the few major points that he conceded. I hope that it is not presumptuous of me if I seek to thank all noble Lords who have contributed positively to the
1020
debate. I do not wish to mention each one by name. Their interest, efforts and sensitive understanding of the difficult issues confronting the Northern Ireland people are warmly appreciated by all peaceable and community-spirited citizens in the Province—Catholic, Protestant and dissenters.
Finally, I wish to thank my noble friends on the Front Bench and the noble Lords, Lord Prys-Davies and Lord Graham of Edmonton. I especially wish to express my grateful thanks to the noble Lords, Lord Prys-Davies and Lord Bonham-Carter, both of whom devoted more time to this than we can readily appreciate, extending into the small hours of the morning. They sought with care and skill to help to improve the Bill. They have both been acutely sensitive of the critical issues which the Bill seeks to redress. They have presented their arguments in a manner that encourages and promotes confidence in the Northern Ireland parliamentary procedures. They have sought also to develop a sense of trust, confidence, fairness and justice among the people of Northern Ireland and a strong sense of trust and confidence in good government in the Province. With those words, I support the Bill.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Fitt: My Lords, throughout the centuries both Houses of Parliament—the other place and this Chamber—have tried to legislate for the good government of Ireland and, recently, Northern Ireland. Some of their measures have met with success, some of them with devasting failure. Yet as a Member of this House at this time and in regard to this legislation, I fully accept the Government's good intentions. I believe that the Government are motivated through this legislation to try to erase the awful problem of discrimination which has been self-evident in Northern Ireland since the creation of the Northern Ireland state.
Given the circumstances in which Northern Ireland was created and the 50 years of one-party government there, the very fact that there was a 65 per cent. majority against a 35 per cent. minority meant that it was inevitable that discrimination would take place. The majority government and the majority population, like the South African Government of today, felt themselves to be in a siege situation. Therefore no concessions could be made to their political opponents.
I was born and reared in Northern Ireland, a member of the political minority. I saw at first hand the awful effects of discrimination that took place throughout all the years of my political life there. I do not think that any government in Great Britain—with the exception of a few members who involve themselves in Northern Ireland and speak to the people—can realise the frustration, the fears and suspicions that exist.
This evening I listened to my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies say how baffling the clauses were in this Bill. I can tell him that in a peculiarly Irish way the more baffling the clauses in the Bill the more the provisions are understood in the streets of Belfast. There is nothing technical or legalistic about the clauses of the Bill in the minds of the people of Northern Ireland.
In view of all the discrimination that has taken place in the past, will this be effective in trying to create a better society? I do not think that any government can claim that they are better informed, better motivated or more well-intentioned than any other government. I remember very well that in 1975 and 1976 when the Labour Government were in power, they initiated the original fair employment Bill. I know how I felt as a member of the committee on that Bill and I remember the opposition that we met from the Tory Party. We thought that forcing through that legislation would be constructive in bringing to an end some of the most vicious discrimination that existed in Northern Ireland. Obviously it has not succeeded, and in their own way this Government are now attempting to see whether they can better the situation.
We are all aware that a lot of the original motivation for this legislation emanated in the United States—we are quite well aware of that—with the so-called MacBride principles. I do not agree, and never have agreed, with the MacBride principles. I believe those principles were trying to create a situation in which one community would
1022
seem to have superiority over another community. Some of the people who were behind the MacBride principles in America were not motivated by trying to create better social conditions in Northern Ireland. They were motivated by a highly hostile attitude towards any British Government's conduct of affairs in Northern Ireland. So that interest cannot be taken seriously in trying to grapple with the situation as we know it in Northern Ireland.
Day after day we read of the so-called discrimination in Shorts or in the Belfast shipyard, where, in the terminology of avowed nationalism or republicanism, too many Protestants are employed. The IRA does not want to see anyone employed in the shipyard or in Shorts. How can it claim that there are too few Catholics employed in Shorts one week and then the very next week set off a load of bombs to try to disrupt whatever employment there is in that establishment? The IRA cannot have it both ways.
When I first read the Second Reading debate and the Committee stage of the Bill in another place, after all the years that I have lived in Northern Ireland the tremendous complexity of trying to bring about a more just society in Northern Ireland was brought home to me. My noble friend Lord Blease who has lived in Northern Ireland throughout his life will recognise that there is no Act of Parliament, and there is no statute that one can place on the statute book which could cope with this problem. However, the legislation can create the situation whereby in the end people will realise that discrimination does not achieve any objective but creates frustration, bitterness and the ongoing problem that has existed in Northern Ireland for so many years.
I believe that the Government are sincere. I say in conclusion that the same situation exists now as existed in 1976 when the previous fair employment legislation was put on the statute book. I do not believe that there is any room for division between the Labour and Conservative parties on this issue. If any division can be seen between the parties in the final days of debate in another place, and if the Labour Party is not seen to be giving its support to this legislation, that will immediately be jumped on by those people in America who are more motivated by hostility towards the British in Northern Ireland than they are in bringing about a situation which could end discrimination and bring, about fair employment. Any sense of disagreement between the Government and the Opposition in this Chamber will be fiercely exploited by those Republicans in America who do not wish this legislation to have any success, but who want to see an ongoing saga of the troubles in Northern Ireland. They see that as being to their benefit.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I hope that I may be permitted to reply very briefly to all the nice things that have been said about my colleagues, about myself and about the Bill. Perhaps I may return some of the compliments to noble Lords who have spoken in the debate.
