Sitting of 25 July 1989

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS
  PRIVATE BUSINESS
    ASSOCIATED BRITISH PORTS (HULL) BILL
    Lords amendments agreed to.

    CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL
    Order for consideration, as amended, read.
    To be considered tomorrow.

    HAYLE HARBOUR BILL [Lords] (By Order)

      QUEEN MARY AND WESTFIELD COLLEGE BILL [Lords] (By Order)
      Orders for consideration, as amended, read.
      To be considered tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions
  HEALTH

    Nurses (Grading)
    Mr. Ernie Ross: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the progress of appeals by nurses with regard to regradings.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Roger Freeman): The grading appeals are being dealt with under a longstanding agreement between the management and staff sides of the general Whitley council on procedures for settling differences over NHS employees' conditions of service.
    Detailed arrangements for operating this agreement are for local decision.
    Mr. Ross: The Under-Secretary will know that today a large delegation of Confederation of Health Service Employees nurses attended the Scottish Grand Committee, which was discussing health. Many of those nurses are still awaiting their gradings which were originally given on 31 October 1988. Can the Minister give the House a guarantee that those appeals will be heard by 31 October 1989?
    Mr. Freeman: No, I cannot give that assurance. It is for local health authorities to hold those appeals as expeditiously as possible. I should point out to the hon. Gentleman that the unions, including COHSE, agreed the procedure for grading appeals. We are following that procedure, which involves three tiers, to the letter.
    Mr. Holt: Will my hon. Friend take it from me that, whatever scheme is in operation, the midwives in south
    836
    Teesside, who have been given one of the most magnificent hospitals in the country, are thoroughly fed up at having to wait for their claims to be heard? What will the Government do, apart from sitting back and saying that it is in someone else's hands?
    Mr. Freeman: The local health authority will be pursuing those appeals as expeditiously as possible. Midwives have enjoyed an increase in salary over the past two years of 28 per cent. on average. The concern is not about pay, it is about other conditions of service. The midwives have had an excellent pay increase and appeals will he heard as quickly as possible.
    Mr. Fearn: Is the Minister aware that at the midwives' conference that I attended last week, and which he could not attend the night before, but attended the following day, morale was very low? That was because the grading system still has not satisfied any group of midwives. Can the Minister tell the midwives that perhaps in the next six months they will have a satisfactory answer to the grading system?
    Mr. Freeman: Ninety per cent. of all staff midwives are on grade E and higher. They have had a remarkably successful outcome from the regrading exercise and the pay increases.
    Mr. Robin Cook: I appreciate that this was before the Minister's time at the Department of Health, but does he recall the Secretary of State lecturing nurses last summer that if they were dissatisfied with their grades they should appeal? As they encouraged nurses to appeal as the remedy, Ministers cannot now wash their hands of the shortcomings of the appeals system. Is he aware that tens of thousands of appeals at district level will not be heard until the end of next year and that 2,000 appeals at regional level will not be heard during this Parliament? What has happened to the Secretary of State's press statement on 5 December in which he promised that appeals would be heard by this spring? Will the Minister at least assure us that they will be heard by next spring?
    Mr. Freeman: The smooth running of the appeals machinery to which the hon. Gentleman refers has been clogged up by the unhelpful and unco-operative attitude of COHSE and the National Union of Public Employees.

    Operations
    Mr. Gill: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action is being taken by individual health authorities to increase the number of operations where their current performance rate falls substantially below the national average.
    The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. David Mellor): We expect health authority managers, who now have available to them information on their performance relative to others, to use this to monitor their own performance and then to make any necessary improvements. We have a range of initiatives to help support and sustain such efforts.
    Mr. Gill: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that after the massive increase in spending during the past 10 years on additional staff, new hospitals. other new buildings and modern equipment, the British taxpayer is

    837
    entitled to ask why we still have a waiting list? Is that not of itself sufficient justification for the Government's reforms of the National Health Service?
    Mr. Mellor: Yes, particularly when some recent research showed that if every district health authority was capable of using its operating theatres as efficiently as the average—not even as the best—that would create enough vacant beds to allow everyone on the waiting list to be operated on immediately. That is the precise scope, and there are many other examples of what the added efficiency that we propose in the review will do for the National Health Service.
    Mr. Nellist: What does the Minister say to a health authority such as Central Birmingham, which is responsible for the Birmingham children's hospital and which has limited the number of open-heart operations to 320, when the surgeons are capable of carrying out 380, and where the waiting list for children now stands at 140, when a year ago it stood at 110? That was at the time of the tragic deaths of David Barber and Matthew Collier, which my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Hughes) has raised repeatedly in the Chamber. What does the Minister say to those area health authorities that are putting the lives of bairns at risk? When will they get enough money so that surgeons can carry out the operations?
    Mr. Mellor: I have every sympathy with the parents of youngsters awaiting such operations. A great deal of attention has been given to improving the position at Birmingham children's hospital. I am advised that double the number of heart operations on youngsters will be carried out at that hospital this year compared with last year. That marks real progress and I hope that we shall be able to do even more in the months ahead.
    Mr. Burt: Will my hon. and learned Friend congratulate my health authority, Bury, on the way in which it has dealt with the issue and is able to treat more patients by increasing the number of consultants by 35 per cent. over the past five years? Will he note that it has achieved that by saving on administration and by putting more services out to tender? Is not that the way that health authorities should go?
    Mr. Mellor: What is encouraging is the range of initiatives taken by different health authorities. I applaud what Bury has done and, equally, I applaud other health authorities which, by having a higher proportion of operating cases treated as day cases, have managed to transform their waiting lists. The Coventry and Warwickshire hospital, which I visited last month, has transformed a waiting list of 1,400 to a list of 300 simply by increasing the proportion of day surgery cases from 7 per cent. of the total work load to 43 per cent. We look to such initiatives, and that is the scale of improvement that is possible when people use their ingenuity.
    Ms. Harman: Is it not the case that to stay within inadequate budgets, hospital managers are telling doctors to do fewer operations, rather than more? How does the Minister's earlier answer square with a report in yesterday's Daily Mirror that two heart surgeons at Birmingham children's hospital were threatened with disciplinary action because they exceeded by one the ration
    838
    of heart operations that they were allowed to carry out in May? Does that not show that the Government's real interest lies in saving money, not lives?
    Mr. Mellor: This year, over 20 per cent. more in-patient cases will be dealt with in the National Health Service than were dealt with 10 years ago and there will be many more operations than there were last year. It is interesting that although the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) made his usual call about underfunding, that was specifically not endorsed at the meeting between regional health authority chairmen and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State last week. The problems of the National Health Service cannot be explained away by a shortage of resources, but have much to do with improved performance. It is about time that the Opposition played some part in making that clear.

    Bristol Channel (Pollution)
    Mr. Speller: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received about sickness, including ear, nose, throat or body sores, in bathers, fisherman or other users of the Bristol channel attributable to the poor water quality and high sewage or industrial pollution of this marine cul de sac.
    Mr. Freeman: None. My right hon. and learned Friend is aware of recent concern expressed by the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisation to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food about the possible health risks to fishermen from sewage disposal to sea. The public have also expressed concern to my Department and to the Department of the Environment about the state of our bathing waters.
    Mr. Speller: I thank my hon. Friend for his clear awareness of some of the problems. Is he aware that not only fishing clubs but swimmers, school parties, parents and all who use the Bristol channel complain bitterly of sore throats, sore eyes, stomach upsets and other unpleasantness, all of which they attribute to polluted water? Is he further aware that the waters of the Bristol channel were last tested in 1987 and that the results of that survey have yet to be analysed or published? Will he request all medical authorities and GPs near the Bristol channel to give him information on the problem, which I suspect is small individually but major nationally?
    Mr. Freeman: I give my hon. Friend that assurance. We appreciate and welcome comments from not only district health authorities but general practitioners on reports from their patients about any ill effects from sea bathing. A contract has been placed with the independent water research centre to carry out a study to assess the risk of contracting illness from sea bathing. That study commences this summer, and we shall place the results in the Library.

    General Practitioners (Contract)
    Sir Bernard Braine: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how the new general practitioners' contract will affect the chances of night visits being made by a patient's own doctor.
    Mr. Bellingham: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how the new general practitioners' contract will affect immunisation and screening policies.
    Mr. David Nicholson: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how the new general practitioners' contract will affect the assessment of the development of young children.
    The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): The new contract will introduce a higher visit fee for those doctors who visit patients themselves, or who arrange night cover in small rotas of no more than 10 doctors. I believe that this will encourage general practitioners to carry out more home visits themselves or ensure that their patients see a doctor whom they know.
    The new payments for the achievement of specified levels of childhood immunisation and cervical cytology will offer GPs a powerful incentive to raise protection against diseases for their patients.
    The new contract will introduce for the first time a fee for GPs who provide services to monitor the development and well-being of their child patients.
    Sir Bernard Braine: Although a deputising service clearly has its uses, does it not make sense for general practitioners to have an incentive to visit their patients rather than to encourage the attendance of deputies, who may have had absolutely no contact with the patients, particularly elderly patients? If anyone had any doubts before, does this not clearly show that the function of the new contract is to improve the quality of service to the patient?
    Mr. Clarke: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. His point will be endorsed by his constituents who much prefer, wherever possible, a visit by a doctor from their own practice or one in close contact with it. I am glad to say that the majority of GPs do not use commercial deputising services. It is fair that they should be paid a higher reward for that. I regret to say that, at the moment, the general medical services committee is seeking to reopen discussions with me on the higher fee. I see no basis for that. We must remember the patients' interests and the public interest in settling the contract.
    Mr. Bellingham: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for that reply. Does he agree that good doctors have nothing to fear from the new contract? Will he confirm that, in future, in places such as west Norfolk, where there is a large retired population, people will get even better service from their GPs and will not mind them receiving extra rewards?
    Mr. Clarke: We are very conscious of the increasing number of elderly patients and the increasing needs of elderly patients, particularly those beyond the age of 75. That is a growing feature of the population of Norfolk. Patients would welcome the introduction of a new higher fee for GPs in return for keeping at least in annual touch with all their patients over the age of 75.
    Mr. Nicholson: My right hon. and learned Friend will be aware of my concern that the National Health Service should cope with the needs of patients of all ages, particularly young children. Does he agree that his earlier replies give the lie to claims that the new contract would
    840
    work against patient care? What can he do to bring home to GPs the considerable benefits to patients from the new contract?
    Mr. Clarke: I am glad to say that the new payment for child surveillance, which is monitoring the development and health of children under the age of five, was put into the contract at the request of the medical profession and the GMSC. It is one of many features of the contract that should encourage much better service to patients. Many GPs have still not altogether understood all the details of the contract on offer. They should realise that the resulting contract must be on a balance between the legitimate interests of the profession and the legitimate needs of patients to ensure that general practice maintains the highest international standards.
    Mr. Foot: As the right hon. and learned Gentleman was originally appointed to his post because of his great powers of communication—we might call him the "Kenneth Baker of yesterday"—can he give the House an estimate of what would have been the response from doctors to the new contract without his great clarity and vision?
    Mr. Clarke: I remain a colleague of Kenneth Baker today. I have certainly communicated with doctors. I and my negotiating team have had 19 meetings with the GMSC negotiators, spent 110 hours in negotiation and produced 38 papers as bases for discussion. We eventually reached an agreement that the GMSC recommended to the profession.
    Obviously, I regret the fact that GPs have decided to reject the recommendations of their own negotiators, but at least it was not by the nine to one vote that greeted Aneurin Bevan when he tried to persuade the British Medical Association to accept his terms of service when the NHS was founded.
    Mr. Duffy: The hon. Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Bellingham) referred to the elderly. Is the Secretary of State aware that in Sheffield the most freely expressed fear about the new contract is that it will prejudice the dedication of services and resources to the elderly, especially in respect of night visits? Will he comment on the effect of the new contract on Sheffield's elderly population, especially as it is expected that the number of those over the age of 85 will increase by 82 per cent. during the next decade?
    Mr. Clarke: I do not accept the interpretation that the hon. Gentleman claims has been put upon the contract by some doctors in Sheffield. As I have already said, we are introducing a new, higher payment in exchange for regular contact with patients over the age of 75. The new contract will benefit the elderly, who would much prefer that, whenever possible, night visits are made by someone from their own practice whom they are likely to know.
    Ms. Mowlam: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman make it clear that doctors will not be paid for immunisations and screenings if they do not achieve a minimum target of 70 per cent. of their patients? In an area such as Teesside, doctors, however hard they try, will have great difficulty in reaching that high target. It is a question not of good or bad doctors but of a target that is unattainable.
    Mr. Clarke: Vaccination is part of the ordinary duties of every GP. I am sure that they all accept that they must strive to raise the level of immunisations. The 70 per cent. target is already being met by the majority of practices, certainly in England, and it can be achieved regardless of the social status of an area. It is important to try to secure a National Health Service that meets the highest international standards of patient care. The target that we have set is that recommended by the World Health Organisation, and none of us should recommend second-rate or lower standards for the NHS than those regarded as reasonably attainable in developed countries.
    Mr. Cormack: Although it may be true that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Bellingham) said, the majority of doctors have nothing to fear from the new contract, does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that some excellent doctors are apprehensive? Despite his efforts through meetings, papers and discussions, does he agree that there is a need for a concerted effort during the next three months, when Parliament is not sitting, to talk to doctors throughout the country in as conciliatory and constructive a manner as possible, in the hope of persuading them that they have nothing to fear?
    Mr. Clarke: My two ministerial colleagues and I hold meetings with hundreds of doctors each week, and they have been successful and productive. One of the main actions that we can take is to explain the impact of the contract to individual GPs, many of whom are labouring under unreasonable and unnecessary fears about a possible loss of income in their practices. In fact, the best doctors will gain under the proposals, but some will have to improve their performance. Many doctors are labouring under a misunderstanding because they have not absorbed the detail of the new contract. I shall take my hon. Friend's advice and I shall almost certainly communicate in writing with all GPs, setting out the terms on offer.

    Community Care
    Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a further statement on his plans for community care.
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: As I said in my statement on 12 July, we will publish a White Paper on community care in the autumn.
    Mr. Hughes: Will the Secretary of State elaborate on the arrangements for community care between now and 1991? He will be aware that many elderly and mentally ill people are already being discharged into the community, particularly in inner-city areas such as mine, and that facilities are already insufficient. Will he examine projects such as that proposed for St. Olave's hospital in my constituency where there is a danger that half the land will be sold for housing at market value rather than for the community care provision that would allow his plans to be implemented in the near future rather than having to wait until 1991 or thereafter?
    Mr. Clarke: Our response to the Griffiths report aroused great enthusiasm among local authorities for the opportunity that it offers to improve the level of community care that we provide. I am sure that local
    842
    authorities and health authorities are beginning to draw up their community care plans and to plan for new developments. Therefore, as a result of the announcement, increased priority will be given to community care immediately. I trust that that means a steady development before we reach 1991. I shall look at the constituency case to which the hon. Gentleman referred when he sends details to me and if there is ministerial responsibility, the Minister responsible will respond to him.
    Mr. Butler: Do the community care proposals involve a review of attendance allowances with a view to making them more prompt, efficient, generous and sensitive?
    Mr. Clarke: All of us become involved in appeals against refusal of attendance allowance, and I know how difficult many of those cases are. The Griffiths report did not specifically address the important matter of the benefits and financial assistance given to disabled people and those who care for them. I shall draw my hon. Friend's remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security and I have no doubt that he will bear his point in mind.
    Mr. Tom Clarke: Will the Secretary of State explain why, in his recent statement on community care, he made only a passing reference to Lady Wagner's report? Does he accept that, in view of the huge explosion in residential care, especially in the private sector, there is a need for minimum standards in the private and the public sectors and for proper inspections, too?
    Mr. Clarke: Lady Wagner's report was excellent and the Government are grateful to her. Many of its recommendations have already been implemented. We endorsed it yet again in my statement, and we touched on her suggestions for the inspection of nursing and residential homes where we did not see any need for change in the statutory position at the moment. We introduced the legislation that brought in the system of supervising standards and we have made important recommendations which will help local authorities so to organise matters that the same attention is paid to the standard of care in public sector homes as should be paid in private sector homes.

    Limited List
    Mrs. Maureen Hicks: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many complaints he has received from patients and general practitioners in the last four years as a result of the introduction of the limited drugs list.
    Mr. Mellor: Since the selected list scheme was introduced in April 1985 the Department has received some 6,000 letters about the scheme, but not many recently. Recent correspondence has tended to recognise that the selected list scheme has produced worthwhile financial savings while fully protecting the interests of patients. None of the dire predictions made at the time of the introduction of the scheme by the British Medical Association and others has proved to be true.
    Mrs. Hicks: My hon. Friend will recall only too clearly that the outcry and fears expressed by general practitioners four years ago before the introduction of the selected list was not dissimilar to the present outcry from general practitioners about prescribing costs. For the sake of those

    843
    vulnerable patients who are completely confused, will my hon. and learned Friend take the opportunity to bang on the head once and for all the untruth going about that any patient might be denied medicine? Will he reassure the elderly and those on long-term medication that they have nothing to fear under the Government?
    Mr. Mellor: I am very happy to give my hon. Friend the reassurance that she seeks. Every patient will receive the medication that they require—that is a categorical promise. Despite the controversy over the limited list, it establishes that worthwhile savings of about £75 million per year can be made, which can be deployed elsewhere in the Health Service to the greater benefit of patients. The controversy shows also that, unfortunately, some groups within the Health Service are so resistant to changes that they will seek to blackguard them with the most wild charges—none of which, in respect either of the selected list or of other reforms, has proved to be true. The same will doubtless be true of the dire predictions made about the White Paper.
    Mr. Rooker: One of the drugs that is the subject of most concern and, I suspect, of most representations, is Mucodyne—which was restored to the list, but only in the children's version. Many elderly people suffering from bronchial complaints, including a number of my constituents, have found no substitute for Mucodyne that meets their needs, and must fork out about £13 or £14 every time that they purchase a bottle. They have no choice because there is no proven, practical alternative. Mucodyne has also been the subject of many parliamentary questions, and I ask the Minister to bear my comments in mind if the list is ever reviewed.
    Mr. Mellor: The hon. Gentleman knows that the drugs included on or omitted from the selected list were the subject of professional evaluation by an advisory committee, so those decisions were taken not by the Government but on specialist advice. The hon. Gentleman will know also that we offered the British Medical Association an appeal mechanism but it did not take us up on it. That would have been a way of dealing with any residual points.
    Dame Jill Knight: Is not the simple truth that if my right hon. and learned Friend and his colleagues had listened to the BMA's campaign against the limited list, £75 million per year less would have been available to spend on patients?
    Mr. Mellor: Yes, and that £75 million equals the cost of building a new Great Ormond street hospital every year for the past four years. That is what the debate is all about. Of the £2 billion currently spent in the NHS on prescribed drugs, tens of millions of pounds is misspent because of the refusal by some general practitioners to prescribe generic alternatives, slack repeat prescribing, and other reasons. Just as it is necessary for patients to have the drugs that they need, it is important that patients are not prescribed drugs that they do not need.

    Hospitals (Self-governing Status)
    Mrs. Mahon: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he has issued any guidance to health authorities on balloting National Health Service staff or members of the public on whether they agree with proposals to allow National Health Service hospitals to opt out.
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: No National Health Service hospitals are going to opt out of the National Health Service.
    Mrs. Mahon: Is the Secretary of State aware of the overwhelming wall of hostility against his proposals for futuristic private hospitals? If the right hon. and learned Gentleman believes that his proposals have the support of doctors, nurses, patients and the public, why does he not put them to the test by balloting Health Service workers and the public? He has spent enough taxpayers' money trying to sell that rotten idea.
    Mr. Clarke: Recently, the hon. Lady, together with some of her colleagues, gatecrashed a meeting that I was holding with the staff of various hospitals in Leeds. The hon. Lady and her friends found themselves listening to a very serious discussion about the potential benefits of self-government for hospitals and units in the Leeds area, and found it so daunting that they left after a little while. If the hon. Lady and her friends had stayed, they would have understood my proposals more clearly. Clearly, the hon. Lady still does not understand them—and obviously she is not ready herself, let alone her constituents, to cast a vote on the matter. If we receive any applications for self-governing status from NHS hospitals, as I am sure that we shall in due course, we will consult most thoroughly—as we always do on any serious proposal.
    Mr. Hayes: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that balloting hospitals and the community would be as ludicrous as it would be unworkable? Does he agree that it would divide communities and hospitals, and divert valuable time and resources away from the Health Service?
    Mr. Clarke: I am accused of challenging one or two of the Health Service's traditions, but I am not very much in favour of traditions that lead to inefficiency. However, I cannot recall a single occasion in the past 40 years when anyone has suggested that managerial changes should be the subject of a local ballot. At this stage, people should concentrate on seriously studying the Government's proposals, and wait to see what applications are made and what would be the benefits to the patients concerned.
    Mr. Galbraith: I presume that when the Government presented their proposals they discussed the decision that the managers and consultants involved would determine whether hospitals should opt out of local health authorities, and that the local community would be considered. If the majority of consultants in a hospital were opposed to that hospital's opting out, would it still be able to do so?
    Mr. Clarke: I have never used the phrase "opt out". It has not featured in any of my documents or speeches. The self-governing hospitals, like other hospitals, will look to the district health authorities for funds, as money comes with the patients referred by those authorities.

    845
    Let me suggest again that the description of the proposal that we have heard is based on misunderstanding, or is misleading. We shall consult in the ordinary way when applications are made, but I do not believe that such matters can be decided sensibly by means of a yes or no vote among any particular section of staff, or in any other part of the community. Those responsible will put forward considered applications that will be examined in the same way as any other important changes in the service.

    NHS Reform
    Mr. Norris: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the allocation of the extra £40 million to help with the implementation of the White Paper "Working for Patients".
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I have undertaken to ensure that the costs of implementing the NHS review will be met by the taxpayer over and above the resources provided to maintain the growth of services to patients. The provision of the additional £40 million brings the total available this year for the implementation of the review to £82 million, of which £70 million is for the hospital and community health services, £5 million for the family practitioner services and the remainder to meet administrative costs in my Department.
    Mr. Norris: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that hard-pressed managers in the NHS deserve our full support, and that those additional resources are a welcome and constructive step towards implementation of the White Paper proposals? Does he agree that they are especially to be welcomed as new money that will leave untouched the existing record level of resources for patient care?
    Mr. Clarke: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. As he knows, the great majority of managers in the service are very enthusiastic about the reforms proposed in the White Paper, and are working extremely hard to ensure their implementation. Some investment up front will, as I have said, be required, and we shall continue to provide it over and above the necessary increase in resources required to maintain the growth in patient care.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: How much of that new money will be allocated to patient care, and how much to the provision of hardware, accountants and software to be employed in billing procedures? It is rather important for the patient to know what he is spending the money on.
    Mr. Clarke: As the hon. Lady knows, in last year's public spending round we increased total spending on the National Health Service by £2 million. With additions during the year, we have brought the amount to be spent on the implementation of the review to £82 million. That covers a wide range of services, including grants for the training of more people with public health expertise who will be able to identify patient needs. Those needs will be resourced much better once the new system is in place.
    Mr. Favell: Has my right hon. and learned Friend made any assessment of the savings that will be made by the streamlining of the decision-making process in self-governing hospitals? At present, as he well knows, major decisions must go first to the district health authority, then to the regional health authority, then to the Elephant and
    846
    Castle and then all the way back down the line. Is it not true that savings will be made and that for all but the third rate, this will be a far better process?
    Mr. Clarke: Over the years we have moved steadily towards replacing the second-guessing of decisions that has been traditional in the Health Service, when Ministers and their civil servants supervised the regions, which supervised the districts, which supervised hospital management. With self-governing hospitals, we shall put real responsibility into the hands of local people.
    I agree with my hon. Friend that great improvements will be made in efficiency, and that at the same time the hospitals will be made even more responsive to local opinion, local patients' needs and perceived gaps in the present health care provision.
    Mr. Robin Cook: Will the Secretary of State accept that we agree that this latest share-out shows the Government's priorities? Is he aware that three quarters of the new money has been spent on more finance staff and more computers for them, but only a couple of million pounds on the medical audit? Does it not speak volumes for the priorities of his White Paper that the accountants who treat no patients need 12 times the new resources that are given to doctors? Is not the truth that his priority is cost control, not patient care?
    Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman makes a specialty of picking out details of the White Paper that he blows up into misrepresentations. He knows perfectly well—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Clarke: This will be planned and brought in by the profession. The additional £2 million is extremely welcome to the profession and shows our good will to that development. We accept that more money will be required to finance medical audit when the profession has in place the mechanisms required to carry it out. We are talking about £2 million being spent on pump priming for that purpose this year.
    Mr. Squire: Will my right hon. and learned Friend take all possible steps to implement the White Paper at the earliest opportunity so that my constituents, who are suffering excessive waiting lists in Barking, Havering and Brentwood, have the advantage of one of the White Paper's many proposals—that money should follow patients rather than some abstruse formula?
    Mr. Clarke: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I reassure him that progress on preparation to implement the review is going steadily and very well at present. We seem well on target to deliver not only the review but, most important, its benefits to patients such as his constituents, who will experience a big improvement in how the service is delivered once the changes are in place.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. It is difficult to hear questions against a background of discussion.

    Artificial Limbs
    Mr. Morgan: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what consultations he has recently undertaken regarding the supply, and fitting and repair of artificial limbs.
    Mr. Mellor: These matters are dealt with in England by the Disablement Services Authority. We are regularly in touch with the authority's chairman.
    Mr. Morgan: What on earth possessed the right hon. Gentleman's Department to bring wholly improper pressure on the Welsh health common services authority to award its three-year contract for the supply of artificial limbs in Wales to Intermed? Its artificial limbs may be straight, but its behaviour is so bent that two days after it was awarded the contract, which specified local manufacture at Rookwood hospital in my constituency, it said that it would move the manufacture and major repair of all artificial limbs for Wales to its central factory in Alton, Hampshire, contrary to the recommendations of the McColl committee on the supply of artificial limbs that manufacture and major repairs must always be done in the locality.
    Mr. Mellor: Arrangements in Wales are a matter for the Welsh Office, not the Department of Health. Prior to our beginning this exercise, Intermed's share of the lower limb market was 75 per cent. in England, but it is now 16 per cent. I should have thought that that was a move in the direction that the hon. Gentleman wants.

    Miss Sharon Campbell
    Mr. Atkinson: To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Oxford East (Mr. Smith) of 6 June, Official Report, columns 97–99, what other action has been taken in response to the report of the committee of inquiry into the care and after-care of Miss Sharon Campbell, Cm 44; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Freeman: We continue to carry forward work which calls for Government action, particularly that concerned with the continuing care of patients discharged from mental illness hospitals. We will begin formal consultation on guidance on continuing care this Friday.
    Mr. Atkinson: Will my hon. Friend confirm that his plans to improve health services for the mentally ill, which he announced in a detailed response to a question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. Goodlad) on 13 July, take account of the findings of the Sharon Campbell inquiry and go a long way to ensuring that such a tragedy never happens again?
    Mr. Freeman: The statement of the Government policy on care of the mentally ill in the community made on 13 July was widely welcomed by hon. Members and the voluntary organisations involved. The announcement by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State of additional money in 1991–92 through the Health Service to help local authorities improve the quality of social care will go a long way to addressing some of the concerns that he and the Spokes report on the care and aftercare of Miss Sharon Campbell raised.

    General Practitioners (Contract)
    Mr. Baldry: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the effects of the new general practitioners' contract on health promotion clinics.
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the implications of the new general practitioners' contract for preventive health care.
    Mr. Mellor: The new contract forms an important part of our policy of encouraging health promotion and the prevention of ill health. GPs' terms of service will make clear their role in these areas, and there will be new payments encouraging the provision of health promotion clinics, check-ups for newly registered patients and help to achieve high levels of coverage for cervical cancer screening and childhood immunisations.
    Mr. Baldry: I thank my hon. and learned Friend for that reply. Does he agree that the provision for the first time of an incentive to general practitioners to run health promotion clinics will greatly improve the quality of patient care and provide GPs with the opportunity not just to react to problems as they come through their doors but to raise the quality of health of the patients on their lists?
    Mr. Mellor: Yes, it is absolutely vital that the NHS becomes a service for health and not just a service for sickness. The way in which we have chosen to have a contract that is performance related will, for the first time, properly reward those who take the initiative in preventive medicine, rather than merely reward those who have been in practice for a long time, unrelated to performance.
    Mr. Greenway: Can my hon. and learned Friend confirm that in terms of preventive medicine, the new contract for GPs will, for the first time, require them to visit elderly patients, that they will be paid to make those visits and that the visits will have to take place at least once a year? Will he confirm that they will be thorough visits and that the elderly people being visited will be properly looked after?
    Mr. Mellor: For the first time, GPs will be paid more for having elderly patients on their lists. I find it astonishing, therefore, that the charge should be levelled at the contract that somehow it will make it more difficult for elderly patients to get treatment, when for the first time they are singled out as being patients whose care requires extra payment from the state.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Flannery: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 25 July.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I had a number of meetings. I then received General Yazov, the Soviet Defence Minister, on his first visit to the United Kingdom. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today and will be attending a special garden party to celebrate 150 years of public education. This evening I hope to have an audience of Her Majesty the Queen.
    Mr. Tony Banks: Is the right hon. Lady intending to reshuffle her as well?[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. It is a good thing that I cannot hear many of the sedentary remarks that are made.
    Mr. Flannery: Now that the Prime Minister has guillotined half the Cabinet and frightened the other half

    849
    to death, can I assume that that is an admission that all the fundamental policies of the Conservatives have been wrong? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] Is it not a fact that they have been wrong in, for instance, education, the economy, the poll tax, water and pollution? [Interruption.] It is clear that hon. Members in all parts of the House agree with me. Is the right hon. Lady now for turning, or will the developing chaos of wrong policies continue, to the detriment of the British people?
    The Prime Minister: I do not think that the hon. Member can count. His side, the Labour Opposition, is constantly changing its policies, which is not surprising considering that they have had, and still have, such a rotten set. We sometimes change members of our Cabinet and Administration in order to pursue the same policies which have brought success to the British people for so long.
    Mr. Michael Morris: While my right hon. Friend the new Foreign Secretary is getting his feet under the table, will my right hon. Friend contact the Indian Prime Minister and express to him the disquiet of many in the House about what is happening in India's relations with Nepal and Sri Lanka?
    The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has of course had his feet under the same table, as a very effective Chief Secretary, for a long time.
    I saw the Prime Minister of India recently in Paris and had long talks with him. Obviously, he is taking an active part in the difficult questions that face Sri Lanka. I am sure that he will consider everything carefully in the interests of the people there, of the people of India and of his own army. I also know of the difficulty that is being encountered over Nepal and of the disquiet that it is causing in some parts of this House.
    Mr. Kinnock: Will the Prime Minister be good enough to convey my congratulations to the former Foreign Secretary on his promotion? Can the Prime Minister tell us whether the appointment of the right hon. and learned Gentleman is intended to result in any changes in policy?
    The Prime Minister: As usual, the right hon. Gentleman cannot have listened to previous answers before he came up with his prepared question. I made it quite clear in my previous reply that changes in the Cabinet will mean that the policies that have been so successful in Britain, and so successful in the House, will continue, because we have the right policies and they have transformed our country.
    Mr. Kinnock: If the Prime Minister is saying that no changes are needed, is she disagreeing, at this early juncture, with her new deputy, who said this morning that he was needed
    "particularly when the Government as a whole are facing a new round of problems on the home front"?
    The Prime Minister: We shall deal with those problems in this Cabinet as effectively as we dealt with previous problems. I quite understand that the right hon. Gentleman is once again going on about personalities because he is not capable of asking a question on policy.
    Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the Government's decision that Sikh workers on building sites no longer have to wear hard hats? Does she agree that this will be welcomed by many ordinary Sikh people, who will be able to go about their
    850
    business and do their jobs, and that this demonstrates the Government's understanding attitude to towards ethnic minority British people?
    The Prime Minister: I know that this decision will be welcome to the Sikh community. My hon. Friend will also be aware that employers will be relieved of any compensation that might come about because Sikhs are not wearing hats but, in general, I believe this will be welcome to the Sikh community.
    Dr. Owen: While we welcome the new Foreign Secretary, may we have a pledge from the Prime Minister that she does not intend to interfere incessantly, and that, if he wishes to make a statement to the House on society, whether British or foreign, she will not cross it out?
    The Prime Minister: I have great confidence in the present Foreign Secretary, as I had in the previous one. I notice that the present Foreign Secretary has taken over after quite a prolonged period of office in Cabinet, unlike the right hon. Gentleman before he was made Foreign Secretary.
    Mr. Cormack: Will my right hon. Friend turn her attention later today to the problem of London's traffic? Does she agree that, whether there is a strike or not, London is grinding to a halt, and that we need to consider such solutions as banning deliveries during certain hours and banning cars that contain fewer than a certain number of passengers? Does she agree that unless drastic solutions are found London will grind to a halt?
    The Prime Minister: I am aware that my hon. Friend is concerned, and that he will be more concerned at another totally unnecessary strike tomorrow because the National Union of Railwaymen did not accept the result of an independent arbitration. I know that increased prosperity, and the increased number of cars, brings increased traffic problems. This is a traffic problem and my right hon. Friend the new Transport Secretary will be looking at that, among other things.
    Mr. Wareing: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 25 July.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Wareing: Having carried out a reshuffle of her Cabinet of doormats, is the Prime Minister aware that the British people do not appreciate the Right-wing extremism of the Government's policies, nor do they trust her to handle the National Health Service now that it has been revealed that so many local health authorities are having their budgets cut? Does the Prime Minister realise that the day that millions of people in this country yearn for is the day when they see the back of her?
    The Prime Minister: No. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the policies followed by the Government have brought a higher standard of living to this country than has ever been known and a higher standard of social services than could ever have been provided by previous Governments. I do not think that the people wish to return to the awful standard of living, awful health services and the terrible domination by the trade unions that were the characteristics of previous Labour Governments. Cheer

    851
    up—I notice that even the Labour party is trying to move Right because it thinks that those policies are more popular.
    Mr. Greg Knight: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the average law-abiding football fan has nothing to fear from the passage into law of the Government's Football Spectators Bill? Will not the only type of person placed in difficulty be the hooligan, the person who regularly exhibits bouts of threatening behaviour such as swearing in public, perhaps to a radio interviewer, or causing fights in the streets, say, outside an Indian restaurant?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. The Football Spectators Bill will give us extra defences against hooligans and extra powers to get better grounds. I agree that the law-abiding spectator will welcome it. The legislation also gives us a basis on which to bring into law any proposals resulting from the Hillsborough report without having to wait a further year.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 25 July.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: On Mr. Tiny Rowland's campaign in The Observer on Tornado, the House of Fraser and other matters, did the Prime Minister ever meet the Sultan of Brunei and discuss the takeover of the House of Fraser? Is it true that the report by the independent directors of The Observer into that newspaper was a whitewash in so far as it believed Mr. Rowland when he said that he did not have links with Dassault, while at the same time Lonrho employees were busily briefing Fleet street, especially Jon Craig of the Sunday Times, saying that there were commercial links between Lonrho and Dassault? Is it not about time that Mr. Rowland divested himself of control of The Observer?
    The Prime Minister: I have no information on the hon. Gentleman's last point, but I am aware that the hon. Gentleman has tabled a number of early-day motions on this point. It would not be right for the Government to make any comment while the investigations concerning the House of Fraser continue. I meet the Sultan of Brunei from time to time to discuss matters of state. He is a very good friend of Britain.
    Mr. Bellingham: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the majority of east coast ports are now working normally? Is she aware also that unemployment in King's Lynn has come down from a high of more than 15 per cent. to under 5 per cent. and that with a new, reinvigorated port unemployment should disappear altogether?
    The Prime Minister: Dock workers are steadily returning to the ports. I think that they realise that there is no point in a strike. They are more keen to build a future for the ports in which they work and for the industries in the hinterland of those ports. The passing of the Dock Work Act was a good decision for the future prosperity of my hon. Friend's area and for all those in the hinterland of those ports.
    Mr. Skinner: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 25 July.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Skinner: Does the Prime Minister agree that as she has not sacked or moved the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Home Secretary or the Secretary of State for Wales, they must have been the most successful members of the Cabinet? Will she confirm that she has moved the Secretary of State for the Environment, who did not have the presentational skills to sell the poll tax? That being so, against the background of a massive trade deficit, how will he sell our goods abroad?
    The Prime Minister: I think that the hon. Gentleman must be very satisfied with the overwhelming majority of policies that are being pursued by this Government and bringing such prosperity to this country. With regard to the community charge, I understand that many Opposition Members wish to have high expenditure but do not wish to contribute to it. That is totally and utterly wrong. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the community charge will contribute to only 25 per cent. of local authority expenditure in England, only 18 per cent. of local authority expenditure in Wales and only 14 per cent. of local authority expenditure in Scotland. It will be a much, much fairer charge than any previous charge, and I note that the Labour party has abandoned its latest policy because it is absolutely rotten.

    BILLS PRESENTED
      MOTOR VEHICLES (MILEAGE READINGS)
      Mr. Nigel Griffiths, supported by Mr. Gareth Wardell, Mr. Tony Lloyd, Mr. Michael Latham, Sir Hal Miller, Mr. Tom Cox and Mr. Roy Hughes, presented a Bill to require the Department of Transport to establish a register of the mileage of each motor vehicle whenever ownership is recorded or transferred, and on every occasion that the vehicle is licensed; and to require the owner of the vehicle to supply this information: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 20 October and to be printed. [Bill 195.]
      MOTOR TRADE (CONSUMER PROTECTION)
      Mr. Nigel Griffiths, supported by Mr. Roger King, Mr. Tom Cox, Mr. Gareth Wardell, Mr. Tony Lloyd and Mr. Roy Hughes, presented a Bill to seek to control the activities of motor dealers and in particular to ensure the protection of consumers in respect of roadworthiness and a description of motor vehicles: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 20 October and to be printed. [Bill 196.]
      PREVENTION OF ACCIDENTS (RANDOM BREATH TESTING)
      Mr. Nigel Griffiths, supported by Sir Philip Goodhart, Mrs. Rosie Barnes, Mr. John Home Robertson, Mr. Roland Boyes and Mr. Tony Lloyd, presented a Bill to make provision for police officers to conduct random breath tests on drivers to deter drinking and driving: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 20 October. [Bill 197.]

Ban on Imports (Child Labour)
3.31 pm
Mr. Jimmy Dunnachie: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prohibit the sale of imported goods, the manufacture of which has involved child labour.
I place before the House a Bill that seeks to ban the import of goods that have been produced using child labour. I do so because to use children in this way is a crime. It denies their right to be treated as human beings while, at the same time, denying the right of adult workers to earn a wage worthy of their labour. As long as we buy the goods that child labour produces, we help to maintain a system that our own history has proved evil.
Today, I shall cite examples of child exploitation in India, Bangladesh, Thailand, Malaysia, South America, Turkey and Portugal. This is only scratching the surface, because child labour is so commonly used that it is impossible to detail the full extent of its misery in 10 minutes.
Children today work in conditions every bit as wretched as those that prevailed in the darkest days of our own industrial revolution—when little mites were forced to toil from dawn till dusk in unhealthy, poorly lit, badly ventilated and highly dangerous conditions because the pittance doled out to them by the profit-hungry capitalists was needed to eke out the miserable wages that were grudgingly given to their parents.
Such vile conditions epitomise the very worst of those Victorian values that are so highly revered in certain quarters—values that set the human soul at naught in the all-pervading pursuit of profit.
My interest in the evils of child labour was aroused by various media reports, and, while I am pleased at the number of hon. Members who have signed the early-day motion that I tabled at Easter, I am sorry that the Government would not name the high street stores that currently sell goods that have been made using child labour, because, every day, all over the world, children are abused as they produce many of the goods we buy. Often they work in conditions of slavery—always in conditions of misery and injustice.
This is clearly seen in the now infamous story of India's carpet boys. In the state of Uttar-Pradesh 100,000 children work their weary little fingers to the bone as they knot carpets, 90 per cent. of which are exported. Children as young as five and six work up to 15 hours a day, seven days a week, and a boy of seven is described as a "skilled craftsman". They get just enough food to keep them working, are frequently beaten, and often have to sleep beside their looms because they do not have homes to go to as they have either been kidnapped or sold into debt bondage.
One of the biggest British Firms using looms here is E. M. Hill and Co., which pays its loom owners £105 for a carpet. The loom owner, in turn, may pay his four children £4 each—that is, if he pays them at all. What price the status symbol of those handwoven Indian carpets that sell in some London stores for from £1,200 to £5,000?
Next to that cruelty are the flames reminiscent of Dante's "Inferno", whose deafening noise drowns out the piteous cries of those who toil amidst blazing furnace temperatures, designed to rent asunder body and soul.
854
Life's punishments are meted out by making the doomed slave in temperatures of 1,800 deg. as they are forced to stretch into the mouth of a furnace to draw out molten material. They then have to run, carrying it on a seven-foot ladle, trampling on broken glass on the way. In such a hell-hole, is it any wonder that tuberculosis is rife, and hideous accidents and burns commonplace?
Yet those are the conditions that little children of eight and nine have to work in as they toil in India's glass factories. Their labour is deemed to be so necessary that the owner of the C. A. glass works, where Nescafe jars are made, has been quoted as saying:
"The glass industry cannot function without children. They can run much faster than adults and therefore production goes up."
Similar conditions apply in neighbouring Bangladesh. The Daily Record recently exposed the shame of the Scottish tea company, James Finlay, whose chairman, Sir Colin Moffat Campbell, was quoted as saying:
"We are very proud of our achievements over there in Bangladesh."
Those achievements involve adults having to work for 60p a day and children having to work with them. Sir Colin's claim not to employ child labour is on a par with the description of his home at Kylbryde castle as "just a medium-sized house". Thank God I do not share his values.
In Thailand, poor people are often forced to sell their children into slavery and a quarter of the work force is aged between 10 and 14. As outlined recently in the magazine Marie-Claire, conditions in Thailand's sweat-shops make those described by Charles Dickens read like life in a holiday camp. Examples have been given of children working in a soya sauce factory from 5 am one morning until 2 am the next. Others in an electric light factory have to cut through bare wires with their teeth. In a factory that makes plastic straws, kids work from 5 am until 11 pm, after which they are locked up to stop them running away.
In Malaysia, many children are forced to work as part of the family unit because their parents are too under-nourished to have the strength they need to meet their daily rubber quotas. The quotas are becoming more and more difficult to meet as the demand for latex products grows with the AIDS epidemic.
The BBC programme, "Child Slaves", also showed recently that children have to work as part of the family unit in Mexico where, at the age of 12 or 13, they have to tend the crops to make sure that the man from Del Monte says yes, that everything is ship-shape in Captain Bird's Eye's garden and that life stays jolly in the valley of the Green Giant. Life is anything but a barrel of laughs for the kids whose youth is eaten away by the greed of the multinationals. The "real thing" for kids in Brazil means that they have to toil in the sugar plantations to make sure that "things go better with Coca Cola" for the millions who drink it.
Nor can Europe be complacent. Children as young as 10 have been found working in the sweatshops of Turkey, sewing garments for customers who often ask that the products reach them without labels so that they can then sew in their own, unblemished by the sweaty calluses on the tiny palms that made them.
Everyone knows that Portugal's shoe trade has been allowed to flourish at the expense of British jobs. Its cheap shoes are in most high street stores. Even though Portugal

855
has been a member of the EEC for three years, many of those shoes are still made using child labour. Firms such as Marks and Spencer say that they try to ensure that the shoes they sell have not been made by exploiting children, but why do they not guarantee it?
I fear that, all too often, reasonable prices hide the real cost of the products that we are asked to buy, in terms of the misery and suffering that have produced them. Opponents will argue that such is life, and that to ban the imports would make life even worse for the children. Balderdash! Two wrongs do not make a right in any language and so long as we stand back and do nothing, we condemn more children to endure hell in their short lives here on earth. The time for mere sympathy is over. We must act now to make sure that child exploitation is ended.
Britain can give a lead here, because we are one of the biggest importers of goods that have been produced by child labour. We must now become the voice of conscience, through which the silent pleas of the abused cry out for mercy.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Jimmy Dunnachie, Mr. Allen Adams, Mr. Jimmy Wray, Mr. Jimmy Hood, Mr. Alan Meale, Mr. John Hughes, Mr. Frank Cook, Mr. Don Dixon. Mr. George Galloway, Mr. Keith Vaz, Mr. Mike Watson and Mr. Frank Haynes.

Ban on Imports (Child Labour)

  BAN ON IMPORTS (CHILD LABOUR)
  Mr. Jimmy Dunnachie accordingly presented a Bill to prohibit the sale of imported goods, the manufacture of which has involved child labour: and the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 20 October, and to be printed. [Bill 198.]
  Mr. Eric S. Heifer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill) throughout the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Dunnachie) was not just chunnering away, but was shouting out. He was making all sorts of remarks. I think that he said that it was a waste of the House's time. The hon. Gentleman should begin to learn some manners.
  Mr. Speaker: I was listening carefully to what the hon. Member who moved the motion was saying. I did not hear anything else.

Opposition Day
  18TH ALLOTTED DAY

    Local Government Finance
    Mr. Speaker: We now come to the first of the Opposition motions—that on the poll tax. I must announce to the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
    3.42 pm
    Dr. John Cunningham: I beg to move—[Interruption.] That is all very well, but we would like to see that right hon. Gentleman replaced with a Socialist Secretary of State.
    I beg to move,
    That this House rejects the unfair, inefficient, intrusive and bureaucratic poll tax, the so-called community charge, because the tax will bear most harshly on the poorest and weakest in the community, will discriminate against carers at home, will undermine and distort local accountability by concentrating an unprecedented 75 per cent. of local authority expenditure under Ministerial control, and is capricious and unfair in its effect on areas of the country with low rateable values; furthermore regards the proposed rebate system as mean and inadequate; recognises that the national business tax will cause grave financial problems for thousands of small business people; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to abandon these proposals.
    We already have evidence of those effects in Scotland.
    Before I proceed, I want to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman the new Secretary of State on his major promotion. We know that he brings considerable intelligence and ability to a Department much in need. of both. However, what has been lacking in the Department of the Environment are not just those things, but good judgment and coherent principles to safeguard the environment, the essential public services and local democratic government.
    Mr. Tony Banks: Will my hon. Friend remind the House of how many Environment Secretaries he has seen off since he has been Shadow Environment Secretary? How long does he think the new incumbent will last in his office before we have a Socialist Environment Secretary?
    Dr. Cunningham: As I said earlier, it is all very well seeing off Tory Secretaries of State, but I am getting a little fed up with them being replaced by other Tories. Next time we want to replace not only the right hon. Gentleman, but all Members of the Treasury Front Bench.
    The new Secretary of State and his new Minister for Local Government, the hon. Member for Wirral, West (Mr. Hunt), whom we also congratulate and welcome, must have at least some private misgivings, because they have inherited something of a shambles. The poll tax, water privatisation, the Government's failure adequately to safeguard the environment, both nationally and internationally, are, together with the threat to the National Health Service, the most deeply resented issues in British politics.
    It is evident that no amount of repackaging or changes in personnel can possibly make the poll tax and water privatisations popular, or acceptable to the British people. Both are clearly seen as deeply unfair, inefficient and

    857
    damaging to families, to services such as education, and to the environment. Both are inconsistent with the widespread desire of the British people for a better quality of life.
    Therefore, without fundamental changes in the policies themselves, the new Secretary of State faces just as rough a ride with his colleagues as his predecessor—indeed, an even tougher time, as the awful truth of the consequences of the poll tax and the national business tax on property dawn on the Tory party and the people.
    Mr. Robin Squire rose——
    Dr. Cunningham: No, I shall not give way.
    We shall, of course, miss the special and idiosyncratic presentational skills of the previous Secretary of State, whom we also wish well. Opposition Members take considerable pleasure in the knowledge that he is still on the loose, still on the Government Benches and free to range the country in an attempt to recover support for the Tories, much of it lost by his own policies at this Department in the first place. British industry has been remarkably and uncharacteristically silent about its new Secretary of State. We share its obvious misgivings about the future well-being of industrial policy, jobs and the economy.
    Like his hon. Friends, we shall listen to the Secretary of State's speech with particular interest. Indeed, the Labour party chose this debate because we wanted to give him the earliest opportunity to announce the changes in policy that he envisages. We promise him a warm welcome.
    The Secretary of State will know about the uproar in the Chamber last week about the poll tax—or the "Tory tax" as the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) rightly calls it. That uproar was yet another sign of the fear that is spreading through the Tory party about the implications of the poll tax for them and their survival. Like us, I am sure that they too will be anxious, if not desperate, to hear about changes in policy, not just in personnel and presentation.
    It was the predecessor of the Secretary of State who, with typical candour, blew the gaff on the Conservative Government's real intentions about the poll tax when he asked why a duke should pay more than a dustman. The implication is clear. The intention was to introduce a tax unrelated to income or to the ability to pay, and that is exactly what the Tory Government have done.
    The people of Scotland have already been made to suffer, but they have reaped their revenge through the ballot box. The people of England and Wales will eventually do so too.
    Sir Nicholas Bonsor rose——
    Dr. Cunningham: No, I shall not give way at the moment. We say that there are many reasons—equity, social justice and the principles of progressive taxation—why someone such as Lord King, the chairman of British Airways, with a reported salary of £386,000 per annum, should pay more than an engineering apprentice in his company with a take-home pay of between £65 and £85 per week. We know instinctively that it is grotesquely unfair to make them pay the same contribution in local taxation—[Interruption.]
    858
    Did I hear a Tory Member mutter something about rebates? Yesterday, I released up-to-date figures compiled by the statistical section of the Library, which showed the mean and inadequate rebates that would have been available if the poll tax had been in operation this year. Last week, the Department finally published its illustrative poll tax figures for 1989–90. Using the latest poll tax figures, I asked the statistical section of the Library to calculate for each local authority the maximum level of net weekly income at which poll tax rebate would be payable to single persons, married couples and pensioners.
    The Government have always been afraid and unwilling to publish that information. The Social Security Act 1986 and the poll tax Act 1988 require everyone to pay at least 20 per cent. of the rates bill, regardless of their circumstances or ability to pay. That extremely unfair rule continues next year, when the poll tax comes into force on 1 April 1990 in England and Wales.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will the hon. Gentleman admit that, because the figures published in the document about the Labour party's proposed capital tax and local income tax showed how catastrophic they would be for the British public, the Labour party abandoned those policies?
    Dr. Cunningham: No, I will not admit that, because it is not true. There has been no abandonment of policy. Nor did the previous Secretary of State for the Environment publish any realistic figures. The right hon. Gentleman told me in a note referred to in a parliamentary answer on 9 November 1987:
    "There is no comprehensive data available from which to assess the outcome of a capital revaluation of domestic rateable values, and it is not Government policy to undertake such a revaluation. Some insight into the possible effect of a revaluation on the basis of capital values can be obtained by considering the relationship between house prices and existing rateable values in England."
    But the Department does not have the data. It was quite dishonest of the previous holder of that high office to fabricate the results.
    The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Chris Patten): I notice that the Leader of the Opposition said last week that the Opposition's policy needed sophisticating. Will the hon. Gentleman say when it is likely that their policy will be sophisticated enough to share with the rest of us?
    Dr. Cunningham: We are sophisticating all our policies all the time. That is why there is such a large and growing gap in British public opinion about the relative merits of party policy. When we have finished our considerations of these matters, the Secretary of State will not be the first to know, and that will come as no surprise to him. However, his right hon. and hon. Friends are waiting to hear from him not about Labour party policy, but how he proposes to dig them out of the appalling mess that present Government policy has got them into in their constituencies. Let me illustrate how big that mess is.
    Figures show that a single pensioner in the Prime Minister's Finchley constituency, would face a poll tax bill of £290 per person per annum and would lose all entitlement to rebate if his or her net income exceeded £72·50 per week. In other words, a pensioner with a net income of £73 per week would be expected to find £5·57 per week to pay the poll tax. In Bath, the constituency of the Secretary of State, a single pensioner faced with a poll

    859
    tax bill of £281 per year, according to the Government's figures, would lose all entitlement to rebate if his or her net income exceeded £71·60 per week.
    A married couple with two children aged eight and 10 living in Finchley would lose all rebate if their net income exceeded £151 per week. In other words, they would have to find £11·15 per week just to pay their combined poll tax. A married couple with two children living in similar circumstances in the Secretary of State's constituency would lose all entitlement to rebate if their income exceeded £149·10 per week, and would have to find £10·81 per week to pay their combined poll tax bill.
    Mr. John Marshall rose——
    Mr. Derek Conway rose——
    Dr. Cunningham: A single person under 25 living in Finchley would lose all entitlement to a rebate if his or her net income exceeded £58·80 per week, and nearly 10 per cent. would go towards the poll tax.
    Those are the realistic implications of the impact of the poll tax on take-home pay, including the Government's current proposals for rebates. Those figures prove that all but the poorest face substantial additional tax burdens, with everyone required to pay the minimum 20 per cent. The tables show how little the rebates are related to the ability to pay or personal circumstances and are based on this Government tolerating scandalously low levels of pay and poverty.
    The figures reinforce the conclusion of yesterday's Child Poverty Action Group report on poll tax benefits and the poor, which said:
    "The poll tax is intrinsically unfair—as a flat-rate tax, it falls equally on the shoulders of the rich and the poor. Even with the help of rebates it is poorly related to the ability to pay.
    The inefficiencies of the poll tax are legion. Local government has already been faced with bills two to three times those for the collection of rates. At the annual conference of the Tory-dominated Association of District Councils, its leader, Tory councillor Roy Thomason, interrupted the then Secretary of State, the present Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, to say:
    "£200 million more, Secretary of State."
    The then Secretary of State replied:
    "My advice to you is to find better ways of raising the community charge and try to make savings, rather than always complaining about not having enough money."
    That answer was jeered to the rooftops by the Tory-dominated conference of the Association of District Councils.
    Last week. there was a fiasco when the Government announced the so-called "safety nets". Howls of outrage from Tory Members rang round this Chamber, but in the main, they were only getting what they voted for in Division after Division, when, with a few honourable exceptions, they passed the legislation in the first place. The panic in the Tory party was astonishing.
    Mr. Squire: As the hon. Gentleman and the House know, I come into the category he has just mentioned. If he is to beguile me to an alternative solution, he must—as I am sure he will—suggest one or more alternative ways in which we may proceed; otherwise, I may be convinced to follow my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
    Dr. Cunningham: I recollect that the hon. Gentleman had his own alternative, which he tried to persuade his
    860
    ministerial colleagues to accept, without success. In the main, Tory Members voted for what they are getting, and their panic is astonishing. It exposes the reality that many of them apparently did not know what they were voting for.
    The safety net financial allocations are as capricious as every other aspect of the poll tax. Their application has nothing to do with efficiency or otherwise. Tories in the north, especially the north-west and Yorkshire, want more grant for their often Labour-controlled authorities because they fear a political backlash. Tories in the south complain that their constituents will subsidise their colleagues' areas. Let us consider the reality.
    Wandsworth, for example, a Tory borough, gains £46·4 million from the safety net system. Is Wandsworth inefficient? Is that what Conservative Members are saying? Is it a poor council? Or is there a political reason for that allocation? Birmingham, a Labour city, contributes £50·2 million. Birmingham certainly qualifies under the Tory definition of efficiency, yet Birmingham has huge problems in housing, employment and inner-city difficulties. It has had to adjust to a cumulative loss of more than £500 million in rate support grant alone under this Government. Yet the people of Birmingham, under the safety nets, are asked to contribute an additional £50·2 million to subsidise the poll tax.
    Let us consider Westminster. Is that a well-run Tory council? The safety net effect adds £33 per adult to the poll tax of £428 in Westminster. Lady Porter's policy of "building stable communities", which was described by Tory councillor Mrs. Patricia Kirwan as "gerrymandering the electoral processes", will cost each poll tax payer in Westminster an extra £60 a year. Is Westminster efficient? Are any Conservative voices raised about what is going on there?
    Copeland borough council in my own constituency, which, under Labour control, had no rates increases for seven years, gains £5·2 million from safety netting—equivalent to £94 poll tax per adult—but the average two-adult household in my constituency will still be £40 a year worse off under the poll tax than under the rating system. So much for Tory claims that people are benefiting.
    We know that poll tax registration involves massive new and regrettable intrusions into people's privacy and family lives. Many councils are asking people to respond to questions that the registration officer has no right to ask in the first place. Breaches of the Data Protection Act 1984 have occurred, and more than 300 councils are being required by the Data Protection Registrar to account for the questions on their forms. I seriously ask the Secretary of State to go away and look at that problem and do something about it. Will the Government stop unnecessary, and in some cases unlawful, activity by poll tax registration officers?
    Those problems were highlighted during our debates, but they were dismissed by the then Ministers.
    I should like to know whether the Secretary of State intends to make any changes. Responsibility for the final level of poll tax charged will overwhelmingly rest with Ministers and not with councils, whatever their political control. Ministers will decide and control 75 per cent. of council income, and they have already begun to consider how they can gerrymander the situation.
    In the controversial propaganda leaflet that was sent to every household earlier this year, the Government said:

    861
    "Every council will decide the level of its community charge—just as it decides the rates now."
    Of course, that statement is totally untrue. The leaflet goes on to mention the needs grant that each council will get. What the leaflet does not say is that the Secretary of State himself will decide how much each council needs to spend. His decisions could make hundreds of pounds of difference to the poll tax to be paid by almost every adult. That is what the system provides for.
    The Opposition have a copy of the Government's working documents. For instance, one set of figures in front of the Secretary of State tells him that Birmingham needs to spend £627 million to provide a standard level of finance—to the Government's standards, that is. However, another figure tells the Secretary of State that Birmingham needs to spend £750 million to provide that same standard level. An analysis of the figures shows that the different formulae available for the Secretary of State to choose from could add over £3 a week to the poll tax for everyone in Birmingham. In almost every local authority, the situation and the effect are the same.
    In Westminster, for example, the Secretary of State's choices could influence the poll tax by as much as £4·76 a week, in Kensington and Chelsea by £4·41 a week, in Wandsworth by about £3·70 a week, in Portsmouth by £2·20 a week, in Manchester by £3·40 a week, in Newcastle by £2·70 a week, and in Newham by as much as £5.40 a week. That is the Secretary of State's latitude, in addition to his 75 per cent. control, in determining exactly how much poll tax will be paid by people in towns and cities. It is nonsense to claim that that increases accountability and leaves more decision taking for local government. It does exactly the opposite.
    The figures make a mockery of the Government's claims that high levels of poll tax are due to inefficiency or high spending. They demolish the argument that the poll tax will increase local accountability. Hundreds of pounds per person per year can be added to councils' bills by the Government and the figures that they decide to put into their computers.
    From April 1990, Tory Ministers will control more than 75 per cent. of all local government income, an unprecedented state not only in Britain but in any western democracy. The Government's documents expose their determination to exercise even greater control over local government revenue raising. They show that the biggest influence on poll tax bills will be central Government policies and decisions, not local authority decisions taken in the communities.
    For the increasingly large number of Tory Members who are now panicking, there is more bad news on the way. Last February, the Government announced their proposal for phasing in the combined effects of the nationalisation of business rate poundages and the first revaluation since 1973. Increases in business rate bills are planned to be restricted to 20 per cent. per annum plus inflation. Businesses gaining from the changes will have their benefits delayed. It all sounds remarkably like poll tax safety nets, and will have the same political effect when Tory Members and those business people active in local Conservative associations wake up to what is happening. An increase of 20 per cent. per annum plus inflation means rates bills going up by three times in five years.
    862
    Even five years of safety nets will not lead to the full introduction of the new business rate arrangement. Businesses in Tory areas in the south will find their poundages rising hugely. Government figures included with the poll tax calculations published on 19 July show that Kensington and Chelsea's business rate poundage will rise by 111·4 per cent., Wandsworth's by 60 per cent., Westminster's by 51 per cent., Redbridge's by 46 per cent., Bromley's by 43 per cent. and South Herefordshire's by 23 per cent. The revaluation will push up the figures even further. The combined effect of national business tax and revaluation in, for example, Kensington and Chelsea will have astronomical implications for the business rates that people will be expected to pay.
    The Government are trying to cover up that unpalatable arithmetic. The new rateable values for every individual property must be deposited by the Inland Revenue with charging authorities by 31 December—yet the first that businesses will know about them, unless they or their advisers track them down in the town halls, will be when they receive the bills in March 1990. The Government hope that ratepayers will look only at the amount payable, restricted to an increase of 20 per cent. plus inflation, and not the eventual liability shown by the rateable value. Most business people will soon see through that. If Tory Members think that they are in trouble now because of the poll tax, let them wait until the facts of the new business tax come out.
    A number of Conservative Members have asked about Labour party policy. For the expenditure of a modest 75p and a letter to Walworth road, they can have a copy of our document. We intend to introduce a modern property tax based on the capital value of a property, with up to 100 per cent. rebates for low-income families or those least able to pay; we will reduce the proportion of local taxes raised through property tax; we will dedicate an element of the income tax to local government; we will restore business rates as a local tax; we will return meaningful purpose to the statutory consultation between local authorities and local businesses; we will end the ever-changing and chaotic restrictions, penalties and cuts; and we will have annual elections for a part of every local authority.
    That will provide for a local taxation system that is genuinely fair because it is directly related to the ability to pay. It will end the need for dramatic increases in local tax bills. It will restore the right of local people and their councillors to govern their communities and raise revenue free from central control. It will take account of the differences in resources of authorities in different parts of the country.
    Mr. John Heddle (Mid-Staffordshire): Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Dr. Cunningham: No.
    The Cirencester besom has been replaced by the modern Tory technological broom, from arid Silk Cut dry to Blue Chip glistening wet. The Secretary of State comes with a record of rebelling against cuts in employment and housing benefit, being in favour of aid to the poorest and of incomes policy, and is described as the heir to the tradition of Macmillan and Macleod.
    Mr. Heddle rose——
    Dr. Cunningham: The Secretary of State was co-author of the pamphlet by the Blue Chip Group, which argued

    863
    that the Prime Minister's economic policies were socially divisive and politically unworkable. He was vice-president of the Tory Reform Group. He has now been promoted to patron of the Tory Reform Group, the body which published a paper on the poll tax which said:
    "The Government's case for the community charge rests, above all, on achieving proper accountability. Yet this is precisely where it fails."
    It said that the poll tax
    "shows every sign of being an administrative nightmare"
    and that the uniform business rate
    "will result in a massive increase in the centralisation of power."
    Those are the views of the Tory Reform Group, of which we learn that the right hon. Gentleman is no longer a mere vice-president but a patron.
    What has changed? Have his views changed, have the views of the Tory Reform Group changed, or have the Prime Minister's policies changed? If he was asked for his view yesterday, did he say with candour—candour which we know that he has in abundance—"Margaret, we have got it about as wrong as possible"? Or was it "as you were" with the policy?
    The Secretary of State's problem is that the profoundly detested policies that he has inherited are the Prime Minister's own ideas. The policies have exceeded their shelf life. The ideas have passed their sell-by date and the British people will no longer buy them.
    The flat-rate poll tax is a scandal which divides Britain from the rest of Europe and every other western democracy. The poll tax is unique to Britain; no other country in Europe has a tax that is so harsh, unfair and intrusive. The 24th amendment to the constitution of the United States of America rules out any connection between poll tax and citizenship. Churches, charities, voluntary organisations, businesses and many——
    Mr. Roger King: We do not live in America. We live here.
    Dr. Cunningham: Unfortunately, the hon. Gentleman does live here.
    —leading Tories have all condemned the poll tax proposals, and the Labour party's protest campaign has informed and focused the overwhelming opposition of the British people.
    Mr. Hill: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Dr. Cunningham: No.
    But whatever the Secretary of State's message today, our message is clear: the poll tax will go when the Prime Minister and her Government go. There can be no future for such an iniquitous, unfair, inefficient and capricious tax. A Labour Government will abolish it.
    4.13 pm
    The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Chris Patten): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and add instead thereof:
    "supports the introduction of the community charge, the principles of which are manifestly fairer and simpler than those that now apply to domestic rates; welcomes the exemptions conferred on those who cannot be asked to pay and the generous discounts, rebates and increased income support available for those on low incomes; recognises that the unified business rating system introduces a valuable stability for non-domestic ratepayers; congratulates Her Majesty's Government on implementing proposals that will improve the accountability of local government by insisting
    864
    that all who benefit from their services should have a say in their quality and cost; and notes that either a local income tax or a two-tax system based upon local income tax and capital value tax would be much more expensive to implement, much more unfair and make local government much less accountable."
    I shall begin as I am sure the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) and I will go on. The hon. Gentleman paid me some very genial courtesies, and I return the compliment. As the House knows, the hon. Member for Copeland was a Labour moderate before it became compulsory. He was a moderate before anyone had heard the name of Peter Mandelson. As a result, he has always enjoyed the respect of the House. I realise that, for as long as the hon. Gentleman comes to the Opposition Dispatch Box, I shall always have my work cut out. Between the two of us—wild eyed fanatics that we both are—I am sure that we shall keep our debates within the bounds of sobriety and public decorum.
    A combination of typical ministerial humility and concern for all right hon. and hon. Members who wish to participate in the debate persuades me to be brief. [Laughter.] I knew that the hon. Member for Copeland would believe that. It is always tiresome when Front Bench speakers take up too much time in short debates.
    The burden of the comments that I have heard from Labour spokesmen, such as those made on television last night by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) and in the speech of the hon. Member for Copeland is—I shall try to be briefer than the hon. Gentleman managed to be—different man, same policy. Having listened to the comments of the hon. Member for Copeland, I have an overwhelming feeling that, had I been privileged to participate in earlier debates, I could say of him now—same man, same speech.
    The House can be in little doubt that the hon. Member for Copeland does not care much for the Government's reform of local government finance, but he remains more than a trifle obscure on what he would do instead. There is an unfashionable degree of consensus on one particularly important point. On the Opposition, Conservative and Democrat Benches, there is agreement that the existing system of domestic rates must be replaced. The main reason why that must be done is that the domestic rating system is unfair. Whatever may have been the case in the 19th century, there is little relationship today between the rateable value of domestic property and the value of the services that individuals receive from their local authorities.
    Still less is there much of a relationship in many cases between the value of a house or flat and the ability of its occupant to pay for local services. Moreover, the present system obscures the relationship between expenditure on services and payment for them. I shall deal with those points in more detail shortly.
    I was not sure from the remarks of the hon. Member for Copeland, and from the Opposition's comments over the past few weeks, about their alternative. Sometimes they seem to have one, sometimes not. Today seemed to start as a have day, then it was a not day, and then a have day again. On have days—and perhaps this is one of them after all—it is suggested that about 80 per cent. of locally raised revenue should come from capital value rates. That would exacerbate the problems of the existing system. We all know well enough that an increase in the value of our house or flat does not mean that we can afford to pay more

    865
    for local authority services or for anything else. If that is true for most people, what about the retired, the widowed, and all those people living on fixed incomes?
    Mr. David Winnick: Is the Secretary of State aware that the Select Committee on the Environment of the 1979 Session, which had a Conservative majority, totally rejected the poll tax as an alternative to the rating system? The poll tax was rejected also by one of the right hon. Gentleman's predecessors as Secretary of State for the Environment, the right hon. Member of Henley (Mr. Heseltine). May we take it that the Secretary of State is enthusiastic about the poll tax as an alternative to the existing rating system?
    Mr. Patten: My memory of past Environment Select Committee reports is clearly not as extensive as the hon. Gentleman's. What I do recall is that I, along with my right hon. and hon. Friends, have fought two elections arguing the case for a community charge, and that we won those elections with what can only be described as comfortable majorities.
    Mr. Brian Wilson: If the Secretary of State is going to cling to this policy, may I suggest that he learns his history a little better? Is he not aware that a White Paper in 1982 specifically rejected the idea of a poll tax, on the grounds that it was unworkable and unfair? Does he recollect that the Government went into the 1983 general election making no mention of a poll tax, and—again—specifically rejecting the possibility of one?
    Mr. Patten indicated dissent.
    Mr. Wilson: It is no use the Secretary of State shaking his head. The poll tax was invented in panic after revaluations in Scotland in 1984. Does the right hon. Gentleman not accept that it is both paradoxical and an insult to his own intelligence that he should start his speech by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) on his moderation and then—apparently—give notice that he is going to accept uncritically the most extreme and offensive of the Government's policies?
    Mr. Patten: That intervention suggests that we should not give way in debates such as this as often as we would like. Let me point out to the hon. Gentleman—I know perhaps even more than he does about these matters—that we began to advocate the abolition of domestic rates in 1974, and included that view in our election manifesto. [Interruption.]
    Dr. Cunningham: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way. I do not give way to hon. Members who sit and shout abuse during debates.
    The Secretary of State does not seem to have a very clear grasp of the chronology of policy development in his own party. Is he not aware that his right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) has gone on record, as have his supporters, as making it clear that he worked with all his might and main to ensure that no mention was made of the poll tax in the Tory party's 1983 manifesto?
    Mr. Patten: Whatever our disputes about the history of Conservative manifestos, I think that even the hon.
    866
    Gentleman will concede that there was a clear mention of the community charge in our last manifesto. If it will suit him, I will settle for one example: the majority that we won in the last election, which we fought on the community charge.
    I was pointing out that capital-value rates, as advocated by Opposition Members—coupled with a local income tax—would not be fair or administratively simple; nor would they overcome the lack of accountability to the electorate. That is one of the great drawbacks of the existing system. I know that the Opposition have criticised us for allegedly distorting their policy and its effects, but I am prepared to do a deal, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will consider it fair. If the Opposition will tell us clearly exactly what their policy is, and the assumptions on which it is based, we shall be willing to work out with them a fair comparison of our proposals and theirs. I do not think that anything could be fairer than that.
    Dr. Cunningham: The Secretary of State's predecessor made the same offer. The right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewksbury (Mr. Ridley), however, was not aware that I had already tabled a parliamentary question asking him to do just that. When we are ready, we will ask the Secretary of State to do it, but as he wants to avoid distorting the implications of our policy, why does he not consult the Institute for Fiscal Studies? The Sunday Times—not, incidentally, a known supporter of the Labour party—invited the institute to examine our proposals, and this is what it reported:
    "Smith found that Mr and Mrs Average, a couple with children, and an income of £13,000 a year, could expect to pay a total of £394 a year in poll tax, but only £363 under Labour's plan."
    In other words, they would do better under Labour.
    The Rating and Valuation Association has also carried out studies, which conclude that our proposals are not only fairer but more efficient than the poll tax. Why does the Secretary of State not read those?
    Mr. Patten: The hon. Gentleman had better have a word with his right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, who only last week told the hon. Gentleman and others that their policy needed sophisticating, as it was not quite right. When the hon. Gentleman has finished his sophisticating, and has put his policy in place, we shall be happy to look at it. I hope that, when we do so, the hon. Gentleman and other Opposition Members will not complain as they did last week when we present the House with the consequences.
    Mr. Matthew Taylor rose——
    Mr. Patten: I have already given way as many times as the hon. Member for Copeland, and I wish to get on.
    There are three main attacks in the motion and the hon. Gentleman's speech. We are told that the new arrangements are unfair, undemocratic and unworkable. We all know that domestic rates are an unfair tax on property. They are paid for by only half the adult population. They take no account of the number of adults living in a house, and there is a poor fit between the rateable value of a property and the income of its occupants. Four out of 10 people in above-average rated properties have below-average incomes. By contrast, the community charge is fairer, simpler and more honest. It is based on people rather than property, and for the first time

    867
    it will be paid by almost all adults. The charge will share the cost of paying for local council services more widely and fairly, but people will not all pay the same bill.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: I welcome the Secretary of State to his new position. He has served in Northern Ireland in the past. Can he enlighten us as to why the boon has not been extended to Northern Ireland? Is it because, in the past, we believed that those who paid rates had a responsibility to take part in local authorities?
    Mr. Patten: I had some responsibility for local government in Northern Ireland a few years ago. As the hon. Gentleman will know, local government in Northern Ireland, for a variety of historical reasons with which the hon. Gentleman will disagree, has different functions and responsibilities from local government in this country. If the hon. Gentleman would like the community charge to be introduced in Northern Ireland, he will be able to pursue that in conversations with the responsible Minister in the Northern Ireland Office.
    As I have said, people will not all pay the same bill. The rebate system that we are introducing offers help where it is most needed—among those with low incomes or no income at all. It is more generous than the present system of rate rebates. Taking the arrangements for the community charge and the rebate together, it is worth noting that one in four charge payers will receive a rebate. I am extremely concerned that those who need help should receive it. I am asking my officials, as a matter of urgency, to review the arrangements we are making to maximise the take-up of rebates.
    For 5 million people, the continuation of the maximum rebate and the uprating of income support, which has already taken place, will mean that, unless they live under a very high-spending authority, they will not be paying anything extra in community charge. Indeed, they may well be a little in pocket.
    Mr. James Hill: When my right hon. Friend is listening to the selective figures from the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) will he give the figures for Southampton, which are extremely favourable to a city of 250,000 people? At the same time, will he try to get out of the Opposition Front Bench spokesmen their policy to take over from the poll tax?
    Mr. Patten: I am afraid that my knowledge of the position in Southampton is not as encyclopaedic as my hon. Friend's. I will encourage my hon. Friend who will reply to the debate to refer to those figures. Widows, single-parent families and others who are hard hit by rates in particular areas will be more fairly treated.
    The next plank of the argument advanced by the hon. Member for Copeland is that there is something undemocratic about the new arrangements. There is certainly something deeply undemocratic about the present system. Only half the local electorate pay for the services enjoyed by us all.
    Mr. Allan Roberts: Why does the Secretary of State continue with the myth that, because there are only half as many rate bills as poll tax bills, only half as many people contribute? Do not all members of his household, like all other households, contribute to the rates bill? I assure the right hon. Gentleman that in my constituency,
    868
    if a son is working, he contributes to the rates bill and if a wife has an income, she contributes to the bill—all the family pay the rate bill.
    Mr. Patten: That is not the criticism that has been put and believed widely by those who have argued against the domestic rating system for many years—certainly at every election that I have ever fought. We have seen the results of undemocratic weaknesses in many parts of local government, particularly in some inner-city areas governed by the extremist councillors that the Labour party tries to keep under wraps. We have seen sky-high rates for domestic ratepayers; businesses and jobs chased away from where they are needed as a result of rocketing business rates; and waste, inefficiency and extravagance in local authority budgets, contributing to an ever-increasing burden on the few who pay rates.
    Under our system, there will be a simple link between the cost of services that an authority chooses to provide and the level of the community charge. People can decide what they think about the quality and cost of those services. The community charge bill will show this crucial relationship in the clearest possible way. Every pound per adult that an authority chooses to spend above the standard level of service will mean £1 extra on the community charge bill. Equally, every £1 per adult saved feeds through to £1 off the bill. That is a major improvement in local accountability and democracy. It gives a clear choice about the cost of local authority policies, which is precisely what the Labour party is so concerned about. The community charge puts I he community in charge.
    The other argument that we hear from the Opposition is that the new arrangements are complicated and unworkable. The hon. Member for Copeland referred to a scare story and to invasion of privacy. The legislation was drafted specifically to limit the amount of information for which registration officers can ask. We give specific advice, which we agreed with the local authority associations and the Data Protection Registrar, on the registration form. Some registration officers went beyond that and, quite properly, were pulled up short by the registrar. I hope that they will listen to our advice.
    Dr. Cunningham: This is one of the few points of debate on which there is some agreement. That statement has been made previously by Ministers, but it seems to have gone unheeded. Why does not the Department take action by writing to community charge registration officers or issuing notes for guidance to stop this practice, which is an unnecessary invasion of people's privacy and, in some cases, is illegal? I assume that there is no party political dispute about that matter at least.
    Mr. Patten: As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have issued guidance. I am certainly prepared to consider whether there is a case for further guidance, because I agree with the hon. Gentleman that in some cases registration officers have gone beyond what the law should have allowed.
    It would be remarkable if a system that abolished rates and introduced a long overdue reform of local government finance could be achieved without some disadvantage to some people. Without undermining the principles on which this reform is based, we shall continue to do all we

    869
    can to smooth the transition. Much of the recent discussion about the new system has, understandably, concentrated on the safety net.
    The changes that are coming next April are substantial. We are moving from a discredited system under which grant is distributed largely on the basis of rateable values to a fairer system. Inevitably, whenever there is change, some people benefit but others are worse off.
    One of the main changes is the ending of resource equalisation. That has meant in practice that grant is taken from areas with high rateable values and directed towards areas with low rateable values. This might be a sensible basis for paying grant, but only if one accepts that rateable values are a fair basis for local taxation. As I have explained, that is not the case. With the move to the community charge, we are doing away with that cross-subsidy. It is a cross-subsidy of which few people are aware. It illustrates one of the problems of lack of accountability in the present system.
    Councils providing the same level of service will in future be able to set the same community charge. If we had not introduced the new system, those authorities contributing to resource equalisation would have had to continue to pay that back-door cross-subsidy indefinitely. We shall do away with that unfairness.
    The issue is how fast we can move to the new system. Some of my hon. Friends want us to move the whole way immediately. They represent those who have been paying the burden of resource equalisation in the past. They want to get rid of it now. I appreciate their concern, but it would not be easy to move to the new system overnight, and what my right hon. Friend proposed last week makes a big start towards phasing out a penalty and phasing in a gain.
    Those areas which have traditionally benefited from resource equalisation need a period, however short, to adjust to the new circumstances. Other hon. Members representing those parts of the country have stressed that they need time for people to adjust to the withdrawal of the hidden subsidy. We have, first, made the system explicit. No longer will there be disguised cross-subsidy in the grant system. But we have proposed a temporary safety net which is separately identifiable and which makes clear what is happening.
    Secondly, we have nearly halved the amount which contributors will have to pay to the safety net. Over 200 authorities will be better off as a result of the change. They will now pay 40 to 50 per cent. less in the first year than they would have paid under the old safety net proposal. That is significant progress.
    I wish to make it absolutely plain that I shall look carefully at the points that were made when my right hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) made his statement on local government finance last week. Naturally, some would like to go faster, with more of the gains coming through immediately. Others would wish to go more slowly, giving greater protection to the losers. I am not sure whether that circle can be squared, but I shall pay the closest attention to what is said in this debate and in future discussions.
    I come to these issues relatively new. The hon. Member for Copeland made that point. I recognise that there will be many further exchanges across the Floor of the House before the charge is brought in next spring. I shall of
    870
    course want to listen to any helpful suggestions on how we might make the transition as easy as possible. It would also be a welcome change to hear from Opposition Members—perhaps we have been making progress today; a bit here and a bit there—precisely what they would do, sophisticated or perhaps not so sophisticated.
    For our part, we shall continue to press ahead with the introduction of this reform, whatever the kebabing tactics of the Opposition. We shall press ahead for the reasons set out in our amendment to the motion, and I urge the House, for the reasons there set out, to vote with us at the conclusion of the debate.
    4.38 pm
    Mr. Dick Douglas: I listened to the maiden speech by the new Secretary of State for the Environment, the right hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Patten), with great interest. I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his appointment. I have known him for some time in the House. I met him first as a colleague on the Select Committee on Defence, and I recognise his outstanding ability to grasp, and master, issues. I do not think that he needs to excuse himself if he finds this issue difficult to grasp.
    I caution him that he does not need to look at the crystal ball—in Scotland we have the book. The poll tax books are coming through the door. Some of the three-monthly payments are due right now. Nice little letters come through the door to remind us that, if we do not pay for the three months, the whole year will become due.
    I caution the Secretary of State because I think that he, is a fair man. He comes from overseas development, where he considered the world situation. It was his responsibility to attempt to transfer resources from the richer nations to the poorer nations. An outstanding example of that was his experience in Nepal. We know that because the Select Committee on Defence went there and because of our exchanges with him.
    I shall give a graphic illustration of the effect of the poll tax. An old man, aged 90, in my constituency told me that he and his wife, aged 88, have £6,000 in the bank. They pay two poll taxes. He asked, "Dick, my boy, does that mean that I will have to pay the same as the Earl of Elgin?" I told him, "Aye, that's the law." In God's name, is that fair? How can one say honestly that someone who has taken notice of the credos of the Tories, who has been careful and has built up a capital sum, should pay two poll taxes?
    An old lady moved about 200 yards down the road to look after her mother, aged 90. The law says that she is now resident there and they will have to pay two poll taxes there and two poll taxes at the standard charge rate for the house that she has vacated. Instead of paying about £800 in rates, they are paying £1,200. How in God's name is that fair?
    We have a tax on property. Does the Secretary of State not know that the standard charge is a tax on property? I part company with many of my hon. Friends on many issues, but I think that, in a system of taxation which is multi-based, there is no reason for excusing property. Everything else is taxed, so why in heaven's name is there a case for exempting property? That is what the Tories have tried to do, however, on the basis of accountability.
    If one wants to evade accountability for looking after old people properly within the community, what does one