In addition to his Celtic eloquence, the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, seems to be a skilled dancer since

1023
he has been attempting to dance on the head of a pin. On the one hand he suggested that too many amendments were being introduced in your Lordships' House. On the other hand he suggested there were further excellent amendments which we might have accepted. I take that in the spirit in which it was intended.
I think that the majority of the amendments to which the noble Lord referred were tabled in reply to commitments that we gave to his honourable friend the Member for Kingston Upon Hull, to whom I should have paid tribute in the course of my earlier remarks. I do so now unreservedly. In his particular arena he has displayed tremendous energy, persistence and tenacity in championing his approach to the Bill. I believe that we have done our bit to reply positively to the points that he raised with amendments moved in this House as well as in another place.
With regard to the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, and the noble Lord, Lord Blease, about the timing and programme of the Bill, that is a matter for another place. However, I remind the noble Lord to look at the good book. To paraphrase the same chapter and verse of which I reminded him before—St. John, Chapter 8, Verse 7—"let he that is without sin [in metaphorical terms] cast the first stone". If the noble Lord will look at what was said by his honourable friend on 11th November in a place very far from your Lordships' House about the Government's wish to introduce the Bill in this House, he will see that there were differences of opinion.
The Bill received its Second Reading in another place on 31st January. I am sure that noble Lords will appreciate that that is not perfect timing in order to achieve the objective that we all want—to have the Bill on the statute book. As a result of what we have done tonight, and what we hope another place will do shortly in considering our work, it will be a matter of months before the regulations and code of practice can be printed and in place.
I look forward to the participation of the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, who has warned me that he will be asking questions. We shall always be grateful for his participation in Northern Irish affairs. There is no question of hiving off Northern Irish affairs to oblivion. Certainly not in my career. This is one of the first major Bills that I have had the privilege of taking through your Lordships' House.
The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, raised a particular point with which I very much agree. He said that we all agree on the main thrust of the Bill. It is minor differences of opinion—the noble Lord called them acute differences of opinion—which sometimes create difficulties. I hope that we have gone some way together to resolving those differences.
The noble Lord, Lord Blease, quite rightly referred to the pace of the Bill. I am reading some of the remarks made when the Government, supported by noble Lords opposite, put similar legislation through your Lordships' House. The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, used terms such as a "complex" and "not always easy" Bill. He said that it had been
1024
meticulously presented. On that occasion it took one and a half hours at Second Reading: we took three; three and a half hours on Committee: we took seven and a half; one and a quarter hours on Report: we took four; and we have taken about one and a half hours on Third Reading. I believe that that shows that we have been meticulous. I believe too that it reflects the quality of the work that we have done in your Lordships' House.
The noble Lord, Lord Fitt, used two words—"good intentions". I reply to him, "the road to hell"—that is not in the good book. This Bill is about good personnel practice. The noble Lord raised the question of Shorts. One in five of the apprentices at Shorts in 1988 were Catholics. One in eight of the workforce are Catholics. Thus, that major employer has shown that good personnel practice is alive and well in Northern Ireland. I believe that the Bill will help Northern Ireland and everyone in the Province.
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Transport (Scotland) Bill
Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes past ten o'clock.

  SOUTH-EAST ASIAN REFUGEES: RESETTLEMENT PLEDGES
  SOUTH-EAST ASIAN REFUGEES: RESETTLEMENT PLEDGES
  HAWK AIRCRAFT: SALE TO IRAQ
  HAWK AIRCRAFT: SALE TO IRAQ
  HOUSING RENT: ELIMINATION OF ARREARS
  HOUSING RENT: ELIMINATION OF ARREARS
  POST OFFICE: CAPITAL SURPLUS TO INVESTMENT REQUIREMENTS
  POST OFFICE: CAPITAL SURPLUS TO INVESTMENT REQUIREMENTS
  CREDIT AND SERVICES: MMC REPORT
  CREDIT AND SERVICES: MMC REPORT
  FILM INDUSTRY: GOVERNMENT FUNDING
  FILM INDUSTRY: GOVERNMENT FUNDING
  PESTICIDE EXPORTS: CONTROL
  PESTICIDE EXPORTS: CONTROL
  HULL PRISON: SUICIDES
  HULL PRISON: SUICIDES
  LEEDS AND HULL PRISONS: SUICIDE AND SELF-INJURY
  LEEDS AND HULL PRISONS: SUICIDE AND SELF-INJURY
  LEEDS PRISON: SELF-INJURY INCIDENTS
  LEEDS PRISON: SELF-INJURY INCIDENTS
  FEMALE LONG-TERM PRISONERS
  FEMALE LONG-TERM PRISONERS
  FIREARMS LEGISLATION: CONSOLIDATION
  FIREARMS LEGISLATION: CONSOLIDATION
  DRUG ADDICTS AND ALCOHOLICS: SENTENCING POLICY
  DRUG ADDICTS AND ALCOHOLICS: SENTENCING POLICY
  SALMON TAGGING IN THE NORTH EAST
  SALMON TAGGING IN THE NORTH EAST
  POTATO MARKETING
  POTATO MARKETING