    871
    do? Put them in a hospital, or a nursing home, where they do not pay any poll tax. Have them in the bosom of the family, however, and they will pay the tax. How in God's name can that be defended in a civilised society which prides itself on trying to look after elderly people?
    Dr. Norman A. Godman: In their constituency surgeries, Scottish Members have come across people who have been crippled by the poll tax. Does my hon. Friend agree that, yesterday, we saw a plain reaction to the Scottish poll tax in the resignation of the right hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger)? Does he also agree that the right hon. Gentleman's resignation shows plainly that he and others in Ayr have given up hope of the Conservatives retaining that seat, because of this and other legislation?
    Mr. Douglas: I will not digress too much.
    The Secretary of State has had experience of Northern Ireland. There is no way the Government would try to introduce the poll tax in Northern Ireland without first putting it in their manifesto, but they did that in Scotland. They put it into practice without it being in the manifesto and the Scottish people have pronounced on it—we have voted on it.
    I ask the Secretary of State to give me his attention and not to talk to the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), who is trying to get his ear.
    In Scotland, we pronounced on the poll tax. Accountability is the argument for the poll tax, but the only part of the United Kingdom that had the poll tax in 1987 was Scotland, and the Scottish people overwhelmingly rejected it.
    The Secretary of State should not look at a crystal ball when he can read the book. He should consult his colleague, the Secretary of State for Scotland and, in a moment of reasonable quietude, perhaps achieve some understanding of what is happening there. Many people are paying poll tax, but many others, like me, are not. We will accept the odium.
    I notice that people in certain parts of England have achieved a change of Secretary of State by burning an effigy of the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor. I wholly disapprove of that practice. I think that it is more illegal, and more of an incitement to bad behaviour, to burn an effigy of the right hon. Gentleman than to say there is a basic right in a civilised society to object, through civil disobedience, to the imposition of an unfair and unjust tax that has been rejected by our people in a democratic ballot. What can we do if they do not listen?
    The Secretary of State's closing remarks showed, although it is early days, that he is looking at ways in which the safety net can be shaded. I think that a large proportion, if not all of the safety net, will be borne by the Exchequer.
    We came first in Scotland and the Scottish people inherently and instinctively resent being made the guinea pig for legislation which cannot work in any part of the United Kingdom and is certainly not working in Scotland.
    I do not know what the figure will be—whether we will have 500,000 non-payers by August—and I cannot predict it, but I predict that it will be substantial. That underlines the fact that payment has brought about an enormous amount of resentment, which has been added to by behaviour in this House last week such as when the right hon. Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson) who,
    872
    although he is a supporter of the poll tax, said that he resented the way that the safety net has been arranged. Also, for the first time in the British media we have seen resentment at the poll tax.
    Last year, I ran all the way from Edinburgh to London to protest against the poll tax. I shall continue to protest. This is a marathon race that has been taken up by Opposition Members. We do not intend to renege on that. We will go the distance until the poll tax legislation is removed from the statute book, because it is unfair and unjust, and does not do what the Government have suggested it does. It is unfavourable to the poorer sections of the population and to those sections of the population who ought to be cossetted—the sick and the mentally handicapped. Those people ought to be assisted.
    I have sufficient faith in the right hon. Gentleman's background—I will not dwell on his religious upbringing—to believe that, when he examines the matter, there will be adjustments, but they should come in Scotland first. The ideal solution is to remove the legislation from the statute book.
    4.48 pm
    Sir Rhodes Boyson: I recognise the time constraints in this important debate, but I should like first to welcome my right hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Patten) to the Dispatch Box as Secretary of State for the Environment. We served together in the Northern Ireland Office, and I am sure that he will do an excellent job in charge of the Department of the Environment. It is an important portfolio. I welcome also my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, West (Mr. Hunt) to his new portfolio—because he will reply to the debate, I have tried to win his favour before deploying my arguments.
    First, I believe in effective local government. I do not want power to be centralised, because liberty comes from a balance of power. I spent 10 years in local government and I do not want local government to be stripped of its powers. Over the past 20 years, local government has been threatened because often the majority party in local government differed from the party in government, so they do not have much time for each other. The danger is that the party in control may ride roughshod over the other party.
    Secondly, I believe in the community charge. There is a straight difference of opinion between the two sides of the Chamber on this matter, but I believe that people should pay at least something towards what they vote for. That is what responsible government is about. We can argue about the amount that people should pay and about the amount of rebates.
    It has been said that people pay as part of a family, but in some parts of the country only one in four of the people on the register pay rates, compared with one in three and one in two in other areas. That is wrong. There is an incentive to increase expenditure when some people can vote to spend other people's money. As a northern nonconformist, I believe that there is no political morality in that. I welcome the community charge as a means of bringing political responsibility into local government voting.
    We have frequently heard about the peasants' revolt. Their revolt was basically against the oppressions of the feudal controls on the labour market. I would argue that that was a Thatcherite revolution. If I had met Wat Tyler

    873
    on his way to London bridge, I think that I could have made him a member of the Brent, North Conservative association. His supporters wanted a free labour market. If they were marching on us today, I believe that there would be more of their supporters sitting on the Conservative Benches than on the Opposition Benches.
    Thirdly, the present method of funding the safety net is immoral and is political suicide for the Conservative party. The idea of transferring money over four years from the heavy community charges levied on careful Conservative areas to spendthrift Labour authorities is unsaleable in Conservative areas. That will take place over a full four-year cycle of local government elections in England and Wales, over a general election and within one month of the next European election. All that time, electors in prudent areas will see that they are transferring through their community charge £25, £50 or £75 per person per year to areas that have more amenities because they have spent more money.
    About a fortnight ago, a list that I compiled was printed in, I think, The Times. I referred to 25 Conservative seats in which all the constituents were to transfer considerable sums through the community charge over four years to largely Labour areas, yet the majority vote in favour of the main party was less than 5,500 in each constituency. This matter will be raised repeatedly in those constituencies.
    Dr. Godman: Shame.
    Sir Rhodes Boyson: There is no shame in it. Those authorities made a decision to be prudent—the shame lies with those who have wasted the money. The shame is that people in prudent areas have to pay for someone else's waste of money. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to bring in a moral point. This is a dangerous and indefensible action.
    Fourthly, I believe that a safety net so funded will break the morale of many good Conservative authorities. The hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) referred to Wandsworth. It was Thatcherite before Thatcherism, John the Baptist before anyone else came along. My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, lichen (Mr. Chope), who I believe is still in the Department of the Environment—it is difficult to keep up with everything that is happening—made his name in Wandsworth by being a Thatcherite and bringing down expenditure.
    The average rates bill per household in Tower Hamlets is £500, compared with £360 in Wandsworth. Tower Hamlets is usually Labour—controlled but at present is under the control of the Liberals-most hon. Members on both sides of the house, except perhaps the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor), hope that that is only temporary. After the calculations on the community charge and safety net have been made and the money has been passed back and forth, an individual in Tower Hamlets will pay £153 and an individual in Wandsworth £148. That is the result after all the efforts over the past 15 years in Wandsworth to build up a Conservative careful authority, which documents such as "Good Council Guide: Wandsworth 1978–87" have made famous. It is a green-coloured document, which shows that the council was going green at that time and knew what would happen to the Department of the Environment.
    Mr. Matthew Taylor: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
    Sir Rhodes Boyson: I shall give way when I have finished this point. We must go through paragraph by paragraph—it is much tighter and neater that way. It is like writing essays—we must do it properly.
    After all that time, people in Wandsworth will be only £5 better off than people in Tower Hamlets. That is why I believe that this proposal will destroy the morale of many Conservative authorities.
    I shall now give way to the hon. Member for Truro, as long as he makes just an intervention, not a speech.
    Mr. Taylor: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman accepts that there are differences between Tower Hamlets and Wandsworth in terms of, for example, housing pressure. Tower Hamlets has large immigrant communities moving in, unlike Wandsworth. I think that all hon. Members accept that point. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman welcomes the fact that Tower Hamlets, under the Liberal Democrats, has cut rates.
    Sir Rhodes Boyson: For the hon. Gentleman's benefit, I shall repeat my point. Wandsworth will compare the old rates and the new community charge and ask what it has done over those 15 years. I stand by what I say, whether or not the hon. Gentleman agrees with me.
    Fifthly, the safety net is a strange formula. I spent nine months as Minister for Local Government. I always wondered where the calculations came from, where we changed them and what the computers did. Sometimes I felt that there were satanic demons, or gremlins, in the basement and, after we had all gone home, they moved the computers around. I believe that they have now moved up the stairs and are coming out.
    I am sorry that the hon. Members for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) and for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) are not in the Chamber. Using the straightforward community charge, people in Brent will have to pay the second highest amount in the country—£561 per person, according to the projected figures. The safety net was supposed to give councils a chance to get it right, but Brent will have to transfer £36 per person per year to other overspending authorities. Anyone who can defend that should be a member of the Magic Circle and performing at the London Palladium.
    Mr. John Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend accept that many people in the Department of the Environment and elsewhere believe that Brent Council, as presently constituted, is beyond redemption?
    Sir Rhodes Boyson: I must not get into a religious argument with my hon. Friend, for whom I have great respect, but I believe in the saving of souls and the redemption of all men. It seems that I may have cross-party support on that.
    My sixth point is that, if there is to be a safety net, the money must come from the Treasury. It must not come from the good authorities, because that makes a farce of the community charge and destroys the whole basis of the new arrangements. If my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State wants to retain the safety net—and that is his right as Secretary of State—the Treasury must pay the lot. We do not want all kinds of formulas that we cannot understand; we have had too many of those from the Department of the Environment already.

    875
    We are told that £630 million will be needed next year to cover the safety net. If my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State comes back in October and says, "My right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North can sit at ease; he does not need to intervene because I have got hold of the £630 million," I shall decide that his is the best of the recent appointments. He will command my support on almost every other issue—that is a dangerous thing to say—for as long as he and I are still battling in the Chamber.
    Consider what a headmaster would do. If 10 boys broke 10 windows in my school, I would charge the 10 boys, as would all old schoolmasters; even Scottish dominies would charge the boys, and it would be for the boys to decide how to raise the money. The last thing I would do would be to say to those 10 boys, "Go away. You have done nothing wrong," and then call the rest of the school together and say, "You are paying for the 10 windows." There would be a riot in the school, and there is no doubt in my mind that when Conservative voters find that they are paying for windows, as it were, that others have broken, there will be a riot in the constituencies.
    I shall vote against the Opposition motion this evening, for the simple reason that there is a new Secretary of State in whom I have great faith. Earlier, we were talking in religious terms. I am not suggesting that my right hon. Friend should move mountains; I just want him to remove the safety net. That will do for me at the moment. My right hon. Friend can move mountaains later as part of the Department's activities on the green side, but on the local government side, all I want is for the safety net to be removed.
    If, by the time we next debate the safety net in the House, it has not been announced that it will be financed from Treasury money, I shall certainly vote against it. I am not putting the Secretary of State on probation. I have total faith in him and I know that he will solve the problem—[Interruption.] I must not argue with the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas). I am sorry that no Treasury Minister is here to listen to what I, at least, believe to be words of wisdom. On the day when we discover that the safety net is to be funded by the Treasury, a cheer will go up throughout the country. I look forward to that day arriving before we reassemble after the recess.
    5.2 pm
    Mr. Matthew Taylor: I join in welcoming the Secretary of State to his new role. There has certainly been a change of image. The only thing that I would say to him—I am sure that others have given him this advice—is that the quality of the salesman will not make up for duff goods. The fact that we have already heard criticisms from Conservative Back-Bench Members, mollified only by his newness and not by his remarks, is a sign of the difficulties that he may experience in his new role. I wish him luck, however, and I hope that we see some changes in practice as well as in presentation.
    The poll tax is the most unpopular measure to have come from this Government so far. I say "so far" because it has had to jostle for its place with other measures. Later this evening I shall refer in an Adjournment debate to the reform of the National Health Service, and I think that the Bill containing the proposals for that reform may topple the community charge as the most unpopular measure when it is introduced in the autumn.
    876
    I am afraid that we are past the point at which we can expect Ministers—under this Prime Minister at least—to say, "We got it wrong. We shall change the provisions fundamentally." Ministers have committed themselves to the proposal. I suspect that, when the Prime Minister interviewed replacements for the previous Secretary of State, she checked that they were not likely to rock the boat. I can imagine her asking the current Secretary of State some questions: "You are patron of this organisation the Tory Reform Group. You don't really mean it, do you? You are there as a figurehead, are you not? I am sure that you do not stand by what that body says and that you would not want to have to take responsibility for it. You would not agree with its members any longer, would you?" I can imagine the right hon. Gentleman thinking about it, but not very hard, and deciding that perhaps he could sell the required message. With a change of Prime Minister or a change of Government, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will get the chance to do otherwise.
    This debate allows us a moment of reflection, and it is to be hoped that it will allow the new Secretary of State to consider changes that he may be able to introduce even under a Prime Minister who has an iron will and dislikes deviation from the set course. I was pleased to hear at least one Conservative Member speak up from the Back Benches. I was particularly pleased that the right hon. Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson) pressed for change by calling for Treasury cash. The great error that the former Secretary of State made when he addressed I he House last week was to try to reconcile the irreconcilable by telling those whom he had previously said needed help and support that they would get a little less, to help those whom he had said were getting more than they deserved. That was not an easy concept to sell, and he failed to sell it. If a safety net is needed, it should be funded by the Treasury, not by calling on other local authorities to step in merely to suit the Treasury's other financial aims.
    The debate has been called so that we can consider the effects of the poll tax on ordinary people. One thing seems certain: As with so many measures that have been introduced under this Government, the effect of the poll tax will be to hit the poor and advantage the rich—in. particular, to hit the old and the young——
    Mr. John Marshall: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Taylor: I shall give way in a moment, when I have had the chance to develop my argument.
    The community charge will affect most those just above the level at which one can claim supplementary benefit, who may have to pay the full poll tax. Equally, because the income support increase to help people pay the poll tax is based on the national average charge, people who live in areas of high poll tax—which tend to be the most deprived areas—will lose most. The living standards of those on low incomes will inevitably be adversely affected by the poll tax.
    The analysis by the Child Poverty Action Group gives us evidence to support that. It considered the effect of the poll tax on the living standards of poor and middle-income families. I am sure that the new Secretary of State has recently been briefed on this. He will know that, overall, 63 per cent. of tax units will lose by the poll tax and 37 per cent. will gain.
    Mr. Dave Nellist: Tax units? Does the hon. Gentleman mean people?
    Mr. Taylor: We are talking not about individuals but about families paying tax—or tax units—63 per cent. of which will lose and 37 per cent. of which will gain.
    The key figure to which the Child Poverty Action Group draws attention is this. Of the bottom range of taxpayers, 83 per cent. will lose and only 16 per cent. will gain, and the average loss involved will be more than £1 a week. In contrast to that, of the top range taxpayers—the very rich—71 per cent. will gain and 29 per cent. will lose. That is an almost complete reversal of the figures for the population as a whole. That is why I say that the poor will incur the losses and the rich will gain the advantage.
    Mr. John Marshall: The hon. Gentleman said that the old would suffer under the community charge. Does he agree that 90 per cent. of single pensioners will be better off under the community charge?
    Mr. Taylor: I do not agree with that figure. Some single pensioners will gain, but not 90 per cent. of them. They might also gain under other systems. That is an argument against the rates, but not for the poll tax.
    Combined with the changes in social security benefits, the poll tax will be a particularly bad deal for the worse-off in society. That is hardly a more equitable system than the rates. The two changes mean that families, with children who have a net income of less than £75 a week—which is a third of all families with children—will lose between £4·88 and £5·01 a week. I know that the Prime Minister does not believe in society, but I thought that she and her Ministers made a virtue of supporting family life. These changes will make life harder for families, and there is no justice in that.
    This weekend I was approached by a pensioner in my constituency who lives in a residential care home and will be exempt from the poll tax. Did she congratulate the Government on exempting her? No. She said that she did not understand why those being cared for by their families at home should be penalised for the privilege, while she was exempt. She wondered whether the Government really intended to force people into residential care homes. She did not criticise the Government's treatment of her—she understood why people might wish to be cared for in residential homes—but she could not understand why the Government wanted to create a financial incentive to take people out of the family home and put them into care, no matter how good the care was.
    The Secretary of State referred to the difficulties of taking up means-tested benefits and said that he would seek ways to alleviate them. I wonder whether much can be done within the present system of rebates. In Scotland, the take-up of rebates by people on low incomes is extremely low. In some areas, it is as low as 25 per cent. The Secretary of State was right to highlight the difficulties. I am not convinced that, under the poll tax and the cumbersome system of rebates and help that goes with it to make it workable, the Secretary of State will be able to achieve his objectives. It is good to hear a Government spokesman speak in favour of helping people to claim the money, but the Government do not have much chance of succeeding in that. Time will tell, but I believe that our fears will be proved correct.
    The implications of the poll tax for civil liberties cause great anxiety. It brings with it wide and intrusive powers
    878
    to establish and maintain the register and to enforce payment. Only today, I heard about an example in Rochdale which illustrates the problems of enforcing the poll tax. It is not an extreme example, but it illustrates the effect on people's daily lives, which is unnecessary and would not have arisen if the Government had not insisted on introducing the system.
    Since last Friday, 33 canvassers have been calling at homes in Rochdale at 8.30 pm or at weekends to chase people about their poll tax registration. It is bad enough to approach people at a time of day when they cannot telephone anyone to advise them on their rights, but to call on the elderly and infirm at 8.30 pm is to frighten them. That is not simply because they are frightened of officials, but in some cases any unannounced caller at 8.30 pm causes fear and anxiety. Such calls would not be necessary but for the cumbersome nature of the system of taxation that the Government have chosen to introduce.
    The effects of the uniform business rate are mentioned in the Labour party motion. Non-domestic rates currently raise more than domestic rates. The new rate will be set nationally, yet Ministers talk about the need for more local control and accountability and a greater link between people and their local authority and between businesses and their local authority. Ministers should be aware that the uniform business rate breaks the link. Deprived of locally raised non-domestic rate revenue, local authorities will depend on central Government for about 75 to 80 per cent. of their funding. So much for the supposed increased accountability of the poll tax.
    The uniform business rate will penalise local businesses in areas where local authorities have done most to help them by keeping rates down and spending money sensibly. Businesses in my constituency are being asked to pay increases in their rates, in some cases massive increases, to fund local authorities elsewhere which in the past set high rates and provided more services. They are being asked to pay a considerable increase without seeing an improvement in local services in an area already acknowledged to be deprived and where incomes are almost 20 per cent. lower than the national average. We have more small local businesses than almost any other area. They thought that the Government were on the side of businesses, but they are penalising them.
    As shop owners discover the effects on their business of this change, combined with the effects of revaluation and a wholly inadequate system of safety nets, they will go bust and change their vote. They will wish that they had not left it so late to change their allegiances.
    In Truro, small shop owners paying rates of £767 will be shocked to see them rise to £1,750 over five years. That is an increase of 128 per cent., allowing for an inflation rate of 7 per cent. The bill of another retail outlet that we looked at would rise from £810 to £2,100. That is because the Government will not acknowledge their responsibility to support businesses. They are simply breaking local contracts.
    The poll tax has been completely discredited. My party has never defended the rating system. For years, we have advocted a system of local income tax. Unlike the Labour party, we argued that case throughout the debates on the Local Government Finance Bill. We gave Ministers details of the alternative system that we would introduce. Ministers did not give figures on or make comparisons with our system, but snatched figures out of the air for their version of a local income tax system to mock it. They

    879
    say that they are prepared to consider the Labour party's proposals and produce figures on them, but they dare not do so for a truly accountable and effective system of local income tax.
    That is surprising, because every other European country has a system of local income tax, and it is used around the world. No other country uses the poll tax. Local income tax makes more sense. I do not know whether the Minister noticed that I was disturbed by what the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) said. It appears that the Labour party is moving away from any attempt to introduce in part a local income tax. The hon. Gentleman said that he sought to allocate a proportion of national income tax to local authorities, which is different. We have read in the newspapers that even the leadership of the Labour party believes that the system that it has come up with is too complicated.
    Mr. David Blunkett: I should hate another hare to start running, so I shall put the record straight. There has been no change this afternoon. We are in favour of a system based on the capital values of property, adjusted to take account of the income of those in the household.
    Mr. Taylor: I may be wrong, but I think we are getting further developments as things go along. It is interesting to listen to what is happening. It would be easiest if the hon. Member for Sheffield. Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) would accept the advice of those in his party who I know believe that a straightforward and simple system of local income tax would be the most workable alternative for the party to defend. I regret that the Labour party was unable to put forward any proposals during our debates on the Local Goverment and Finance Bill. It might have done more to put the Government on the spot at a time when we were all agreed that the existing rating system was an inadequate alternative to the poll tax.
    In Cornwall, as in many other areas, domestic ratepayers and business men will be horrified to find that they are being asked to work under and pay for a system which means that the least efficient and the highest-spending authorities are subsidised by those which are most efficient and have the fewest local services. I do not believe that that will be any more popular in my local authorities than many Conservative Back-Bench Members believe that it will be in theirs.
    Perhaps I should thank the Secretary of State's predecessor for handing me votes on a plate, but I honestly believe that the impact on those who will have to pay the poll tax—it will hit the poorest hardest—is insupportable. I regret the fact that those people will be penalised in that way. Although he was handed a job that he wanted to take and that will allow him to develop many of his ideas on the environment and other areas, which we look forward to hearing, I believe that the Secretary of State will regret the fact that he has to defend the indefensible and put forward a policy that hits those who are most defenceless.
    5.22 pm
    Mr. John Heddle (Mid-Staffordshire): I join other right hon. and hon. Members in sincerely congratulating my right hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Patten) on his appointment as Secretary of State, and my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, West (Mr. Hunt) on his appointment as Minister of State. I would like to place on record my
    880
    personal gratitude to my right hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewksbury (Mr. Ridley) for the consistently courteous and thoughtful way in which he received many of us who are especially interested in matters affecting the Department of Environment and local government. His attitude and his approach to his parliamentary colleagues bore no relationship to the sort of comments that we have heard from Opposition Members and those that have appeared in some of the less informed sections of the media.
    I join my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson) in wanting a closer, healthier link between central Government and local government, and between local government and the householder and the consumer of local government services. I ask my right hon. Friend, as a former Minister in the Department of Education and Science, when he further considers the matters generally, to give further thought to the possibility of the transfer of teachers' salaries to the centre, which would inevitably mean a lower community charge bill for all households.
    The whole question of the reform of the domestic rating system has moved since 1974 further and further up the political agenda. All major and serious political parties at the last election committed themselves to a reform of the domestic rating system. However, the Conservative party was the only one to come forward with any credible alternative, having given serious and comprehensive thought to all other alternatives. It was for that reason that I supported, in principle, this legislation through all its stages.
    However, the official Opposition simply said, "We will abolish the Rates Act and we will do away with the community charge in Scotland." There was no mention in their manifesto of any alternative, but now it has crept out bit by bit—the twin tax of capital valuation and local income tax. I was delighted to hear from the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) that the official Opposition are still committed to those two unfair strands of taxation. They are committed to them because they represent a wealth tax and have no relationship with the value of a person's property, whether they own it or not, or to the cost of the services provided.
    I will give way to the hon. Member for Brightside if he can confirm to me and to all my Mid-Staffordshire constituents, who do not own their own homes, but who are tenants of local authorities, that what they would pay, if a Labour Government were subsequently returned, would be a capital tax based on the value of the property which they occupy, even though they do not own it. [Interruption.] I will willingly give way to the hon. Gentleman. I am grateful for the confirmation that 40 per cent. of local authority tenants in Lichfield and Cannock Chase district councils and Stafford borough council will pay a valuation tax based on the capital value of a property in which they have no personal direct stake.
    Mr. Blunkett: In view of the way in which the hon. Gentleman is managing to create himself a scenario, which is completely out of tune with what we are suggesting, I shall put him straight. We are not suggesting that people will be in that position. I made it clear that our tax would be a fair tax and it would therefore take account of the ability to pay of those in the household. That is different

    881
    from what the hon. Gentleman has said. It would be over and above the question of rebates, as all progressive taxes should be.
    Mr. Heddle: As the hon. Gentleman has responded to my invitation, I shall push him a little further. I ask him yet again to confirm that the capital taxation that his party proposes to introduce will be based on the value of a person's property, even though he does not own it. In other words, a council tenant occupying a property in Mid-Staffordshire, possibly worth £100,000, will pay tax to the local authority, especially if his income is in excess of the threshold which the hon. Gentleman implied would be introduced. Is that true or false?
    Mr. Blunkett: The hon. Gentleman must make his own speech, and defend this iniquitous tax.
    Mr. Heddle: I am just about to come to that. The hon. Gentleman has confirmed the worst fears of a significant proportion of the population who do not own their properties. We shall pursue that point relentlessly between now and 1992, until the truth is told.
    Mr. Dennis Turner: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Heddle: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to make his speech. I know that a number of Opposition Members wish to make their contributions. If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I would like to pursue the policies of the Liberal party. At the last election, in its manifesto, the Liberal party, under the paragraph beginning
    "Local government needs a fair system of local finance which the rates no longer provide",
    said:
    "We are committed to the planned introduction of a local income tax as the main source"—
    not the only source—
    "of local government revenue in place of domestic rates. We believe that business rates should be related to ability to pay and we will consult with industry and commerce as to how this can be achieved."
    The second part of that commitment means that the Liberal party does not have any policy at all on how non-domestic ratepayers should be treated.
    Mr. Turner: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Heddle: No, but I shall willingly give way to the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) if he will now tell the House and the nation how much he would put on the standard rate of income tax to take account of local income tax to fund the main contribution of local government expenditure, and then what other additional tax he would impose to take account of the balance.
    Mr. Matthew Taylor: The hon. Gentleman is more than welcome to have a copy of our pamphlet on this subject. If he drops me a note, I will send him a copy. The answer is that, as the tax will be set locally, it will, of course, vary, but it will vary between 5 and 8 per cent., roughly speaking.
    Mr. Heddle: I am baffled by the hon. Gentleman's answer—between 5 and 8 per cent. of what? If it was between 5p and 8p in the pound on the standard rate of income tax, I would believe that the hon. Gentleman was
    882
    somewhere near the truth because those were the figures produced by the Layfield committee when it reported in 1977.
    That brings me back to the position today. Why was the Conservative party committed to reforming the rating system in the first place? The answer is not only because the domestic rating system is wholly out of date and wholly unfit for the second half of the 20th century and bears no relationship to the cost of the services provided, but because successive Governments—both the Conservative Government in the early 1970s and subsequently the Labour Government and then the Government under the control of the Liberal party in partnership with the Labour party—funked the issue of rating reform. It is because there is now no possibility of revaluing domestic property on any sensible scale that an alternative system had to be introduced.
    Mr. Turner: On behalf of the people of Mid-Stafford-shire, will the hon. Gentleman address the issue that we are debating—the here-and-now position of thousands and thousands of people in his constituency and in mine who will have to pay a heavy price for this change of policy? Will the hon. Gentleman tell the people of Mid-Stafford-shire that they will pay precisely the amount that was quoted in the paper produced last week by his right hon. Friend the previous Secretary of State? Is that a correct figure? No, it is a false figure. Will he tell the people of Mid-Staffordshire that they will have to pay more than the Government are saying they will have to pay?
    Mr. Heddle: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for inviting me to conclude my remarks. We have established that the official policy of the Labour party is that a significant amount of the money that it would raise if it were in government would be found from the tenants of properties and would be based on a capital value in which they have no interest and over which they have no control. We have established that the Liberal party would increase the standard rate of income tax by between 5 and 8 per cent., or thereabouts. In the absence of any more comprehensive information, I believe that figure to be absolutely correct——
    Mr. Matthew Taylor rose——
    Mr. Heddle: No, I have given way once to the hon. Gentleman already.
    I turn now to the safety net and to the position of my constituents in Mid-Staffordshire and to those of the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Nellist: What have I done?
    Mr. Heddle: I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon. I meant the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-East (Mr. Turner).
    Mr. Nellist rose——
    Mr. Heddle: It is inevitable that in transferring from one——
    Mr. Nellist: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Heddle: It is inevitable—[HON. MEMBERS: "Give way."] It is inevitable that anomalies will arise when transferring from an unfair and outdated system. They have arisen in the non-domestic sector and that is why my right hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and

    883
    Tewksbury introduced transitional relief phased over a five-year period. I do not believe that period to be long enough, because it will coincide with the next revaluation in 1995 and, having regard to the fact that most commercial and industrial leases today have rent reviews every five or seven years, it will add to the temporary rates burden on the non-domestic sector. I should like to pursue that matter further with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in correspondence.
    The transitional relief that my right hon. Friend's predecessor introduced for the non-domestic sector should form the basis for a transitional relief, by way of a safety net, in the domestic sector. I join my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North in wishing to see the safety net expanded and funded from central taxation, but targeted most specifically on those in particular need.
    My constituents in Mid-Staffordshire are sick to death having to fund the expenditure of spendthrift and profligate local authorities, such as the adjoining local authority of the city of Stoke-on-Trent, when they themselves are well provided for by the prudent and Conservative-controlled Lichfield district council and Stafford borough council.
    5.34 pm
    Mr. Dave Nellist: The bonhomie of Cabinet reshuffles tends to pass me by. I fail to see how a rubber stamp can be reshuffled. The only achievement of the new Secretary of State for the Environment in opening the debate was his acknowledgement that he has been handed a poisoned chalice—one that saw off his predecessor yesterday and one that I confidently predict will see off both him and the Prime Minister before the next general election.
    Last week, we had a near-riot when Tory Members finally discovered what the poll tax is about in terms of the safety net. They were rewarded for their political cowardice in voting for it last summer when they suddenly realised that between 25 and 30 marginal Tory seats could be affected at the next general election. Again, I confidently predict that that number will be one third, if not less, of the number of seats that will be lost to the Tory party in Scotland, in England and in Wales by the full enactment of the poll tax legislation—if it goes ahead.
    Just under two years ago, the Tory Reform Group described the poll tax as
    "fair only in the sense that the Black Death was fair; it is indiscriminate. striking at young and old, rich and poor, employed and unemployed alike".
    That description was wrong in one basic respect. At least the rich could catch the plague—the rich will not catch the poll tax. That is why, last summer, when an amendment to the legislation was being considered by the other place, 100 Lords were literally dug up to vote it down. Individuals such as Lord Vestey, the owner of Dewhurst butchers, currently pays £6,000 in rates on a country estate, but will pay only £200 in poll tax, while I and other hon. Members, especially Labour Members, have constituents on £50 or £60 per week who will have to spend between 10 and 15 per cent. of their income on the new poll tax.
    The poll tax is a wealth transfusion from the poor to the rich. It was introduced in Scotland this April, and one year later—next April—we will get it in England and Wales. Why the difference? Perhaps there are still some military strategists in the higher echelons of the Tory party who remember the basic lesson of not taking on all one's
    884
    enemies in one go. The Government decided to divide and rule and to have a testing ground to see how the poll tax goes, because that leaves the possibility of withdrawing it later, if necessary.
    What happened in Scotland? On the introduction of the poll tax, The Scotsman described the chaos of the poll tax as like
    "waking up to a nightmare."
    Earlier this month, having contacted all the officials of the regional councils, the Scotland on Sunday newspaper estimated that the level of non-payment of the poll tax was 800,000 people out of the 3·9 million people on whom it is levied. However, I believe that that figure of 800,000 is on the low side, for two reasons. First, the numbers who have paid the poll tax have been artificially inflated by counting somebody who has paid the whole year's poll tax as 12 people. Secondly, the figure of 800,000 does not include those people who have paid the first instalment of the poll tax but have now decided not to make the second or subsequent payments. Those 800,000 people in Scotland have crossed the Rubicon; they have decided on the illegal non-payment of the poll tax.
    If one transposes those figures to England and Wales, and assumes that the conditions here next April will be exactly the same, one must assume that more than 7 million people will be unable or unwilling to pay the poll tax. That is a staggering figure. At that level, the poll tax will be unworkable.
    Why are so many people refusing to pay the poll tax? Bodies such as the Scottish Federation of Anti-Poll Tax Unions have played a major part in the campaign. There are now 550 anti poll tax unions in England, Scotland and Wales, most grouped into city or regional federations. I address two or three meetings every week about the poll tax, and the attendance is double the attendance I would expect at a meeting on any other subject.
    Mr. John Marshall: Twice zero is zero.
    Mr. Nellist: The hon. Gentleman makes cracks. but I can tell him that the meetings I address are usually attended by between 100 and 500 people.
    The poll tax is one of the most serious attacks on the living standards of working-class people and the provision of jobs and services by local authorities in the 10 years under this Government. In the past four months alone, there have been three demonstrations, two in Glasgow and one in Edinburgh, attended by more than 20,000 people. Those in the Press Gallery should ask their editors why the London-based newspapers have never reported those demonstrations. I checked in the Library on the Monday following those demonstrations and there was not a single report. Are they afraid of contagion, of mass non-payment spreading south of the border? That is the only conclusion I can draw from that.
    For 15 years, the Prime Minister has been making vague promises and pledges about the abolition of the rates under her Government. In 15 years in politics, most of the complaints I have received about the rates have been not about the method of collection but, in the past eight or nine years, about the amount people have had to pay. The main reason why rates have more than doubled in the past 10 years has been the £31,000 million in rate support grant withheld from local authorities because of cuts in Government funding.
    If people are casting around for simple solutions to the opposition to the rebates, one solution could be to restore

    885
    Government funding to 1979 levels. That would mean that Coventry would get back some if not all of the £110 million stolen from us in the past eight years. Domestic rates could be halved merely by restoring the level of Government funding to that pertaining at the beginning of the decade.
    Another way in which domestic rates could be halved involves a precedent which the Government have developed and exposed most recently yesterday. According to the Secretary of State last week, if the poll tax were in operation this year, it would be £315 per head in Coventry—the highest figure in the west midlands. The lowest figure in the west midlands would be in Hereford, at £167.
    Conservative Members such as the hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Heddle) would say that the council in Coventry is profligate or spendthrift, but let me tell him and others who believe such idiotic notions that Coventry has not had the money to build a single council house since 1981. It is closing down old people's homes and children's nurseries because of the cuts in Government funding. It is heading towards a crisis in education because of lack of school provision.
    One of the reasons for charging £315 per head is that Coventry was bombed out during the second world war, with the destruction of virtually the entire city centre and much of the housing stock, so it has had to build a large number of council houses. Where do local authorities get such funds? They borrow from banks and finance houses. Over the past 40 years, Coventry's debt has risen to £300 million to build houses, schools, roads and community centres and the city council has to pay interest charges on that money. Every year, Coventry pays £30 million in debt service charges, not repayments. If Coventry were not paying that level of interest, it could halve domestic rates again.
    However, is cancellation of debts impossible? Not for Rover, when £640 million-worth of debt was cancelled to give the company away to British Aerospace; or Rolls-Royce when £670 million was cancelled for privatisation; or the water authorities, when £5,000 million of debts have been cancelled. Yesterday, in the electricity privatisation statement, £4·4 billion of debt was effectively cancelled by the removal of the Magnox nuclear power stations from that privatisation. If financial restructuring can take place on that scale, I am sure that it will not be beyond a future Labour Administration to tackle the millstones around the necks of local authorities which have had to borrow money to build the infrastructure of cities. If we cancelled local authorities debt and restored the level of Government support, domestic rates would be one quarter what they are today and no one would object about the level of their rates.
    The official Government figure for Coventry's poll tax is £315 per head. The city treasurer estimates that it will be £350, and it could be £60 higher, depending on Government grants to Coventry. Last week, we heard that total Government spending on local authorities would rise by about 3·8 per cent. over this year's spending, but inflation is 8·5 per cent. so there will be a 5 per cent. gap in total Government funding to local authorities. If the poll tax is up and running by next April, local authorities
    886
    will control only one quarter of their spending and three quarters will be controlled by Whitehall setting the business rate and the level of Government grant.
    How will Coventry bridge a 5 per cent. shortfall in Government funding? The only way is through a 20 to 25 per cent. increase in poll tax, which would increase it to £394. But even the £315 figure assumes that everyone will pay the poll tax. But if, as in Scotland, 20 per cent. are unable to pay, and as the poll tax has to raise the total sum for the council from the people who actually pay it, the tax will have to increase by 25 per cent. so that Coventry council can raise the money it needs.
    The head of the local government division of the Chartered Institute of Public Finance Accountancy, Rita Hale, wrote in a recent article:
    "building in 5 per cent. inflation and … unwinding safety nets, there were increases in local bills"—
    that is the poll tax—
    "from one year to the next of 30–40 per cent. When you've got that happening by the mid-1990s, you start to question whether it can be sustained as a believable system."
    With the reduction of the safety net, and current inflation, particularly if the Government do not match the needs of local authorities with decent grants, the level of poll tax will double or treble in the next four, five or six years.
    I shall not speak for long, as some of my hon. Friends have waited several weeks to get into a debate on the poll tax, as I have. I shall briefly examine who will be worst hit by the poll tax. Eighty per cent. of the young people who are in work earn less than the Council of Europe decency threshold of £150 a week, but they will have to pay exactly the same poll tax as anyone earning more.
    About 10 minutes ago, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) mentioned rebates. Let us examine the rebates for young people. The official Government figure for Coventry's poll tax is £315. Any young person under 25—including any rights to Government funding through family credit or benefit—who takes home more than £61·35 a week will have to pay the full £30 to £40 a month in poll tax. In Birmingham, the estimated figure is £307. Single people under the age of 25 who take home more than £60·55 a week do not have a rebate.
    The vast majority of young people escape unemployment by taking cheap labour jobs in hotels, cafes, bars, shops, restaurants, clothing establishments and other places and will lose the minimum protection of wages council rates if the next Employment Bill abolishes those wages councils. How does the hon. Member for Northfield expect those youngsters who are on a maximum of £80 or £90 a week to pay? If they take home more than £60·55 a week, there is no rebate. He should not tell the House of Commons about the rebate system, as it is non-existent.
    Last year, 64,000 student nurses were told that they would receive an 80 per cent. rebate. Then, in the guise of a written answer, it was withdrawn. Unless Project 2000 is up and running—and that will take three or four years—there is no rebate for student nurses.
    The 80,000 homeless teenagers in Britain will increase in number by those who leave home to avoid paying the poll tax. That is what has happened when youngsters have been forced to pay 20 per cent. of rates becauseof cuts in housing benefits and delays in the payment of that benefit.
    What about women? On average, women earn between two thirds and three quarters of the average wage of a

    887
    man, but they will have to pay the same poll tax. Five million women in this country cannot go out and take jobs, because they are underpinning the National Health Service or the local authority social services department by being carers who are looking after elderly or infirm relatives, or sick or disabled children. There is no rebate for them under the poll tax if they are not on income support.
    What about black and Asian families? I come from a pit village in Yorkshire. When I left home at 18, I did not know that small families existed. I grew up with my mum, my dad, my grandma, my grand-dad, my great-uncle and two sisters. There were eight in our household. As I grew up in the 1960s and 1970s, I realised that people liked to leave their families earlier and move away.
    That is not the tradition in West Indian and Asian households. Eleven per cent. of West Indian households and 29 per cent. of Asian households contain six or more adults because they look after their old folk rather than allowing them to go into residential accommodation. In Coventry, they could be living in a presently low-rated property and paying £300 or £400 in rates. They will face bills of £2,500 under the poll tax, so it discriminates against the black and Asian community.
    We hear about exemptions. The only way to escape the poll tax is to be declared insane or to join a monastery or the Foreign Legion; and people have been trying that in recent weeks. One of the most disgraceful aspects of the poll tax is that those with a mental handicap, which is a disability from birth, can find some relief from the poll tax if they get the agreement of two doctors, but the level of disability is irrelevant for physical disabilities and there is no rebate or exemption from the poll tax. Some old folk develop Alzheimer's disease, even if it is not assisted by faulty water purification in the south-west. What about old people who become more confused and more infirm as they get older and who develop mental disabilities? They are not exempted from the poll tax.
    What about youngsters who stay on at school to do A-levels? They are exempt while they are 18 and their mothers are still getting child benefit for them, but on the day of their 19th birthday, they will lose all exemptions. There are 76,000 families with youngsters who stay on past their 19th birthday to re-take their A-levels.
    What about the dead? There are no exemptions for them. [Laughter.] That provokes laughter among Tory Members and I hoped that it would. I want to see them laugh when they hear about two real cases. Donald McLean from Elgin died at the age of 39 on 4 April, three days after he was due to start paying the poll tax in Scotland. His grieving father, whose wife also died recently, was sent a £1·43 poll tax bill for his son. That callous lack of sympathy led his father to complain bitterly:
    "It's a wonder he wasn't billed for the few hours he lived into the 4th day of April."
    Donnie Young, a 43-year old trawlerman from Burghead, was killed at sea on 10 April. He set sail on 26 March and never set foot again on the Scottish mainland. A bill for £6·44 was sent to his widow. Mrs. Young is refusing to pay, and I congratulate her on that. Public pressure forced the Democrat chairman of the Grampian finance committee to back off on the case of Donald McLean and set a limit of £5 below which bills would not be sent out in cases of bereavement, but the Audit Commission has ruled that a poll tax bill has to be sent on
    888
    every demand, even if it is as low as 72p. Let us see Tory Members laugh now about sending bills in cases of bereavement.
    I give a clear warning to the new Secretary of State that millions of people in England and Wales will not be able to pay and that millions more will be unwilling to pay the poll tax because of the unfairness of the system. A movement of popular resistance is growing throughout the country. I and a number of my colleagues, including my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) have said that we will not pay the poll tax. We have been saying that since last July, and we repeat it again today.
    That is not a decision we take lightly. We do not come here as law makers to argue universally in favour of law breaking. I do not go out of this Chamber and say that people should run bairns down on zebra crossings. There are certain morally justifiable laws which we all accept should be kept for the good running of society. But the poll tax is not morally justifiable; it is a class law, designed to benefit the rich at the expense of the poor.
    Our great-grandparents broke the class laws at the turn of the century and gained the right for workers to join trade unions. Sixty or 70 years ago, in addition to those who threw themselves in front of horses in the Derby, women—and especially the working-class women at the cotton mills in Lancashire and the north-west—broke the class laws of the 19th century to give women the right to vote. The poll tax, which threatens people's democratic right to vote, their living standards, their jobs and their services from local councils, is in precisely the same mould as that class legislation of the 19th century.
    I have no compunction about arguing that people should not pay. We shall not be alone. A major campaign is brewing up inside the trade unions. Only last month, the National and Local Government Officers Association at its conference in Blackpool passed a resolution that providing mass non-payment was a viable option and that there was a viable national campaign, the association would back that campaign. I have a message for the Secretary of State and his hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), who keeps interrupting him from behind. People in factories and offices throughout the country are discussing the formation of anti-poll tax unions. By the end of the year, the numbers will run into four figures.
    I can mention only briefly those who presently pay their rates within their rents. In Scotland, people find that they are paying the same rent and being charged the poll tax, and that is perfectly legal. There is opposition to the poll tax in Coventry. I have received letters from club stewards in working men's clubs, such as that from Mr. Ron Nicholson from Canley, asking whether they too will face the same problems those living in Scotland already face.
    I have another question for the Secretary of State—to which I shall return in the next Session—which affects two of his major responsibilities. At present, water rates are based on the rateable value of a house. What will happen when we do not have rateable values because we have the poll tax? I can predict what will happen. Along with privatisation, the water authorities will take the opportunity to hike up the level of the water charges. They will bring in a mirror image of the poll tax, with a water poll tax based on the number of people who live in a house.
    What will the effect be on civil liberties? There are dozens of local authorities, such as Solihull, where

    889
    personal privacy has been invaded by over-detailed registration forms being sent out. [Interruption.] The Secretary of State should listen for a second. I have read many of the 736 sets of regulations, which we have not debated properly because they are introduced at dead of night, such as on 23 May, when we debated 94 pages in one and a half hours.
    What will the Secretary of State do about a person who, at present, can go to the social services department of a local authority and say with confidence that he suspects that a bairn is being sexually or physically abused down the road? A person can give such information in confidence to the social services department knowing that an investigation can take place and he can hope that a tragedy like the case of Jasmine Beckford will be prevented. What will the Secretary of State say when those same officers are told by the community charge registration officer that they have to give up their confidential records and reveal to him the names and addresses of the people who had informed the social services department about potential child sex abuse? That is the depth of the invasion of personal privacy to which the poll tax reaches. I say to the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett): read the regulations, sunshine, to find out whether that is legal or not.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer may escape getting his head chopped off, which was the fate of the Chancellor in the peasants' uprising in 1381, but I predict that the new Secretary of State and his mistress, the Prime Minister, will not escape the political decapitation that awaits them in the poll tax battle. The Prime Minister said that the poll tax was to be the flagship of her third term in office. I shall make one final prediction. The poll tax will go down in the history books not as the flagship, but as the Prime Minister's Titanic—and with a bit of luck, the captain is going down with the ship.
    5.59 pm
    Mr. John Marshall: This debate was billed in advance as a major assault upon the community charge. It seems to be a major assault for which most of the troops have no enthusiasm. Throughout most of the debate, fewer than 12 or 15 Opposition Members have been present. During his speech, the poor Democrat, the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor), had no support from any of his colleagues.
    Mr. Clive Soley: That is cheap.
    Mr. Marshall: The hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) may regard it as cheap, but the Opposition's motion, and the fact that his colleagues do not want to support it, says something about their enthusiasm for it.
    Debates on local government generate a great deal of humbug and synthetic indignation from the Labour party. As one who served in local government for 17 years, I cannot help but compare the concern expressed by the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) about the level of community charges with the actions of Labour councillors. The Labour party objects to the fact that, in April of next year, voters in London will ask, "Why is the community charge £290 in Barnet when, in the neighbouring borough of Brent, it is £597, and, in the Labour-controlled borough of Haringey, it is £642?"
    890
    Opposition Members know full well that Labour councils combine poor quality service with a very high price to the ratepayer. [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] Opposition Members may say that it is rubbish. In the London borough of Brent the cost per secondary pupil is £2,142, which is 40 per cent. above the average for outer London boroughs. Every day of the week, 2,000 pupils become refugees from the people's republic of Brent and choose to get their education in the London borough of Barnet. The London borough of Brent charges 40 per cent. more and has such a poor service that pupils go in droves to Barnet and Harrow, and a large number of teachers also leave the borough.
    Mr. Douglas: The poll tax will not help that.
    Mr. Marshall: Of course the community charge will help that. If the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) did not make so many sedentary observations, I could point out very simply how the community charge will benefit that. The people in Brent will ask, "Why should we pay twice as much for an inferior service as the people in Barnet?" I will quote one statistic to show how the London borough of Brent is twice as expensive for a poorer service.
    I refer to housing management. The London borough of Brent can boast of rent arrears of over £8 million, or 46·9 per cent. of its annual rent roll, compared with 3·7 per cent. in the London borough of Barnet. However, the London borough of Brent's housing management costs are 60 per cent. higher than in all the outer London boroughs. Anyone who believes that the Labour party is at all concerned about the level of the community charge should consult the ratepayers in Haringey who had to pay 61 per cent. more, or the ratepayers in Brent who had to pay 30 per cent. more. If anyone wants confirmation, he can ask the Leader of the Opposition himself. In the London borough of Ealing, he has had to pay 30 per cent. more in rates this year than he did last year.
    The Labour party is against low rates. When I was a councillor in Ealing, we could boast that we had the lowest rates in west London. When the Labour party took control in 1986, the first thing it did was remove the sign from the town hall. The Labour party was determined that never again would Ealing have the lowest rates in west London.
    The motion refers to increasing Government control. That comes ill from a party which, when in government, sought to legislate grammar schools away and to restrict the sale of council houses. One of the greatest benefits facing local government at present is the introduction of compulsory competitive tendering, a course of action to which the Labour party was always opposed. There is no doubt that compulsory competitive tendering is leading to a reduction of about 15 per cent. to 20 per cent. in the prices charged to the ratepayer.
    Mr. Peter L. Pike: Is it not a fact that that is at the expense of the conditions and wages of those who work for councils and those who compete for service contracts? We have seen it in the bus industry and we are now seeing it in local authorities.
    Mr. Marshall: As the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) should know, a majority of the contracts that have gone out to tender have been won by direct labour organisations who, prior to compulsory competitive tendering, used working practices that were far out of date.
    Mr. Nellist: How can the hon. Gentleman work in a place like this and say that?
    Mr. Marshall: No views could be more out of date than those of the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist). If he regards the House as out of date, he can leave. There would be loud applause from Conservative Members and many of his own colleagues.
    There is no doubt that compulsory competitive tendering gives local authorities the opportunity to provide better value for money and better services at the same time. In my experience of local authority work, whenever a contract went out to tender the ratepayer got a very much better deal, and the community charge payer will, too. In the London borough of Ealing, we were able to save hundreds of thousands of pounds on the school meals service. My son came back after a week and said, "Daddy, why are the meals so much better than they were last term?" I said, "Son, you are learning a basic political truth. When services are provided competitively, they are better than they otherwise would be."
    The hon. Member for Copeland was concerned about the average community charge bill facing pensioners in the London borough of Barnet. He did not tell the House that the average rates bill there at the moment is £708 or that, next year, under the community charge, it will be £290, or that, if the misguided safety net could somehow be spirited away, it would be £235. Charges for the vast majority of single pensioners in Barnet, be they in my constituency or in those represented by my right hon. and hon. Friends, will be substantially lower than they are today.
    It is all very well for the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East to talk about groups such as the disabled. He knows very well that all those groups are currently paying domestic rates. If the Labour party thinks that they should not pay the community charge, why did it not legislate to prevent them paying domestic rates?
    The most irresponsible speech that we have heard today was by the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East, who talked about morally justifiable laws. To quote the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West, it is nonsense. It is a recipe for anarchy.
    Mr. Douglas: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Marshall: No, I will not give way. The hon. Member for Dunfermline, West makes sedentary interventions which become tedious in the extreme. To give way to him would be to invite a lengthy speech with, no doubt, little relevance to the subject under discussion. He and the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East are seeking to incite——
    Mr. Alex Salmond: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Marshall: No, not even to a fellow graduate of St. Andrews will I give way.
    The hon. Members for Coventry, South-East and for Dunfermline, West and their boroughs are producing a recipe for anarchy. They are seeking to put forward a course of action that can only interfere with local authorities' cash flows and mean a decline in the quality of services provided next year.
    Mr. Nellist: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Marshall: The hon. Gentleman spoke at great length. Throughout his speech he said that there was bale time, but he proceeded to speak at great length.
    Mr. Nellist rose——
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. The hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) has said that he will not give way.
    Mr. Marshall: I now refer to the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson).
    Mr. Salmond: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Marshall: As the hon. Gentleman is from St. Andrews, his intervention may be valuable.
    Mr. Salmond: If I am not mistaken, the hon. Gentleman is a campaigner on behalf of refuseniks in the Soviet Union who are fighting against unjust laws. At the last election, when the poll tax was clearly declared as an election issue, the people of Scotland voted overwhelmingly against it. People in Scotland are fighting against unjust laws. Will the hon. Gentleman summon up some sympathy for the refuseniks in Scotland?
    Mr. Marshall: When I visit Scotland this coming weekend, I shall compare it with the Soviet Union, which I visited last year. I suspect that the comparison will be very much to Scotland's advantage. It is absurd to relate the condition of the people of Scotland to the plight of the refuseniks in the Soviet Union. The people of Scotland are part of a unitary United Kingdom. They made England suffer Socialist Governments in 1964 and 1974. They should not be surprised that the Conservative Government of 1987 adhere to the policies on which they were elected.
    I want to continue my remarks about the safety net, because people in the borough of Barnet feel as strongly about it as those represented by my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North. Under the safety net provisions for next year, the London borough of Lewisham—which the Department accepts is a heavily overspending authority—will receive a safety net provision of £293 and pay a community charge of £215. The London borough of Lambeth, which has long been recognised as one of the most profligate local authorities, will receive a safety-net provision of £246 and will pay a community charge of £297. That will be only £7 higher than that paid in the London borough of Barnet. Why should the ratepayers of Barnet pay £55 in safety-net provision towards the extravagant, high-spending authority of Lambeth?
    Mr. John Fraser: Perhaps, as a very late act of conversion, the former Secretary of State recognised the enormous problems in Lambeth. He might have thought that, as a substitute for the old equalisation scheme, it would be a good idea to transfer money from the richer boroughs to the poorer boroughs. That is what happened for many years under the old equalisation scheme.
    Mr. Marshall: I agree that Lambeth is in enormous difficulty, but that is mainly because its borough council has done much to aggravate the problems.
    The safety-net provision is a tax on low-spending authorities. It is a penalty for prudence and a premium for extravagance. I hope that my right hon. Friend the: Secretary of State will reconsider the safety-net provision and, when he comes to the House in the autumn, tell us that it has been substantially refined.
    6.12 pm
    Mr. Jeff Rooker: I join in the congratulations expressed by hon. Members to the new Secretary of State. As his former responsibilities concerned overseas development and Northern Ireland, our paths have not crossed very often. He will get away with his faux pas at the Dispatch Box today simply because of the regard in which he is held on both sides of the House—and I say that quite sincerely. The right hon. Gentleman has made many trips abroad and his experience is rather more global than mine. I was surprised that he did not bring to the Dispatch Box examples of other countries that operate a flat-rate poll tax system to fund local government.
    Some of the sentences in the right hon. Gentleman's brief struck a chord with me. I had already heard them in Committee and on Report more than a year ago. I caution him to look behind the jargon to ensure that he is not fed a duff line. I have no doubt that he will come to understand the differences between tax units, households and individuals. There will always be arguments about the number of single pensioners who might gain from the poll tax, but the right hon. Gentleman should recognise the difference between a single pensioner and a single-pensioner household. The fact is that 1 million single pensioners will lose because not all single pensioners live in single-pensioner households. Such crucial distinctions in the terminology used about the poll tax can sometimes be used to feed new Ministers a bad brief.
    In the short time available I shall concentrate, rather more positively than did the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor), on the effect of the poll tax on living standards. That is where the essential unfairness of the system arises. The poll tax cannot be separated from the changes in social security legislation, especially the compulsory 20 per cent. payment that was introduced in 1986, before the election, but did not come into effect until 1988, after the election. The analysis of how that is provided for in income support shows that it is a crucial factor. There is no doubt that some people will lose and some will gain because of the so-called average amount of 20 per cent. By definition, no one could be poorer than those on income support. Some of them will be worse off, because their income support will not take account of the 20 per cent. of poll tax that they will have to pay.
    Any simple system is unfair. That is why life is so complicated in a country of 55 million people. If everyone received the same pay, paid the same amount of income tax and had the same outgoings, the system would not be so unfair. It would be a simple head tax. However, the income and outgoings of families are not the same, so the poll tax will unfairly affect household incomes and family budgets.
    The Government argue that the cost of local services should not be hidden by allowing those on low incomes to pay a lower tax. There is a paradox—they want people to pay as high a tax as possible, but it is hidden in the rhetoric of rebates. However, the argument changes slightly when it comes to the safety net, which will severely affect those who will not receive rebates.
    I want to give only one brief example from the tome that I collected from the Vote Office yesterday. An average poll tax couple with two children, claiming family credit and housing benefit and with a gross income of £100 a week, will receive a rebate of £2·62 a week. However, the interaction of income tax, national insurance, lost benefit
    894
    and the poll tax rebate means that they will have to pay a marginal tax rate of 83p in the pound for every extra pound that they earn over £100 a week. Should that family have a gross income of only £80 a week, their marginal tax rate would rise to 94p in the pound.
    Yesterday the Child Poverty Action Group produced a useful publication setting out certain calculations. They have not yet been challenged, but I do not doubt that Ministers will be put up to challenge them, if not tonight then during the recess. However we look at the figures on the poll tax, nothing can hide the fact that only the rich will gain. The poor will lose significantly and the middle-income groups will lose most of all.
    Two examples are clearly shown in the publication. The first table gives a simple comparison between poll tax and rates, and ignores all the changes to social security benefits in 1986 and 1988. Only the top three deciles show a gain—the top decile gains £3·65 a week—and the other seven deciles show losses. The greatest loss is in the fifth decile—the middle range. Three quarters of all the families in the bottom 10 per cent. end up worse off. Fifty-six per cent. of families lose and 44 per cent. gain.
    That is the position before we take into account the effect of the social security changes. Table 6.2 shows that 63 per cent.—not 56 per cent.—of families lose, and 83 per cent.—not 79 per cent.—of the bottom decile lose more than £1 a week on average. Again, the biggest single losers are the fifth decile, the middle-income groups, with an average loss of £1·72 a week. Only the top 10 per cent. gain. Those figures are produced using average poll tax figures which smooth out many of the unfairnesses. A high poll tax will be paid in deprived areas where income tends to be low. Everyone accepts that that is the case.
    I make no apology for taking my constituency as an example. We were told last week that the poll tax for Birmingham will be £307, fully safety-netted. This year, Birmingham is one of five authorities with zero underspend and zero overspend. Were it not for the safety net, the poll tax in Birmingham would be £240 this year. As it is, it will be £307—a poll tax surcharge for the safety net of £67. I do not deny that it will be different in later years, but it is the first year that my constituents will be worried about next April.
    There are 35,000 front doors in my constituency. Most hon. Members know the number of letterboxes in their constituencies. I have taken 50 roads, with 7,000 dwellings and 14,000 adults. They comprise one fifth of my constituency—the biggest in Birmingham. This year, those 7,000 dwellings will pay £3·3 million in rates. I have not taken rebates into account because I would not dream of asking for such personal information. Using national averages for empty dwellings and a figure of £307 for each adult's poll tax, the poll tax for the equivalent period would be £4·.3 million—£1 million extra from one fifth of my constituency.
    A few of the 50 roads that I chose will be gainer roads. I challenge anyone to say that I have not used a representative group of roads. My constituency will pay an additional £5 million in poll tax. The dislocation that that will cause to the local economy and to families in my constituency does not bear thinking about. The reality is not people refusing to pay; rather it is of paying the poll tax or buying food.
    I have four wards in my constituency. Wards in Birmingham are all large, with electorates of between 18,000 and 21,000. In Tintern road in the Handsworth

    895
    ward, which is fairly typical and being done up under the urban development scheme, the rates this year will be £33,535. The poll tax will be £70,600—almost double. In Leonard road the rates will be £64,600; the poll tax will be £125,000. The dwellings there are pre-first world war with a less than average rateable value, occupied by average families. However, in the Handsworth ward I am one of an ethnic minority. Some of those dwellings house extended families with six or seven adults and there is no way in which they will be able to pay such sums. In Freer road the rates will be £58,000 and the poll tax will be £111,000.
    In the outer-city ward of Kingstanding in my constituency, with 12,000 dwellings built in the 1920s and the 1930s having rateable values within £5 of each other, every couple household will lose because of the nature of the rateable values. In Hurlingham road, the rates will be £69,000 and the poll tax will be £106,000. In Dovedale road, the rates will be £113,000 and the poll tax will be £174,000.
    Perry Barr, an outer-city ward from which my constituency takes its name, is a middle-income ward. It is usually the only ward in Birmingham, along with the three wards in Sutton Coldfield, with a below average unemployment rate. Therefore, compared with the others, it is a middle income ward. In Rocky lane, where 800 people live in outer suburban semis—an awful lot of Tory voters—the rates will be £189,000 and the poll tax will be £245,000. In Mildenhall road, which is similar, the rates will he £113,000 and the poll tax will be £151,000.
    The Labour party does not get the majority of the votes in those roads. It has come close to winning that ward, but it has not done so since 1963. That is middle-income territory in outer suburban Birmingham. I do not deny that there will be gainers and losers in those roads. In three of my wards, single people will gain, but those living in single dwellings, pre-first world war, in the Handsworth ward, will lose because their rates are less than they will pay in poll tax. That is the reality in low rateable value, deprived, inner-city areas. That is why there will be trouble next year.
    No Conservative Member can explain how making a person pay more in poll tax than he pays in rates will put an extra burden of accountability on the city council. Why a constituency such as mine will pay £5 million more in poll tax than in rates cannot be explained away. When one examines the income distribution of other parts of Birmingham such as Edgbaston and Sutton Coldfield, that cannot be defended.
    The poll tax is unfair. It is designed to be unfair. That realisation has not come in a blinding flash to me and my hon. Friends. It does not matter how one tinkers with the rebates or what the new chairman of the Tory party will say. There is no way in which, with the best will in the world, pushing back all his previous doubts, trying to present the package in another way and winning a few more million pounds from the Treasury, the Secretary of State and the new Minister for Local Government will ever be able to sell the poll tax. It is too hot to handle and they will soon realise that. The tax's inherent unfairness means that it cannot be sold to the electorate. The Government may face most pressure from Conservative Members in respect of the safety net, but when the bills start dropping through the letter boxes in marginal Conservative constituencies next year, the message will come home.
    896
    The Labour party did not want the poll tax and saw no benefit in its inherent unpopularity. We did not say to the Tories, "Please bring in the poll tax because we know that it will make you even more unpopular." Instead, we took every opportunity in Committee and on Report to alter the flat-rate nature of the tax. We also warned the Government that if they persisted, we would screw every ounce of political capital out of their policy at the hustings and at the ballot box. We shall do so, and we do not apologise for that.
    Nor do we need to be defensive about out replacement for the poll tax. Any tax, be it based on the occupancy of a property or on the occupant's income, that is directly related to the occupant's ability to pay will always win the argument over a flat-rate tax. That is why the poll tax will not stand the test of time, a change of Government, or even a change of Prime Minister.
    6.30 pm
    Mr. W. Benyon: I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on taking up his new appointment. He comes to it with a fresh mind, and his concluding remarks showed his appreciation of the great difficulties that confront him on the community charge.
    I have always opposed the community charge and voted against it on every possible occasion. I do not intend to change my record tonight. I shall not rehearse the arguments against the poll tax, because right hon. and hon. Members have heard them over and over, and again this afternoon. Nevertheless, I emphasise to one or two Opposition Members that the tax is now the law of the land and that that law must be obeyed. Conservative Members have a particular duty to make the best of it, because to do so is extremely important in electoral terms.
    Whatever method one uses to raise local government finance—be it rates, a community charge, local income tax, or the combination proposed by the Labour party—if the burden on local authorities is too high, people will resist the tax and blame not the local authorities but the Government. I sometimes wonder about the nature of the constituencies that some of my right hon. and hon. Friends represent. Not one of my constituents has said to me, "I am worried that my local authority will be extravagant." Instead, constituents have asked, "Will the local authority be given enough Government grant?"
    Reading the Layfield report after so many years repays itself, because the situation is exactly as Layfield described it all that time ago. I say to the Government that they are being blamed now, and if things continue as they are, they will be blamed even more at the next general election. The Treasury's restrictions on any further relief on the tax will be bought at a very high price.
    The solution is twofold. First, as has been mentioned by a number of my right hon. and hon. Friends, one must rid the community charge payer of the safety net, which must be borne instead by the Exchequer. I made the point to my right hon. Friend's predecessor last Monday that if there is to be accountability, which is the real reason for the tax, the community charge must get off on the right foot, so that the taxpayer can say, "I know that the community charge being imposed by my local authority is just that and not something different."
    Secondly, either the revenue support grant must be increased or a major item of local authorty spending must

    897
    be transferred to the Exchequer. If that is not done, the community charge will start life in the worst possible way. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) gave detailed examples of certain wards in his constituency, and they are repeated throughout the country.
    If it is found after the community charge is introduced next year that concessions are necessary, they will have to be wrung out of the Government and will be confessions of failure, rather than tokens of success. I urge those of my right hon. and hon. Friends who have joined the Treasury Bench to act now, while there is still time.
    6.34 pm
    Mr. George Howarth: I congratulate the Secretary of State on his new appointment. He must realise from listening to his own hon. Friends on the Conservative Back Benches that the task ahead of him is not to be envied. The poll tax was bad enough in its conception, but its presentation last week by the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor was absolute chaos. The comments of all Conservative Members today, and particularly the eloquent remarks of the right hon. Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson), must leave the Secretary of State in no doubt about the problems confronting him.
    The former Secretary of State for the Environment tried to improve the poll tax by softening the blow in Tory constituencies through his use of the safety net. However, this afternoon, speaker after speaker from the Conservative Benches has complained about its effect on his own constituency. My constituency is, by any measure, one of the most deprived in the whole country, yet as a result of the safety net, each payer of the poll tax will have to find £311, for which there can be no justification.
    That inequality is not confined to my own constituency. The hon. Member for Wirral, West (Mr. Hunt), who has been elevated to Minister of State, Department of the Environment, may be aware that, as a consequence of the incompetence of the former Secretary of State for the Environment, the Wirral—which is represented also by the right hon. Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker) and the hon. Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter)—is the highest-rated on Merseyside, yet still it will contribute to the safety net. I speak up for those right hon. and hon. Members because they are not present in the Chamber to speak for themselves. The hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Thornton) is in the same position.
    Although Merseyside is, justifiably, barely represented by Conservative Members, the Government will penalise not only Labour-held constituencies such as my own but Tory-held constituencies in my area. The malice was bad enough, but the incompetence and chaos that followed penalises even Conservative constituencies.
    The poll tax is a bad measure, made worse by the former Secretary of State for the Environment—and I do not think that the mess can be cleared up, even by his successor.
    6.37 pm
    Mr. David Blunkett: I add my congratulations to the Secretary of State and to the hon. Member for Wirral, West (Mr. Hunt) on their promotions.
    898
    I shall miss the former Minister for Local Government, the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer)—not because of his personality but because the Chamber will be free of the growling, barking and snarling that so upset my dog very time that the right hon. Gentleman rose to speak. Having now savaged the General Synod, the right hon. Member for Coastal has moved on to do something miraculous with loaves and fishes.
    We are talking not about personalities or presentation, but about policies. This afternoon, the Secretary of State commented that the man has changed but the Government's policies have not. That sums up the dilemma facing the Secretary of State and the Government. I do not accept that the right hon. Gentleman believes in the Government's policy or in the words in the brief that he read this afternoon. If he does, he is a lesser man for it. Anyone who has a feel for progressive, reasonable and caring policies knows that the poll tax is not the solution to the problem of an alternative for the present rating system.
    The poll tax is based on particular values and ideology that the former Secretary of State for the Environment was more than happy to articulate because he believes in inequality—and said so. He believes in reducing progressive taxation, and was honest enought to say so. It is difficult for someone who does not believe that to put forward a convincing case for a tax that involves equality and uniformity of contribution, but inequality in relation to the amount of misery that it produces. For that is what the poll tax is about: the poor will be hit hardest and the rich will gain most, not only in cash terms—although that is important—but in terms of services.
    The Cheshire study carried out not long ago showed clearly that the better-off gained most from the way in which local spending was organised. That applied to education, road use and even the relative cost of emptying dustbins outside large houses with long drives in sparsely populated areas. They will not be charged extra for their services; they will be charged less. They will not feel the burden: it will be borne by the less well-off, the ragged-trousered philanthropists of the 1990s, who will contribute their income so that others may pay less for more advantageous services.
    That burden, in terms of payment, is grossly distorted. the railway porter earning just over £100 a week could, in London, be paying 10 per cent. of his income in poll tax, while a Cabinet Minister will be paying 1 per cent. The ratio is 10 to one: that is how much worse off those in work but on low incomes will be than the better-off. That is the stark reality. There is no element of equality, or of payment for services received. It is the opposite: the less people receive, the greater the likely burden on their incomes.
    That is why many of those who will gain believe that the poll tax is not only politically inept but morally bankrupt. Millions who will, at least temporarily, be better off will say, like us, that a system that takes from the poor rather than the better-off and distributes resources to the disadvantage of those who are struggling to escape from the poverty trap—as described by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker)—is immoral, and must be rejected on those grounds.
    We must recognise that this is not a charge for services rendered, but an unfair and grossly distorted form of taxation. Otherwise, the myth will be put about that we are merely making people pay for the first time. Some

    899
    interesting points have been made about that this afternoon. The hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Heddle) suggested—becoming caught in a tremendously tangled web as he did so—that council tenants would somehow be disadvantaged by an alternative to the poll tax. As his right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) knows very well and has pointed out, those whose properties have low rateable values will be hardest hit.
    Owner-occupiers living in small terraced properties—the category that the right hon. Gentleman described in the Report and Third Reading debates on 18 April last year—may have thought of voting Tory in the past. Let us make no mistake, however: they will not think of doing so in the future, and that applies equally to the people to whom the hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire referred. We are talking not merely about the impact of the tax on each individual, but about the change in the distribution system that the Secretary of State described. The study carried out by the Child Poverty Action Group and the Local Government Information Unit has shown that, in the 50 most disadvantaged areas in the country, the average loss to the individual will be £58 a year.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State gave me some staggering figures on 25 November last year relating to the losses in the regions. The northern region would lose £156 million, the Yorkshire and Humberside region £256 million and the north-west £91 million. The Secretary of State described the abolition of the equalisation system as a great bonus for the country as a whole. Under that system, inner London loses £493 million. The south-east gains by £525 million, but that can hardly be described as the righting of a great wrong. Clearly the Government have not stepped in like a knight in shining armour to correct a distortion. The effect of what they are doing will be felt throughout the country.
    The right hon. Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson) is rightly concerned about the impact of the safety-net provisions. I wondered whether the previous Secretary of State did not have a few tricks up his sleeve a la Lady Porter: if we examine the figures closely, some interesting political conclusions can be drawn. Is it not in the Government's interest for certain London boroughs to find that next year's tax is very high? Is it not in their interest that residents of the borough of Ealing, which they have been attacking, must pay an extra £21 each because of the safety net? In Brent, referred to by the right hon. Member for Brent, North, the figure is £36, and in Haringey it is £15. Is it not advantageous for them to award the borough that I live in, Wandsworth—the jewel in their crown, as they have described it, and the borough that the Conservatives are hanging on to—an incredible safety-net benefit amounting to a staggering £227, reducing my poll tax to £148? Bradford, the other jewel in their crown, will benefit by £36.
    The chickens will come home to roost, but presumably, once next year's London and metropolitan borough elections are over, the system will be readjusted to take account of the approaching general election. The Secretary of State would be well advised to put his mind not only to the survival of his Back Benchers in the election—those representing marginal seats containing properties with low rateable values—but to whether the electorate as a whole will begin to suss out what is going on, and what their reaction will be.
    900
    I was pleased when the Secretary of State said that he would look again at registration after the shambles that we have already seen, but it is now far too late: people have filled up their forms, believing that they would be behaving illegally if they did not answer questions that have now been ruled intrusive and unnecessary. Any action would be welcome, however. It would also be helpful if the Secretary of State re-estimated the true poll tax average: the Government's 1987 estimate of £178 had risen to £275 in their latest estimate, produced last week. Even then they performed a conjuring trick, assuming that local authorities would be able to contribute the same amount from their balances as last year. Last year, the Government estimated the average poll tax at £274, so Lord knows what the figure will be when they finally get round to being honest about it.
    We need an alternative to the poll tax, based on fairness and ability to pay. I give an absolute pledge from the Dispatch Box that our proposals will benefit not only the very poor but those on average incomes above the poverty line, who will pay according to their ability to find the cash. They will not be penalised through capital-value rating; they will not be discriminated against in areas with high property values. This party will treat them decently.
    We believe in a system which is fair for the individual and equal in its distribution of the burden throughout the community, and which makes it possible to raise and spend money fairly and equally on decent public services. Our policy will be pitted against the Government's and although the cost of the poll tax must be borne by the people, its price will be paid by the Government in defeat at the polls.
    6.50 pm
    The Minister for Local Government (Mr. David Hunt): Unaccustomed as I have been for two years to speaking from the Dispatch Box, I welcome the opportunity to do so in a debate on a rating system that I have long believed to be discredited and unworkable. I welcome the community charge system, to which I was committed at the last election and to which I remain committed as a much fairer and better system.
    I much appreciate the generous words of welcome from hon. Members to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and me. I much welcome the warm tributes that were paid to my right hon. Friends the Members for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) and for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer)—[HON. MEMBERS: "What tributes?"]. The small group of Labour Members present would be much wiser men if they had listened more carefully to the debate, because they would have heard such tributes.
    Mr. Alex Salmond: Will the Minister use his previous experience in the Whips Office to tell the House whom of his hon. Friends will give him the most trouble? Will it be the hon. Member for Milton Keynes (Mr. Benyon), who, in ignorance, voted for the Scottish poll tax, rebelled against the poll tax in England and now wants us to make the best of it? Will it be other Conservative Members who, in ignorance, voted for the poll tax in England and Scotland but are now whining about its impact on their constituencies?
    Mr. Hunt: Having had the privilege of being Government Deputy Chief Whip for two years, I do not recognise the meaning of the word "trouble" with my right

    901
    hon. and hon. Friends. From time to time, we may have genuine disagreements, but we are united, especially about the unfairness of the present rating system and the importance of the new one. Concern was rightly expressed about how the community charge should be introduced.
    I heard 12 speeches from start to finish. Although I disagree with many of the points made by Labour Members, I congratulate all hon. Members who participated in a good debate. Having sat for some time on the Select Committee considering the televising of Parliament, I think that a debate such as today's will do the House much credit when it is televised in the autumn.
    Labour Members have not spoken to their motion, nor have they proved a word of it. It says that the community charge is unfair, bureaucratic and difficult to collect. Those allegations would be serious had Labour Members substantiated them, but they have not. Labour Members have been unable to prove their case. Thanks to some clever speeches from Conservative Members, Labour Members have been forced on to the defensive—[Interruption.] Those who are shouting loudest have been most noticeable by their absence from the debate. Labour Members have been forced on to the defensive because they have been unable to defend an alternative policy that changes every day. The Labour party has been unable to control Labour Members who advocate illegal action; we heard two speeches of that nature from Labour Members this afternoon.
    Perhaps the most serious allegation made against the new arrangements is that of unfairness. The only way that Labour Members can begin to substantiate that charge is by deliberately not taking into account the generous rebate system that we have built into the new arrangements. I have much time and respect for the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker). I remember that he celebrated my appointment as Whip on the Finance Bill by leading for the Opposition on that Bill, which lasted longer than any previous Finance Bill. I came to know the hon. Gentleman reasonably well, and I believe him to be a fair man. Being a fair man, he will recognise that those little words at the end of his press release which say that he left out of his calculations rate rebates or community charge rebates in reaching his conclusions, throw his calculations into disrepute.
    Mr. Rooker: The only way that one can compare like with like is to use unrebated figures. It is not possible for any hon. Member to ask a local authority, "What are the rates for a road net of rebate?" That is private information. I argued that the same would apply if one compared rebated figures, but that information is not available because it is confidential. When it is, I shall do the same exercise.
    Mr. Hunt: The hon. Gentleman has shot his own fox. He said that, when comparing the effect of rebates, he failed to take into account the fact that the rebate system that we are proposing is far more generous than the present one, and he knows that.
    Dr. Cunningham rose——
    Mr. Hunt: Let me deal with the hon. Member for Perry Barr.
    902
    The hon. Member for Perry Barr said that the community charge is unfair, but I contend that it is much fairer than the domestic rating system. When the community charge is fully implemented, 58 per cent. of households—over 11 million adults—will gain; 83 per cent. of single-pension households will pay less in community charge than they pay in rates; and 75 per cent. of other single-adult households—widows and one-parent families—will gain. On average, the community charge will cost less than domestic rates for all income bands below £200 a week.
    Dr. Cunningham: How can it be fairer to make people who pay nothing because their earnings are low pay a minimum of at least 20 per cent. of the charge?
    Mr. Hunt: The hon. Gentleman ignores income support. When considering the overall impact of the community charge, we must not pick and choose. Labour Members already have the relevant information.
    My right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson), who made a typically robust defence of the community charge, said that people must pay something for the local services they use, but that the community charge must not be artificially high. A number of hon. Members mentioned the safety net. We shall consider carefully what they said, but I emphasise that the purpose of the safety net is to phase in the new system over a relatively short period, so that those who lose have an opportunity to adjust to the new circumstances. Gainers will receive a substantial part of their gain in the first year, but they cannot receive all their gain if areas facing sharp increases are to be given time to adjust.
    My right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North suggested that the taxpayer—the Exchequer—should pay for the safety net. The proposals announced last week for next year's grant settlement envisage an 8·5 per cent. increase in the amount to be provided from Government grants and business rates. I believe that to be a fair and reasonable increase in Exchequer support. But we shall listen and consider: this is a matter of balance and it cannot be solved by throwing money at it.
    Mr. Nellist: I have a question in two parts for the Minister. The first is about rebates. Is he aware that in Coventry, for example, where the poll tax will be £315, according to official Government figures, a single person aged under 25 will receive no rebate if he or she takes home more than £61 a week? Secondly, since when has the business rate been part of Exchequer contributions to local authority spending?
    Mr. Hunt: Again, the hon. Gentleman has totally missed the point—[Interruption.] Far more serious was the speech he made earlier in the debate, in which he advocated support for illegality. How can the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) expect one day to become a Minister of the Crown without condemning the intemperate words used by his hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South East (Mr. Nellist)?
    The policy of the Opposition changes day by day. When they have a policy, let them come to the House and seek support for it. I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to reject the motion and support the amendment.
    Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
    The House divided: Ayes 211, Noes 304"

    Division No. 320]

    [7.1 pm

    AYES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Fraser, John

    Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

    Galbraith, Sam

    Allen, Graham

    Galloway, George

    Alton, David

    Garrett, John (Norwich South)

    Anderson, Donald

    Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

    Archer, Rt Hon Peter

    George, Bruce

    Armstrong, Hilary

    Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

    Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

    Godman, Dr Norman A.

    Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Ashton, Joe

    Gould, Bryan

    Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

    Graham, Thomas

    Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

    Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

    Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Barron, Kevin

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Battle, John

    Grocott, Bruce

    Beckett, Margaret

    Hardy, Peter

    Bell, Stuart

    Harman, Ms Harriet

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony

    Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

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

    Haynes, Frank

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Healey, Rt Hon Denis

    Bidwell, Sydney

    Heffer, Eric S.

    Blair, Tony

    Henderson, Doug

    Blunkett, David

    Hinchliffe, David

    Boyes, Roland

    Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

    Bradley, Keith

    Home Robertson, John

    Bray, Dr Jeremy

    Hood, Jimmy

    Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    Buckley, George J.

    Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

    Caborn, Richard

    Hoyle, Doug

    Callaghan, Jim

    Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

    Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

    Campbell-Savours, D. N.

    Illsley, Eric

    Canavan, Dennis

    Ingram, Adam

    Cartwright, John

    Janner, Greville

    Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

    Johnston, Sir Russell

    Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

    Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

    Clay, Bob

    Kennedy, Charles

    Clelland, David

    Kilfedder, James

    Clwyd, Mrs Ann

    Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

    Cohen, Harry

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Coleman, Donald

    Leadbitter, Ted

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    Leighton, Ron

    Cook, Robin (Livingston)

    Litherland, Robert

    Corbett, Robin

    Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Lofthouse, Geoffrey

    Cousins, Jim

    Loyden, Eddie

    Crowther, Stan

    McAllion, John

    Cryer, Bob

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Cummings, John

    McCartney, Ian

    Cunliffe, Lawrence

    Macdonald, Calum A.

    Cunningham, Dr John

    McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

    Darling, Alistair

    McKelvey, William

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    McLeish, Henry

    Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

    Maclennan, Robert

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

    McNamara, Kevin

    Dewar, Donald

    McWilliam, John

    Dobson, Frank

    Madden, Max

    Doran, Frank

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Douglas, Dick

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

    Duffy, A. E. P.

    Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

    Dunnachie, Jimmy

    Martlew, Eric

    Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

    Meacher, Michael

    Eadie, Alexander

    Meale, Alan

    Evans, John (St Helens N)

    Michael, Alun

    Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

    Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

    Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

    Morgan, Rhodri

    Fatchett, Derek

    Morley, Elliot

    Fearn, Ronald

    Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

    Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

    Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

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

    Mowlam, Marjorie

    Fisher, Mark

    Mullin, Chris

    Flannery, Martin

    Murphy, Paul

    Flynn, Paul

    Nellist, Dave

    Foot, Rt Hon Michael

    Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

    Foster, Derek

    O'Brien, William

    904

    Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

    Soley, Clive

    Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

    Spearing, Nigel

    Patchett, Terry

    Steel, Rt Hon David

    Pendry, Tom

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Pike, Peter L.

    Stott, Roger

    Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

    Straw, Jack

    Prescott, John

    Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Quin, Ms Joyce

    Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

    Radice, Giles

    Turner, Dennis

    Randall, Stuart

    Vaz, Keith

    Redmond, Martin

    Wall, Pat

    Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

    Wallace, James

    Richardson, Jo

    Walley, Joan

    Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

    Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

    Robinson, Geoffrey

    Wareing, Robert N.

    Rogers, Allan

    Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

    Rooker, Jeff

    Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

    Rowlands, Ted

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan

    Ruddock, Joan

    Williams, Alan W. (Carm'thon)

    Salmond, Alex

    Wilson, Brian

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    Winnick, David

    Shore, Rt Hon Peter

    Wise, Mrs Audrey

    Short, Clare

    Worthington, Tony

    Sillars, Jim

    Wray, Jimmy

    Skinner, Dennis

    Young, David (Bolton SE)

    Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

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

    Tellers for the Ayes:

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

    Mr. Ken Eastham and Mr. Martyn Jones.

    Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

    NOES

    Aitken, Jonathan

    Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

    Alexander, Richard

    Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael

    Carrington, Matthew

    Allason, Rupert

    Carttiss, Michael

    Amery, Rt Hon Julian

    Cash, William

    Amess, David

    Chapman, Sydney

    Amos, Alan

    Chope, Christopher

    Arbuthnot, James

    Churchill, Mr

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

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

    Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

    Ashby, David

    Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

    Atkins, Robert

    Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

    Atkinson, David

    Conway, Derek

    Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rust)

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Baldry, Tony

    Couchman, James

    Batiste, Spencer

    Cran, James

    Beggs, Roy

    Currie, Mrs Edwina

    Bellingham, Henry

    Curry, David

    Bendall, Vivian

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

    Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Bevan, David Gilroy

    Day, Stephen

    Biffen, Rt Hon John

    Devlin, Tim

    Blackburn, Dr John G.

    Dorrell, Stephen

    Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Body, Sir Richard

    Dunn, Bob

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    Eggar, Tim

    Boscawen, Hon Robert

    Emery, Sir Peter

    Boswell, Tim

    Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

    Bottomley, Peter

    Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

    Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

    Fallon, Michael

    Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

    Farr, Sir John

    Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

    Favell, Tony

    Bowis, John

    Fenner, Dame Peggy

    Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

    Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

    Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

    Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

    Brandon-Bravo, Martin

    Fishburn, John Dudley

    Brazier, Julian

    Fookes, Dame Janet

    Bright, Graham

    Forman, Nigel

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

    Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

    Browne, John (Winchester)

    Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

    Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

    Forth, Eric

    Burns, Simon

    Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

    Burt, Alistair

    Franks, Cecil

    Butcher, John

    Freeman, Roger

    Butler, Chris

    French, Douglas

    Butterfill, John

    Gale, Roger

    905

    Gardiner, George

    Lilley, Peter

    Garel-Jones, Tristan

    Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

    Gill, Christopher

    Lord, Michael

    Glyn, Dr Alan

    Luce, Rt Hon Richard

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Lyell, Sir Nicholas

    Gow, Ian

    McCrindle, Robert

    Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

    Macfarlane, Sir Neil

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

    Maclean, David

    Gregory, Conal

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

    McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

    McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

    Ground, Patrick

    Madel, David

    Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

    Major, Rt Hon John

    Hague, William

    Malins, Humfrey

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Maples, John

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Marland, Paul

    Hanley, Jeremy

    Marlow, Tony

    Hannam, John

    Marshall, John (Hendon S)

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

    Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

    Harris, David

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Maude, Hon Francis

    Hayes, Jerry

    Mawhinney, Dr Brian

    Heathcoat-Amory, David

    Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

    Heddle, John

    Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

    Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

    Mellor, David

    Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

    Miller, Sir Hal

    Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

    Mills, Iain

    Hill, James

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Hind, Kenneth

    Mitchell, Sir David

    Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

    Moate, Roger

    Holt, Richard

    Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

    Hordern, Sir Peter

    Monro, Sir Hector

    Howard, Michael

    Montgomery, Sir Fergus

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

    Moore, Rt Hon John

    Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

    Morris, M (N'hampton S)

    Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

    Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

    Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

    Moss, Malcolm

    Hunt, David (Wirral W)

    Moynihan, Hon Colin

    Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

    Mudd, David

    Hunter, Andrew

    Neale, Gerrard

    Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

    Nelson, Anthony

    Irvine, Michael

    Neubert, Michael

    Irving, Charles

    Newton, Rt Hon Tony

    Jack, Michael

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Jackson, Robert

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    Janman, Tim

    Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

    Jessel, Toby

    Norris, Steve

    Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

    Page, Richard

    Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

    Paice, James

    Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

    Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

    Key, Robert

    Patnick, Irvine

    King, Roger (B'ham NWield)

    Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

    Kirkhope, Timothy

    Patten, John (Oxford W)

    Knapman, Roger

    Pawsey, James

    Knight, Greg (Derby North)

    Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

    Knowles, Michael

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

    Portillo, Michael

    Lang, Ian

    Powell, William (Corby)

    Latham, Michael

    Price, Sir David

    Lawrence, Ivan

    Raffan, Keith

    Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

    Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

    Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

    Redwood, John

    Lightbown, David

    Renton, Tim

    906

    Rhodes James, Robert

    Summerson, Hugo

    Riddick, Graham

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Ridsdale, Sir Julian

    Taylor, John M (Solihull)

    Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

    Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

    Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

    Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

    Roe, Mrs Marion

    Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

    Rossi, Sir Hugh

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Rost, Peter

    Thorne, Neil

    Rowe, Andrew

    Thornton, Malcolm

    Rumbold, Mrs Angela

    Thurnham, Peter

    Sackville, Hon Tom

    Townend, John (Bridlington)

    Sainsbury, Hon Tim

    Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

    Sayeed, Jonathan

    Tracey, Richard

    Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

    Tredinnick, David

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Trippier, David

    Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

    Vaughan, Sir Gerard

    Shelton, Sir William

    Waddington, Rt Hon David

    Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

    Wakeham, Rt Hon John

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Waldegrave, Hon William

    Shersby, Michael

    Walden, George

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

    Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

    Walker, Bill (T'side North)

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Waller, Gary

    Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    Soames, Hon Nicholas

    Warren, Kenneth

    Speed, Keith

    Wells, Bowen

    Speller, Tony

    Wheeler, John

    Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

    Whitney, Ray

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Stanbrook, Ivor

    Wiggin, Jerry

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Wilkinson, John

    Stern, Michael

    Winterton, Nicholas

    Stevens, Lewis

    Wood, Timothy

    Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

    Woodcock, Dr. Mike

    Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

    Yeo, Tim

    Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

    Stokes, Sir John

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Stradling Thomas, Sir John

    Mr. Tony Durant and Mr. Alastair Goodlad.

    Sumberg, David

    Question accordingly negatived.
    Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
    Resolved,
    That this House supports the introduction of the community charge, the principles of which are manifestly fairer and simpler than those that now apply to domestic rates; welcomes the exemptions conferred on those who cannot be asked to pay and the generous discounts, rebates and increased income support available for those on low incomes; recognises that the unified business rating system introduces a valuable stability for non-domestic ratepayers; congratulates Her Majesty's Government on implementing proposals that will improve the accountability of local government by insisting that all who benefit from their services should have a say in their quality and cost; and notes that either a local income tax or a two-tax system based upon local income tax and capital value tax would be much more expensive to implement, much more unfair and make local government much less accountable.

Health Policy
7.13 pm
Mr. Robin Cook: I beg to move,
That this House welcomes with enthusiasm the Prime Minister's pledge that no-one will go private again for medical treatment; invites the Secretary of State for Health to demonstrate his commitment to her pledge by withdrawing the provision for tax relief for private medical insurance, and by abandoning his proposals that self-governing hospitals should trade for private patients and that general practitioners should use practice budgets to purchase private treatment; notes that general practitioners on a ballot have rejected the contract offered by the Secretary of State by a majority of three to one; regrets that the Secretary of State has threatened to impose the new contract irrespective of this vote; and calls upon the Secretary of State to reopen negotiations on his proposal to increase capitation-based payments which will give doctors an incentive to seek longer patient lists.
Tonight's debate is prompted by two important developments in the health debate last week. Half the motion is inspired by the Prime Minister, who last week addressed the 1992 Committee in visionary terms about the Government's intentions for the Health Service. [HON. MEMBERS: "1922."] I stand corrected. Plainly, the 1992 committee of the Conservative party will be smaller than the 1922 Committee.
I give assurances to Conservative Members, who may be worried about the Opposition quoting the Prime Minister in a Supply day debate, that this is likely to be the only time that we shall welcome anything that the Prime Minister has said. I suggest to Conservative Back Benchers who are unhappy with the Government's proposals for the National Health Service that this could be the easiest wicket on which to rebel. After tonight's debate, should they vote for the Labour motion, they will be able to look their Whips straight in the eyes and say that they voted to support the Prime Minister's pledge—and a very remarkable pledge it was. She said, "No one will ever go private again".
Mr. Jerry Hayes: She did not say that.
Mr. Cook: I am interested to hear the comments of the hon. Gentleman, to whom I am happy to give way in a moment. I went to the Library and asked for a copy of the Prime Minister's speech to the 1922 Committee. I was advised that I could not have a copy because it was confidential. Since then, I have been distressed to see that, in the Government amendment, the reference to the Prime Minister is deleted.
I understand that the Secretary of State could not have heard the speech, because I believe that, like me, he is not permitted to attend those meetings. Perhaps some kindly Back Bencher——
Mr. Hayes rose——
Mr. Cook: As we now have one on his feet, perhaps he can tell me whether the words reported were used, and if so, how many of his hon. Friends were so impressed by them that they have since cancelled their premiums to BUPA.
Mr. Hayes: Perhaps I can breach a confidence and tell the House that the Prime Minister said, "What I aim to do is to make the National Health Service so good that no one need ever go private again."
Mr. Cook: I have to confess that the hon. Gentleman made me uneasy when he began because I thought he said that he had taken to writing the Prime Minister's speeches on the Health Service, and that would be a sad loss to debates in the House.
If that is what the Prime Minister said, two questions obviously arise from it. The first is a small matter of whether, if it is what the Prime Minister said, she includes herself in the commitment. It is not clear, at the moment, whether she was implying the royal no one. The Prime Minister is much given to referring to herself as "one", but this would be the first time that she referred to herself as "no one". The truth is, as hon. Members on both sides of the House know if they have been round the doorsteps discussing it, that the public do not believe that they can trust the National Health Service in the hands of the Prime Minister because she takes good care never to trust herself in the hands of the NHS.
The second, and rather more important, question is whether the Secretary of State will sit down during the recess and rewrite the White Paper in the light of the Prime Minister's prediction according to the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Hayes). Certainly the White Paper needs urgent revision if she is right. For example, there is the proposal to provide for tax relief on private medical insurance. One can understand why the Secretary of State might be loth to let go of that commitment in the White Paper, because it is the only reference to the health needs of elderly people. Excise that and the White Paper will be absolutely about the needs of an age group who account for almost half of the entire health output of Britain. The Secretary of State must face reality. If no one need go private again, it would surely be cruel to deceive elderly people into paying for what they will not need. However, I note that shares in AMI Healthcare Group, the largest private hospital group, have leapt by a quarter in the month since the White Paper was published. There is not much faith there that no one will ever need to go private again.
Paragraph 9.6 of the White Paper says that general practitioners
"will be able to use NHS funds to pay for treatment in the private sector".
What is that doing there if nobody need go private again? Why can NHS funds not be used to pay for NHS treatment in NHS hospitals?
Then there is the matter of paragraph 3.6 of the White Paper, which provides that opt-out hospitals may trade for private patients. I hope that the Secretary of State will save us from the humbug that this proposal will bring money into the NHS. Providing for private patients in NHS hospitals takes beds, staff and even blood out of the NHS.
That has already happened. A leaflet that has been distributed by Hillingdon district health authority advertises the authority's fixed price scheme. One can jump the queue in Hillingdon for a fixed price. For £370 one can have what is described as "removal of lumps and bumps". For £3,500, one can have a total hip replacement. On reading that leaflet, I felt a sense of rising outrage that a great public service that once prided itself on treating patients according to need was so reduced to chasing money that it touted its facilities by offering a fast track to those who could pay.
Against that record, no one will ever believe the Secretary of State and the hon. Member for Harlow when they promise that it is their objective to make the public

909
service better than private treatment. Fortunately, there are those in the Health Service who share that concern about where the Health Service is going.
I turn now to the other development last week which has prompted this week's debate on health.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: Does my hon. Friend agree that many people feel that the White Paper's ethics are distinctly rocky? This has driven me, as my hon. Friend may recall, to make a challenge at a public meeting in Newham town hall to any supporter of the Government to debate in my constituency, and his or hers, the neutral question—I hope that it is neutral—whether the Government's domestic policies, particular those relating to the Health Service, are compatible with Christian values. I have tried to make that challenge public, but have had no takers yet. I should be glad to meet Government supporters in Nottingham, Putney or anywhere else. I hope that Conservative Members will advertise that challenge far and wide, and that it will be taken up in the recess.
Mr. Cook: I well remember that occasion. At the end of of the debate, in order to be present for a vote at 10 o'clock in the House, I left Newham town hall by car and my hon. Friend left by bicycle. I arrived only two minutes ahead of him.
My hon. Friend made an eloquent and moving plea. It was a pity that the only way in which one could fill up the platform was with supporters of his case against the White Paper. I should like to share my hon. Friend's challenge to any member of the Government who wishes to go to Newham and take part in a public debate with my hon. Friend. I am sure that any such person will be made welcome by my hon. Friend—provided, of course, there is a reciprocal agreement by which my hon. Friend can go into that person's constituency and carry the message to his or her constituents.
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): Come on.
Mr. Cooke: My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) intervened just as I was about to move on to a matter to which, I am delighted to hear, the Secretary of State wishes to come. Only a couple of months ago, the right hon. and learned Gentleman made a triumphal statement to the House that he had secured agreement with the British Medical Association on the GPs' contract. He said:
"I am glad to say that it has been my experience that … after a dispute is over, people appear to forget it entirely and no one can quite remember what the fuss was all about."—[Official Report, 5 May 1989; Vol. 152, c. 484.]
On this occasion, the GPs have not forgotten entirely what the fuss was all about. Last week, they voted by 24·1 per cent. to accept the contract and by 75·9 per cent. to reject it. That is not the kind of result for which one needs a recount to get the picture.
On radio last week, I heard the Secretary of State commenting, no doubt under the pressure of interview, that good doctors had nothing to fear from the new contract, that only the lazy doctor need fear—all 75·9 per cent. of them, I suppose. It is not just laziness that has
910
prompted GPs to put the contract into the incinerator. It is worth examining, more seriously than the Secretary of State has attempted to do, why they said no.
There is much in what the Secretary of State proposes to which I could say yes. I could give a mark of five out of 10 on the 10 major proposals for change. For reasons to which I shall come, I do not quite regard that as a pass mark. For instance, I would welcome his proposal to pay more to GPs who make their own night visits.
Mr. Kenneth Clarke: They are against that.
Mr. Cook: I well understand—the right hon. and learned Gentleman says that the doctors are against that. I think that he is right. I shall come to those proposals about which he is wrong. His concession that those night visits may be shared with nine colleagues is generous, and it is not unreasonable to ask GPs to do one night in 10 on call.
I agree also with what I understand the Secretary of State is trying to do on targets for screening, but the way in which he is going about it is misconceived. The problem is that the targets set by the Secretary of State for full payment—90 per cent. for child immunisation and 80 per cent. for screening for cervical cancer—are so heroic, so far beyond the present figure for most practices, that there is a danger that many doctors will simply give up trying.
I noticed at Question Time today that the Secretary of State said that most practices met those targets. I have since checked on those figures for district health authorities. Only one in England has reached 90 per cent. immunisation for children, and that is High Wycombe.
Mr. Kenneth Clarke: It is 70 per cent.
Mr. Cook: The Secretary of State says that it is 70 per cent. I concede that most district health authorities certainly meet the target of 70 per cent. I am sure that, in return, he will concede that for 70 per cent. the doctors get only one third of the payment. Full payment starts at 90 per cent., and only one district health authority is eligible.
This is not a matter on which it is necessary to have a party political debate. I refer the Secretary of State to the full scientific article in a recent edition of the British Medical Journal by a woman GP who, after working in a practice that has placed special stress on cervical smears and has been running a recall system for 15 years, still has not reached the target of 80 per cent. of the target population. Moreover, that GP was working in a suburban surgery. Achieving that target would be even more difficult in inner-city areas.
I should like to have the attention of the Minister of State, the hon. and learned Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor), who, I well understand, will wish to impress himself on the powerful friend next to him—the Secretary of State. In a television debate, the Minister of State made a statement that at the time rendered me speechless. He said that there was no evidence that it was more difficult to meet screening targets in areas of social deprivation.
I have since been through the figures for district health authorities. The percentages of immunisation by district health authority reads like a map of Britain by socio-economic indicators. The three lowest areas of immunisation are Merseyside, inner London and Manchester, none of which reaches 70 per cent. The three highest districts are Huntingdon, Winchester and High Wycombe. The only conclusion that one can draw from

911
the way in which the Government have devised the centres for screening is that they are providing incentives for GPs to move into those areas that already have the most GPs and the fewest health problems.
It is not that the contract flopped on those matters. Anyone listening to GPs, rather than lecturing them, already knows what the key issue was: the proposal to increase the proportion received by GPs from capitation fees. GPs already get almost half their income from payments directly related to the numbers of patients. Under the proposal in the new contract, that proportion will increase from almost half to three fifths. This will give even more to those doctors who go for more patients, at the expense of those GPs who limit themselves to the number of patients that they can handle to a professional standard.
This is a flat reversal of a policy pursued for 20 years by successive Government, whether Labour or Conservative, which has aimed at reducing the number of people on patient lists. The Secretary of State proposes to turn the clock back, not to the last Labour Government, but to the Labour Administration before that. One must go back to 1966 before finding a time when the capitation element was so high.
The Secretary of State understands, of course, that more patients means more patient care. We know that he understands that, because he vigorously denies that his proposal can result in more people on each patient list. He claims that he is giving doctors the incentive to increase patient lists, while at the same time assuring patients that it cannot happen—that there will not be any more patients to go round, so the average will stay the same.
Unfortunately, I have to warn the Secretary of State that the number of GPs may not stay the same—at any rate, it will stop expanding. Already, practices from Devon to Glasgow have decided not to proceed with the additional partnership that they had intended to advertise. Their response to the Secretary of State's new contract is entirely rational. They are responding in Thatcherite terms to the financial incentives that they have been given to lengthen the patient list in the practice—although, as they understand, the result in terms of patient care is utterly perverse.
There is a simple way for the Secretary of State to demonstrate his good faith on this question of longer patient lists. He will be aware that the BMA, which he keeps telling us is opposed to any change, has proposed that the ceiling on patient lists should be reduced from 3,200 to 2,500. I ask the Secretary of State whether he will accept that reduction in the upper limit on patient lists. Will he take that obvious precaution to prevent GPs from doing what he assures us he does not want them to do—indeed, he keeps assuring us that they cannot do it—namely, going for longer patient lists? If he will not, there is an obvious conclusion to be drawn. The Secretary of State has designed, as a matter of policy, a contract that will sharpen the competition between GPs for patients, with an incentive to go for longer patient lists, and he has no intention of putting in their way an obstacle to prevent them from doing so.
The last word on the contract, however, must be left to an academic study which the Secretary of State himself chose as relevant to the new contract. On 27 June, in answer to a written question, the Secretary of State said:
"Recent research by York university's centre for economics has demonstrated the wide range of quality of
912
service to patients provided in different parts of the country under the old contract."—[Official Report, 27 June 1989; Vol. 155, c. 422.]
The Secretary of State is perfectly correct that the study drew attention to the variations in quality provided by GPs and highlighted the fact that the poorer regions of Britain get a poorer service from GPs.
It is perhaps unfortunate that whoever drafted the reply for the Secretary of State did not draw his attention to the full press comments of the authors of the report, who said:
"The new contract … is likely to widen the gap even further … Our prediction is that in five to 10 years there will be an even greater difference in standards of service."
It is a mark of desperation on the part of the Secretary of State to find friends for his new contract that he is driven to cite academics who believe that his contract will make matters worse.
This is a short debate, and I wish in conclusion to discuss the response of the Secretary of State to the result of the ballot. As I understand the Secretary of State's position, as far as he is concerned, the BMA need not have bothered balloting members. The GPs will get the contract whether they want it or not, because he will impose it on them. It does not count that 76 per cent. of GPs oppose the contract; nor, for that matter, does it count that, last month, the National Association of Health Authorities found in its opinion poll survey that 90 per cent. of patients were satisfied with GPs. But the Secretary of State reserves the right to know better than 76 per cent. of GPs and 90 per cent. of patients.
The Secretary of State will be aware that there is a small problem in imposing the contract. It is not for him to impose it; he requires a vote in the House in the autumn. I am happy to say that there has fallen into my hands a letter which turns out to be a letter from the Secretary of State to all his hon. Friends, which he ends by wishing them a good recess. Let me take this opportunity to associate myself with that wish to Conservative Back Benchers. I wish them a happy recess in their constituencies explaining to GPs why they propose to ignore the results of the ballot and vote to impose the contract all the same. Not that either they or we need be surprised by the Secretary of State's reaction: it is utterly characteristic and entirely in line with the attitude that he has adopted to the NHS since he returned to his post.
The Secretary of State presides over the largest resource of professional advice and scientific expertise anywhere in Britain. It is a matter of regret that he has shown no interest in listening to any of it. This year, it is the turn of the GPs. Last summer, it was the turn of the nurses who had imposed on them the guidelines in the regrading agreement. Last autumn, it was the turn of the opticians, who warned him that ending free eye tests would result in charges of more than £10 and a drop in the number of tests. I vividly remember the Secretary of State assuring the House that he did not believe them. This spring has been marked by the refusal of the Secretary of State to listen to the chorus of criticism of his White Paper from nurses, doctors, patients and the rest of the public.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman's own limited tolerance of criticism was expressed vividly in the circular that he sent out on consultation on the White Paper. This is how he defined consultation:
"I look forward to receiving contributions, constructive criticisms and alternative suggestions"—
so far, so good—

913
"so long as they are aimed at putting the White Paper proposals into practice by 1991."
In other words, consultation is welcome as long as those consulted agree with the proposals. The right hon. and learned Gentleman's impatience of any other criticism was perfectly caught this afternoon when he told my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) that she was not qualified to vote on whether a hospital should opt out. The Secretary of State has defined a system of opting out that matches his view that his opinion is the only one that matters: he is the only person with a vote on whether a hospital should opt out.
It should not surprise anyone that the Secretary of State has chosen to ignore a defeat of three to one. It is of a piece with his management style, which, we are bound to suspect, he copies from the Prime Minister. They are both stubborn and opinionated in their own views and contemptuous and dismissive of the views of everyone else. It is a style of government of which the nation is now heartily sick, and I warn the Secretary of State that if he persists with it, he may succeed in his given task of undermining the NHS but he will almost certainly succeed in undermining support for the Government.
7.36 pm
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
"welcomes the Government's proposals for reform in the National Health Service which will bring all parts of the health service up to the very high standards now achieved by the best, put the needs of patients first and secure the best value for money; recognises that to make the health service more responsive to the needs of patients as much power and responsibility as possible need to be delegated to local level in future, whether in directly managed or self-governing National Health Service hospitals; looks forward to large general practitioner practices being able to apply for their own budgets to obtain a defined range of hospital services so as to improve the quality of service to their patients; and fully supports the Government's decision to proceed with the implementation of the general practitioners' new contract, the contents of which were agreed with the general practitioners' leaders on 4th May."
The hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) has made his last speech before the recess, which, as he said, we all confidently expect to come shortly. The hon. Gentleman opened the debate rather like a football player who expected to be playing an end of season game before a rather desultory crowd. He produced a speech and an Opposition motion which simply do not contain any new or good ideas. He showed yet again that his role in echoing the criticism that exists outside the House of our NHS reforms is to represent the views of those who have absolutely no proposals of their own to introduce. The hon. Gentleman continues to do that.
I can recall being in opposition and I know of the difficulties involved in finding ways in which to fill the time on Supply days. The hon. Gentleman was reduced to going through his newspaper clippings to see what has happened in the health world over the past few weeks. He has composed an extraordinary motion combining a quotation from the Prime Minister at a meeting of the 1922 Committee with some of the newspaper reports that followed the GPs' ballot on their contract. His speech, though concise, hardly covered the great problems of the Health Service that we are tackling at the moment.
914
There is a problem with the quotation from the Prime Minister. As the hon. Gentleman said, I am not allowed to attend meetings of the 1922 Committee and, by singular good fortune, I seem unlikely to be attending a meeting of that committee for some little time yet. I have therefore had to rely on my hon. Friends for the quotation. Not for the first time, my hon. Friends do not entirely agree. My hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr. Hayes) has helpfully given us his account of what was said at the meeting but the recollection of my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Knight) is that the Prime Minister said, "The National Health Service will be so good that no one will want to go private again." [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] That recollection seems to be shared by the majority of my hon. Friends on the Back Benches.
I am not surprised by that quotation, although I was not there to hear it and I did not know that my right hon. Friend was going to make it. It touched on conversations that my right hon. Friend and I had from time to time during the review. It is obvious that in our reforms to improve the NHS we shall aim at the best standards achieved anywhere and pose a formidable challenge to the private sector to maintain its standards to keep its appeal to those patients who want to use it for health care.
We intend that the better National Health Service that we aim to create will not set itself lower standards or goals than the private sector aims to achieve. The private sector would have less to fear from an unreformed NHS coping with out-of-date organisation and management and coming under ever-increasing strain to keep up with demand, despite all the extra resources that the Government keep pouring into it.
Patients turn to the private sector for two reasons. First, they exercise their undoubted choice to opt for private medicine for their family and secondly because of their perception of the shortcomings and inadequacies of the NHS. People have an exaggerated view of those inadequacies because they are fed by Opposition spokesmen who seize on local problems in this giant service and give the impression that waiting lists and shortages are a universal problem, when they are usually the result of purely local problems.
It is not new for the Opposition to feed critical views of the Health Service to the general public. I have said before that the best allies of private medicine in the past 10 years have been Barbara Castle and the National Union of Public Employees, whose behaviour in the late 1970s was of particular help. The Labour Front Bench team continue that unintended support for the private sector by defending the NHS against any attempt to improve it and continually producing a highly coloured version of the difficulties facing patients. We shall tackle the problems of the Health Service, and as a result of our reforms it will be a much more powerful competitor of the private sector.
Mr. Allan Rogers: The Secretary of State said that there were two reasons why people choose the private sector rather than the NHS. First, he said that they want to exercise their choice and secondly, that they perceived inadequacies in the NHS. Does he accept that one of the main reasons why people use the private sector is that they can jump the queue and get in early? They cheat the queue.
Mr. Clarke: That is why we need reforms to tackle the queues and to reduce waiting times. As my hon. Friend the

915
Minister of State said at Question Time, we could do that by making all operating theatres as efficient as the best. To resist reform is to preserve excessive waiting times and queues, which helps the private sector.
The hon. Member for Livingston included the quotation in his motion merely to make the unoriginal point about tax relief for the elderly, which we included in our White Paper. As he knows, the case for tax relief is based on our belief that, while we intend to make the NHS a competitor of the private sector and able to offer high standards, it is right that patients should have the choice. As society becomes increasingly affluent, people will have more disposable income and some will wish to choose private medicine for various reasons, including convenience and personal predilection. We have offered tax relief to address the particular injustice felt by many elderly people who chose private medical insurance during their working lives but then found that the premiums rose steeply in retirement, when their income dropped. I do not understand the disporportionate attack that is always made on the tax relief proposal, which has been widely welcomed by many elderly people and is a part of the White Paper that has caused the least fuss among the non-ideological public.
The hon. Gentleman raised the more substantial item of the GPs' contract. I am grateful to him for opening up that issue, because it enables me to explain it. I am grateful to him for conceding that he recognises the case for a new contract and that he sees merit in our proposals. He is therefore urging the General Medical Services Committee to accept the need for a performance-related contract which is more in tune with the needs of the late 1980s.
I would have preferred to reach an agreed contract with the GPs and the GMSC. My predecessors and I have bent over backwards to achieve just that. The origins of the new contract go back to the Green Paper of three years ago. Many public meetings were held as the basis for consultation. We had 19 meetings with the negotiators and 110 hours of discussion on 38 documents. Eventually, we reached agreement with the formidable team of GMSC negotiators representing GPs.
The negotiators commended our package to GPs. At a local medical committee conference, it was only just rejected by local medical committee representatives in a tight vote. Then a general ballot was held. So far as I can see, although the package continued to be commended, nobody made any attempt to campaign in support of the commendation. Few local medical committees tried to explain to GPs who had not followed the details where we were in the negotiations.
In the past few weeks I have met GPs from rural areas who thought that rural payments would be abolished and did not know that we had reinstituted seniority allowances in response to the negotiators' requests. As a result of widespread public campaigning against the reforms, there was a heavy vote against the commendation.
The Opposition must address the problem and say what we should do in response to that ballot. Undoubtedly, the Labour party will say that we should accept it and start all over again. That, indeed, is the position of the GMSC, which I met yesterday. I met exactly the same negotiators with whom I reached agreement on 4 May. At that time they left with what they regarded as a satisfactory package of arrangements which they commended to GPs. [Interruption.] I was at the meeting. The negotiators do not require the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman)
916
to speak on their behalf. They had agreed a satisfactory package which they commended to their members. Faced with a vote which did not endorse their commendation, they came back to me yesterday wishing to reopen negotiations on every item on which we had reached agreement on 4 May. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] They suggested a timetable that would take us until Christmas for reconsidering the whole matter.
The hon. Member for Livingston was good enough to say that he supports the principle of higher payments for the majority of practitioners who make their own night visits. The negotiators intend that to be the subject of fresh negotiations. He said that targets were a desirable principle, although he raised some points about the details, which I shall deal with in a moment. They wish to reopen negotiations about the basis for incentive payments for higher rates of vaccination and cervical cytology. They wish us to reconsider basic practice allowances although we had already made considerable changes. I asked whether the 26-hour availability for direct contact with patients each week was settled, but they said no, that could not be regarded as such. They wish to reopen negotiations on that as well as on capitation, to which the hon. Gentleman referred and to which I shall return.
The negotiators are in no position to agree to any changes. They already have many concessions in the bag; concessions which I made last time and which they offered to members. They now take them as read and wish me to contemplate further concessions although they have no negotiating mandate. Scarred by its experience, the GM SC did not feel able to say that it would be able to agree to any of this. Presumably, I was to make concessions on all those fronts, including those supported by the hon. Member for Livingston, and then it would put it to the local medical committees, and perhaps, in due course to another ballot of general practitioners.
Mr. Spearing: That is democracy.
Mr. Clarke: No, it is not democracy. I have to say that it is damn near anarchy.
I understand that in settling, in this case, the basis of payment to independent contractors, or more normally the terms and conditions of employees, that is a negotiation in which the person who pays and the person who is being paid have an interest. Obviously, it is right to seek a compromise between my role, which is to look after the interests of the patients and the service and to have a contract that stimulates higher standards, and the GMSC's legitimate role to have something that is acceptable to its members. If we concede everything and the GMSC keeps going back for a vote, we will wind up with a contract that is so completely dominated by those things that make life comfortable for the doctors and the medical profession that we will sacrifice all the aims of higher quality care, which must be a legitimate interest for a sensible and responsible Government to look after in such discussions.
Mr. Spearing rose——
Mrs. Alice Mahon rose——
Mr. Bob Cryer rose——
Mr. Clarke: I shall give way in a moment, but I want first to deal with two matters that I mentioned, which appear to be the only major doubts of the hon. Member for Livingston—targets and capitation.
It is a fond belief on his part that they are the only matters that need to be reopened at the request of the GMSC. I have said that the 70 per cent. target could be hit by most practices in England. I believe that is so in the case of vaccination. I introduced that as a big concession last time, because it is comparatively easily obtained by most of our English practices. My understanding is, however, that many Welsh and Scottish practices will have to raise their performance to get there—as, too, will some English practices. Therefore, a lower target was justifiable and I made a concession. It will stimulate practices to raise their performances to those that are being readily achieved in wide parts of England.
The 90 per cent. target is a World Health Organisation target. It is always stated that our agreed aim is for the National Health Service to be one of the best health care systems in the world. I cannot accept that the performance targets for vaccinations in our National Health Service should be below the level accepted by the World Health Organisation. The hon. Member for Livingston may be right—I have not looked it up—in saying that only High Wycombe hits 90 per cent. Why on earth should High Wycombe be the only place in the United Kingdom where it is legitimate for the GPs to strive to reach the best international standards? I believe that the hon. Gentleman should be committed to my principle of a performance-based contract.
When people looked around for other reasons why the GPs rejected the contract, the capitation argument was raised. As the hon. Member for Livingston said, we are talking about a contract where capitation is by far the largest single element. We are moving from 48 per cent. to 60 per cent., although that includes some new elements that we are counting as capitation. I do not accept, for the reasons that the hon. Gentleman has given, that that will have the slightest effect on average lists. The situation in the 1960s must be compared with one where we will make it much easier for patients to change their practice and for them to have access to information about the kind of services that their doctors will provide. We believe that it is right to spread the work load more fairly and to reinforce the efforts of those GPs to attract and retain their patients. However, they will not do so if they build up enormous lists. Any GP with an average or near-average list will strive to get performance payments that arise under the other part of the contract.
The hon. Member for Livingston claimed that partners are being turned away in some practices and that the number of GPs is being reduced. If that is happening, it can only be because the GPs have been carried away with their own campaigning. The only reason for not replacing a partner who has retired is that GPs are taking the view that they can earn more with four partners in the practice than they can with five. They are, therefore, somewhat irresponsibly deciding to increase their work loads, not to replace a partner when he retires and to cut back on the amount of time that they give to their patients. However, GPs will not benefit from such actions. They will lose their patients to those other GPs who will be inspired by the contract to set themselves a reasonable work load and to go after the performance payments that we are making for a good delivery of service to patients.
Mr. Robin Cook: If the Secretary of State accepts that longer patient lists would be at the expense of patient care and that it is not his intention that GPs should go for longer patient lists, will he accept the proposal that the upper limit for patient lists should be reduced from 3,200 to 2,500? If not, why not?
Mr. Clark: The extent to which any given number of patients reduces or does not reduce the amount of time given to patients depends on the amount of time that the doctor puts into his practice. We know from the last study of GPs that the average commitment of a GP to his practice is 38 hours a week. The contract requirement is for a minimum of 26 hours direct availability to patients. I do not see, however, why a GP who wants to have a larger than average list could not make himself available for more than 26 hours and still provide an adequate standard of service.
Patients will judge for themselves whether the amount of time that they receive from their doctors is adequate. I hope that, as we open the eyes of more patients as to what can be achieved by modern general practice, they will be particularly attracted to those doctors who have good standards of vaccination, who go in for the health promotion and the prevention of disease that we are stimulating and who offer minor surgery and all the other advantages to patients.
Mr. Spearing: The Secretary of State has ranged at great speed over other matters, but I wish to take him back to his complaint that the doctors wished to take up matters after the ballot. Does he recall that about 40 years ago, when the Health Service was founded, one of the big issues was that doctors were to be independent contractors and not employees? Is not the Secretary of State's complaint completely invalid, because he must accept that they are independent professional contractors providing a professional service, not employees like people on the railways or on the docks?
Mr. Clarke: That works both ways. I accept that they are independent contractors. However, I do not accept the Labour party's claim that, if one is an independent contractor, one is entitled to dictate from one's own side of the table all the terms of the contract.
Mr. Spearing: I am not saying that.
Mr. Clarke: That is exactly what the Labour party is saying. The motion says that, if the doctors do not want it, the matter should be reopened and we should carry on producing terms until they are wholly acceptable to the GMSC. Is the Labour party saying that, if they vote against it 60:40 next time, it might accept that some duty falls on the Government to ensure that the patients are looked after?
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?
Mr. Clarke: There are two sides to the contract. The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) is right to say that history repeats itself in many ways. The extraordinary way in which the Labour party—bereft of any ideas of its own on the Health Service—simply follows through newspaper cuttings of what the GMSC or the BMA is currently arguing is a strange reversal of previous form.

919
I shall not go back to the 1970s, when the Labour party had great battles with the doctors and the nurses and did not accept votes and the terms and conditions that they wished. I shall not go back either to the 1960s, when the Labour party had equally dramatic battles with the GPs, among others, and it settled the last contract when faced with industrial action by the GPs. It started with the whole National Health Service in 1946.
It is astonishing, when one looks at the present controversy, how much history has so far repeated itself. In March 1946, the BMA's main objection to the then Labour Government's White Paper was that it had not been consulted during the course of it being drawn up. Aneurin Bevan was repeatedly attacked for what was described as a dictatorial attitude and his insistence on imposing things on the profession. The BMA's main argument was that the new health centres should be introduced on an experimental basis and not introduced nationwide. A BMA member even compared Aneurin Bevan's proposals to a "regime which is now coming to its sorry end in Nuremburg". I regret to say that, in reply, Aneurin Bevan called them
"a small body of politically poisoned people".
That is language to which my hon. Friend and myself would never resort.
About 56 per cent. of doctors opposed co-operation with Nye Bevan's proposed creation of the National Health Service. Indeed, they voted by 9:1 against accepting the terms and conditions offered in the Health Service. However, history has not repeated itself entirely, because I do not recall that the Labour party was on the side of the nine. Today's Labour party—the very much lesser figures who occupy their predecessor's shoes—are prepared to accept a re-run of history so far——
Mr. Nicholas Winterton rose——
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman rose——
Mr. Winterton: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend——
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Hang on—[Interruption.]
Mr. Winterton: I take my right hon. and learned Friend's remarks seriously. There is considerable sense in what he says. However, will he pay credit to the overwhelming majority of general practitioners who play a vital part in the health care of this country and will he admit that they have done so since the foundation of the National Health Service? Will he also admit that the overwhelming majority of people in this country have confidence in our general practitioners?
I hope that, later in his constructive speech, my right hon. and learned Friend will say that he is prepared to enter into on-going discussions with the general practitioners to seek a satisfactory solution which, I believe, will be in the interests, not only of the doctors but of the patients.
Mr. Clarke: I am grateful for part of my hon. Friend's advice because I should acknowledge that our general practitioners provide a valuable service to the public and are committed to the National Health Service. Many of them voted as they did, believing that they would lose money through our proposals, when they will not. We are proposing to reward the services and work load that the
920
best doctors already operate. Many of them will benefit from our proposals. It is up to the GMSC and ourselves—or certainly it should be—to explain yet again to the doctors what we have agreed. As I made clear yesterday, I am prepared to listen to the GMSC if it comes forward with any proposals, and to explain the difficulties.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way on that point?
Mr. Clarke: Yesterday I was faced with negotiators who have now lost all their negotiating mandate. There is nothing that they can conceivably agree to. They do not know what they want and wish to reopen the whole thing over a prolonged time scale, presumably then resorting—as the Opposition wish—to another attempt to ascertain whether that is acceptable.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the trend that he referred to about five minutes ago of patients transferring to doctors who offer a better service is already happening in my constituency, where some go-ahead GPs have set up exceptionally good premises, with a well-man and well-woman clinic, a hyper-tension clinic, their own night service and a 24-hour on-call service? Patients are already transferring to that practice from practices that do not supply such facilities. The doctors who are supplying these facilities will be infinitely better off in the future because at the moment they are providing those facilities out of sheer professionalism, but in the future they will be paid for what they are doing.
Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend knows and supports the fact that we will make it easier for patients to change practices and that we will make it possible for them to be given more attractive information about what their practice offers.
The position of the Opposition and of some people in the profession is that rewards to attractive practices, such as my hon. Friend has just described, should not be so great in order to protect the position of those who are not offering new services or achieving the higher standards. That is not a glorious position for either the Opposition or the profession to accept. Indeed, it was not the position adoped by the GMSC. I pay tribute to the negotiators that I faced on 4 May, because they drove a hard bargain on behalf of their GPs. They got me to make concessions which, frankly, I would not otherwise have been minded to make, and they came up with a fair package. We should now explain to the doctors that we have achieved a fair balance in the interests of the patients as well as of themselves.
We are drawn over the history of these matters partly because we are going over the history of the Labour party's objections to our reforms as they pick them up as we go along. However, history needs not repeat itself. Indeed, it is not doing so, because the Labour party is on the wrong side of the barricades at the moment. As I keep saying to the BMA, the barricades should come down. It is a needless and continuing controversy——
Mr. Spearing: It was the Secretary of State himself who put up those barricades.
Mr. Clarke: If the BMA would abandon its extremely indiscreet newspaper campaign, if its members would stop frightening their elderly patients and if we got back to the

921
undoubted agreement that exists between us on the future of the National Health Service and the principles upon which it is based, we could make progress.
Behind all the newspaper cuttings which the hon. Member for Livingston draws upon and the continuing controversy over the contract, the fact is that the common interest in the Service between many doctors and other professionals and the Government, and the common interest among most people in this country in seeing a better Health Service, is being put into effect. Yet again, as on previous occasions, I must advise the hon. Gentleman that he will be horrified to hear that the implementation of our White Paper reforms is going smoothly and well.
I shall shortly be sending members of all parties a briefing pack giving them all the detailed information that they require. The pack has recently been sent to managers and itemises in considerable detail the progress that has been made in preparing for the reforms and in putting them into place.
The review has already changed the climate in the Health Service to an extent that I would never had expected. I have never known a service which, in the past, has been so resistant to change, engaging in planning for so much change on such a wide scale.
Although all our debates are dominated by our unfortunate problems with the medical profession, we should remember that there are many other people in the Service. The chairmen and the managers of the National Health Service authorities are extremely keen on our reforms and are pressing on with them purposefully and well. There are wide agreements between doctors and nurses, who have not been mentioned so far, on a number of systems——
Mr. Ian McCartney: It is the Secretary of State who appoints those chairmen.
Mr. Clarke: I shall remind the House yet again that the doctors and the nurses—indeed, the great bulk of both professions—support the need to introduce new financial management systems. They support the need for clinical audit as a form of quality control. They all support the need to devise better methods of distributing our resources so that the money follows the patient. We are still discussing the details of our contract system.
Mr. Cryer: Will the Secretary of State give way?
Mr. Clarke: In my judgment about 80 per cent. of our White Paper proposals have achieved pretty universal acceptance and are now being put into place.
Mr. Cryer: Yet again, will the Secretary of State give way?
Mr. Clarke: No.
There continues to be controversy about self-governing hospitals and about GPs' practice budgets. They are the very systems that are causing most controversy, but they are also the areas in which we are proceeding most cautiously. We have said that we will expand them where we have people who wish to make a go of it, who see the potential and who are prepared to work hard with us. I expect only a limited number in 1991. However, as the volunteers develop those ideas, I believe that their great potential will be shown and it will be recognised that that
922
is the way to organise both hospitals and practices to take advantage of the new systems, and that that will eventually move the debate on.
Mr. Cryer rose——
Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop rose——
Mr. Clarke: No, I shall not give way because I have been speaking for too long.
Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I am grateful. Would my right hon. and learned Friend tell the House why the letter from Mr. Nichol in his Department, which said that expressions of interest in going to National Health trust status by hospitals should be referred to regional health authorities for their comments before being sent to his Department when, in fact, those authorities have been completely bypassed, and that the expressions of interest have been sent to his Department without being placed before the South Western regional health authority, for instance, whose members have had no opportunity therefore to comment on them, contrary to the letter which was sent out?
Mr. Clarkerose rose——
Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wonder whether we could have a brief Adjournment. The Minister of State has been giving information to the Secretary of State who clearly has not a clue about the point that has been raised and he obviously needs some conversation with the specific Minister so that he can answer his hon. Friend.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: That is not a point of order.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. The House is anxious to get on with the debate. I call Mr. Secretary Clarke.
Mr. Clarke: I know that the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) is always desperate to get his name into Hansard, but I have never known him reduced to quite that desperation before.
Duncan Nichol, the chief executive of the Health Service, is perfectly entitled to ask for expressions of interest in self-governing status. Such expressions of interest are being handled at regional level in the first place and are then being passed on to us with the comments and judgment of the regional health authority management.
I understand that there is some controversy in the south-west about exactly who has seen them, but I have no doubt that that matter could properly be sorted out by the south western regional health authority, which is responsible for managing its own affairs. The process followed by Mr. Duncan Nichol, the chief executive of the Health Service, was perfectly proper and carried out with my knowledge and approval. He produced 178 expressions of interest in self-governing status from people who saw the potential of what we are proposing for their particular units.
The debate will move on as implementation proceeds. I have no doubt that a momentum for change will build up inside the Health Service and will at last oblige the Opposition to move on and to face up to the fact that the actions of my right hon. Friends and myself are the actions

923
of friends of the National Health Service who see the way in which it should be reformed to improve the standards of service for patients in future years.
I believe that the Labour party and its allies and the more reactionary people in the professions and elsewhere will be overtaken by great events in the National Health Service over the coming years. The debate will be regarded as a footnote to the events taking place at the moment. I believe that the GPs' contract will shortly be resolved to the satisfaction of the best doctors and certainly their patients. That will be only the first step in a great process of reform which the Labour party cannot stop and of which we will be extremely proud when we have completed it.
8.10 pm
Mr. William McKelvey: I make a brief foray into the debate on behalf of Opposition Back-Bench Members to say that today the alternative select committee on Scottish affairs published its first report on the Health Service in Scotland. I recommend that the Secretary of State reads the document, which contradicts much of what he said. The vast majority of the evidence that we collected from people in Scotland working in and for the Health Service, from those who have benefited from the Health Service and from medical practitioners bears out much of what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) from the Opposition Front Bench.
Much of the document is relevant only to Scotland, and I shall not bore the House with details in which hon. Members may not be particularly interested. But there are great similarities between the Health Service in Scotland and in England and great comparisons are made in our document. I shall read out some of the document, a copy of which is in the Library. Additional copies can be purchased from my good self at the price of £1·50. The reason for the charge is that the alternative select committee for Scottish affairs has to provide its own funds for its investigations, due to the failure of the House to set up a proper Select Committee on Scottish Affairs. As we are not allowed to be financed by the establishment, perhaps on Thursday the new Leader of the House will be convinced to attempt to get Scottish Conservative Back-Bench Members interested in the Health Service and all Scottish affairs, and to organise a proper Select Committee to look into these matters.
We did quite well with the resources that we had, and the document is quite well presented. In its evidence to the committee, the British Medical Association voiced some of its worries. It said:
"The introduction of an extended internal market, could have a number of adverse effects for consumers:

1. More patients would have to travel more often.

2. There could be particular problems for the elderly of those who have young children and friends/relatives could find visiting more difficult.

3. Post-operative follow up at out-patient clinics might not be carried out by the same consultant who performed the surgery."

The document continued
"The Committee was also unconvinced by the assertion that the form of internal market being proposed would increase 'consumer' choice. At present the decision as to where treatment will take place is made individually between the patient and his or her GP or consultant. The patient's relatives may also be involved, especially if the patient is mentally ill, mentally handicapped or elderly. If Health
924
Boards entered into trading agreements with each other or with third parties to provide blocks of patient services, this individual choice would inevitably be reduced."
That is quite the opposite of what the Secretary of State was saying at the Dispatch Box. That difference should be noted.
The report continued:
"Some witnesses raised concern that English codes of practice were inappropriate for Scotland. The Scottish Association of Local Health Councils pointed out that Scottish lists sizes are approximately 1,600, whereas English list sizes are approximately 2,000, that is 25 per cent. larger. The minimum list size for a General Practitioner to receive a budgetary allowance is 1,100. However there are increasing concerns that this is far too small."
I know that discussions are taking place, and perhaps agreement is being reached on these matters.
The report continued:
"North American researchers have shown how volatile such budgeting would be if implemented at this level (for example, R. Scheffler writing in the Lancet, 1989). Alain Enthoven, the American economist who first proposed the concept of the internal market, has recently suggested in the British Medical Journal that the minimum size would have to be 50,000 if the scheme was to be operational. The Committee is concerned that if the minimum list size which determines the viability of budgetary-based trading is not known, then the proposals themselves will not be viable. The Committee recommends that some degree of experimentation is undertaken before any policy is implemented."
I picked up in my mail the "Parliamentary Newsheet" from the Market Research Society—a document which I seldom read or quote. It contained an interesting article entitled "GPs' reaction to the White paper".
It said:
"Recent research by the British Pharmaceutical Market Research Group has found that GPs have become considerably more negative in response to the Government's White Paper proposals in the period since those proposals were first published. This is the overall finding of a study of 466 GPs.
An earlier study was conducted immediately after the publication of the White Paper and revealed that half of GPs questioned disagreed that there were any patient benefits. That figure has now risen to 84 per cent. disagreeing that patients would benefit overall."
That was despite, or perhaps because of, the Government's propaganda on the White Paper, and their explanations, which were certainly not plausible to general practitioners or to members of the public.
The most mail that I have had for a considerable time comes from ordinary people who write to me—not the photocopied letters or postcards provided by general practitioners—with real concern that the Government are not genuinely attempting to improve the lot of patients in the National Health Service. My constituents are worried that we are turning the National Health Service into a profit-making business and putting that before patient care. I have received hundreds of letters, which I shall eventually dispatch to the Secretary of State, as I have promised my constituents, so that he can read some of the comments in them.
When the Secretary of State outlined his discussions with the British Medical Association, and said that an agreement had been reached by its representatives and then overturned by a small majority at its subsequent conference, he did not provide the figures. I agree that there was a small majority. On 21 June 1989, a special conference of local medical committees voted against by 166 to 150. In anybody's language that was a majority, so

925
the representatives of the local medical committees did not agree with the General Medical Services Committee, which had agreed the deal with the Secretary of State.
The representatives of the local medical committees then insisted that a referendum was held of all general practitioners. I assume that they would have had to insist on that, whatever decision the majority had taken. Had the numbers been reversed, would the Secretary of State have said today that the majority was very narrow? Would the Secretary of State have demanded that, as the majority had accepted it, the majority should rule, and that the acceptance should be final and a burden on the rest of the medical practitioners?
When the general practitioners examined the offer which had been agreed by the GMSC negotiators, they disagreed completely with the representations made on acceptance. About 82·1 per cent. of doctors who work in the National Health Service voted and, of those, 24 per cent. voted to accept. There was a massive majority and the more the Secretary of State hurls insults at general practitioners rather than trying to explain the deal, the worse matters will become.
I hope that, as a mere Back-Bench Member, I may have the temerity to offer some advice to the Secretary of State. There are many people whose integrity one can attack. It is difficult to attack an hon. Member's integrity in the House, as it is not allowed, but outside the House, the integrity of Members of Parliament is attacked daily by their constituents; they seem to be fair game. It would be extremely difficult if one was to start to attack the integrity of some of the professional people whom we must regard with respect. In Scotland, we may get away with attacking the legal profession—sometimes that is quite fashionable. We may even get away with attacking ministers of religion, depending on which side of the fence we are on and the company we are keeping at the time.
However, neither in Scotland nor in the whole of Great Britain will one get away with attacking the integrity of doctors working in the National Health Service, who put in extraordinarily long hours on behalf of their patients, who look after the sick and the elderly and who do their best to look after the handicapped, often with services that are stretched to the limit. The public do not need a propaganda exercise to tell them that the doctors are under attack when the Secretary of State goes on television to say that doctors are reaching for their wallets.
The elderly in particular depend on their general practitioners, often in the middle of the night, when they are under stress and when there are epidemics of flu, for example. Elderly people feel passionately strongly for those who give them such good service, and they appreciate the kindness when they are under severe stress. I am afraid that on this occasion, as on other occasions, the Secretary of State has made a severe gaffe. He would do better to try to resolve the position by getting the general practitioners round the table to start afresh, if necessary.
As long ago as 1985, the general practitioners in the British Medical Association were seeking meetings with the Secretary of State on negotiations for a new contract. If such negotiations were resumed, if the Secretary of State took into consideration the genuine feelings of members of the public who, from the responses to our review, are
926
almost 100 per cent. in support not only of the National Health Service, but of those who work in it, and if we tried to use the money that we have to inject more cash into the National Health Service, and use and monitor it properly, instead of trying to make the National Health Service cheaper—to make those who work at the Cinderella end of the National Health Service pay the price for the money that has to be saved to buy equipment that should have been provided anyway—I shall believe that we are making the real progress that people demand and will demand through the ballot box at the next election.
8.24 pm
Mr. John Greenway: It is worth stressing that the Government's record on the National Health Service and their proposals for the future of that service are arguably the most misrepresented feature of their policy. Over the past 10 years, we have seen resources increase by 40 per cent. in real terms. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development figures now show that we are talking of 6·1 per cent. of gross domestic product spent on health care, as opposed to 5·3 per cent. 10 years ago. That is a tribute to the efforts the Government have made.
I am sorry to see that the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) has left the Chamber. He alone is responsible for the most blatant misrepresentation of the Government's reforms. Even before the White Paper was published, he said that there were plans for hospitals to opt out of the NHS. There are no such plans. I see in the longer term—perhaps a decade and a half—a system in which there will be commissioning agents and bodies providing the service on a self-governing basis, whether hospitals or community services.
The Opposition motion seeks to exploit last week's vote by GPs to reject the contract agreed on 4 May between my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State and the General Medical Services Committee. I must declare a personal interest in the matter in the sense that, as my hon. Friends are aware, the chairman of the General Medical Services Committee, Dr. Michael Wilson, is my own GP and a personal friend. I have had opportunities to discuss the matter with him on a number of occasions to a greater extent than one would normally expect as a Back-Bench Conservative Member.
I am pleased that my right hon. and learned Friend referred to the negotiations which took place in the weeks leading up to 4 May and the events of 4 May. There is no doubt that a fair and reasonable compromise was reached in those negotiations. My right hon. and learned Friend will accept that the many representations from hon. Members of all parties about features of the first version of the contract were helpful, especially in relation to rural practice payments, part-time allowances and targets for screening and immunisation.
I was interested to hear my right hon. and learned Friend's remark about yesterday's discussion, from which some believe that all the contract is up for renegotiation. Clearly, that is not possible. If I heard my right hon. and learned Friend correctly, he said that if there were some specific details in the contract on which further discussion might be appropriate, we should enter into further negotiations on them. However, there can be only a few. I have asked the chairman of the GMSC to let me and colleagues know whether there are any particular points that they feel are still a problem. I say that because I do not

927
believe that it does either side of the argument any benefit to perpetuate a war of words. We now need constructive proposals for the future of the Health Service, and we must take the White Paper proposals forward as quickly as we can.
Conservative Members have had many letters that reflect the misinformation and misrepresentation that abounds about the White Paper. I received one letter from a lady who said:
"I have been told by a visitor that when the new NHS starts, my GP will have a limited amount of money to spend on his patients. Because of this, when the money runs out, he will not be able to pay the District Nurses."
Fortunately, I was able quickly to send her a reply from the district general manager of the York health authority, in which he said that he could reassure the lady
"completely that there will be no risk, whatsoever, of reducing our District Nursing Service … there are plans for a substantial increase in the number of nurses and physiotherapists and occupational therapists."
It goes on to say that there is every sign that the district health authorities would be able to increase community services because, in the world which the White Paper envisages, they
"will have much more time to focus on determining what the public actually want and will get hold of the purse strings so as to be able to ensure that they get it."
At the 1922 Committee meeting last week, the Prime Minister stated a clear objective that we would want to see—namely, a National Health Service that is so good that people will not want private treatment. That is an objective for the future. Nevertheless, yet again it shows the Government's clear commitment to improving the NHS for the benefit of patients. In those circumstances, in trying to help doctors and their representatives to achieve the best for the NHS, Conservative Members have a right to ask them to reconsider whether the slogan of their current campaign, "SOS for the NHS", is appropriate. There is a meeting going on in York tonight under that very banner. It is sad that misrepresentations that will create yet more fear and anxiety in the minds of vulnerable patients are still being perpetuated, despite the comments of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.
We need a constructive debate. Patients are rightly asked what difference the White Paper proposals would make for them. District health authorities will have a much stronger brief to find out from patients what they consider should be provided, rather than rely entirely on staff saying what they think they should have. In the York health authority area, several changes are to be implemented over the next two years, taking very much the same stance as the White Paper, to improve the Health Service, make it more responsive to patients, and cut waiting lists. That would inevitably mean changes for the staff. Perhaps one can begin to understand why some staff elements are opposed to further development towards a more flexible response.
Flexibility is one of the key strengths of the White Paper. It is not prescriptive. It provides freedom to develop the service that a regional health authority considers best for its region. Only today I spoke to the chairman of Yorkshire regional health authority, and it is his view that we in Yorkshire can develop the kind of service that we believe is best for Yorkshire. That is because the White Paper offers opportunities. As I have already said, it is not prescriptive.
In their misrepresentation of the Government's proposals, the Opposition have attempted to give the
928
impression that the changes in the White Paper will be steamrollered through. That is not the case. The more one discusses these plans with district and regional health authorities and with FPCs, the more it becomes clear that they are long-term reforms. The implementation of the proposals will take time. It is clear also that, initially, it 'will be largely experimental.
Ms. Harriet Harman: Will the hon. Gentleman support people in Yorkshire who want a say before any of their hospitals become self-governing NHS hospital trusts and opt out of the district health authority?
Mr. Greenway: They are not going to opt out of the district health authority. As I understand it from the working papers that have been issued, the district health authority will still have power to decide where contracts are placed.
Mr. McCartney: Is the answer no?
Mr. Greenway: The answer is that, until there are proposals for a certain hospital to take self-governing status, nobody knows what the consultation requirements will be.
Mr. Hayes: Is my hon. Friend saying that it is ridiculous to have ballots either in a hospital or the community at large and that, perhaps, the proper focus of attention, as happens now when a hospital opens or closes, is through a community health council?
Mr. Greenway: There will be improved opportunities for CHCs when health authorities are slimmed down in the way the White Paper proposes. If there were any kind of ballot, referendum, or public opinion test about the White Paper proposals, it would be difficult to see how the public could express a clear view, given the degree of misrepresentation about the White Paper proposals.
Mr. Archie Kirkwood: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Greenway: I will not give way. I must get on, as other hon. Members wish to speak.
It is difficult to reconcile hon. Members' arguments on radio and television that the Government are steamrolling through the White Paper proposals, when every serious major structural change will be voluntary. Following my right hon. and learned Friend's statement two weeks ago about community care—we are to implement by April 1991 a positive and absolute change, when local social services departments will have responsibility for community care—we are accused of prevarication and delay. It will not be too many weeks or months before some social services directors begin to think that perhaps 1991 is too soon. Clearly, people will argue for or against the While Paper according to how it suits their political persuasions. I am much more concerned that we should now advance the proposals and take the next necessary steps to put the much-needed and imaginative reforms into place.
Task forces will have to be set up by regions to examine the opportunity for each hospital that has expressed an interest in self-governing status. From my discussions about what might happen in our area in Yorkshire, it is clear that consultants, district general managers and their management teams want more information. I understand that an additional working paper will be issued shortly. I should be most grateful if my hon. Friend the Minister of

929
State would refer to the timetable that he envisages. We need to know how the trust will increase choice, which hospitals may want to be self-governing, how the management of self-governing hospitals will work, and what discussions about contract details must take place with the district health authorities.
In other words, before any hospital becomes self-governing, we need to establish whether a proposed self-governing hospital can deliver something that improves the current arrangements. In answer to the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman), when we have got that far and we can publicise those arrangements, the public will have a much clearer impression of what is proposed.
Mr. Kirkwood: Does the hon. Gentleman recommend opting out?
Mr. Greenway: What I recommend will depend entirely on what is proposed. There is a community hospital in my constituency to which I referred my right hon. and learned Friend during Question Time several weeks ago——
Mr. Kirkwood: Is the Secretary of State going to close it?
Mr. Greenway: No, he is not going to close it. That hospital has expressed an interest in self-government. The doctors concerned have expressed a clear interest in having their own practice budget, combined with self-governing status for the community hospital. The Yorkshire regional health authority chairman and the family practitioner committee clerk have expressed the view that that is an exciting prospect.
In answer to the point by the hon. Member for Peckham, it is too early to tell whether that proposal can become a reality for that hospital. We need the information that I have mentioned, and we need to look at each case. That is why I am asking my hon. Friend the Minister of State to tell the House what further proposals there are for the additional working papers.
Ms. Harman: The hon. Gentleman misunderstands my question. I did not ask whether he would recommend that a hospital in his constituency should become self-governing. I asked whether he would recommend that people in his constituency should have a say in whether that hospital becomes self-governing.
Mr. Greenway: The Friends of Malton Hospital is an active association which, I am sure, would want to test local opinion on opting out. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has made it clear that any hospital that wishes to become self-governing must provide clear information on whether that will be to the benefit of the patients. There will have to be a proper management structure. At this stage, it is not valid to ask people about their reactions to the proposals when the necessary additional information is not available.
Once the contract for GPs is settled, health authorities will need to encourage their bigger practices to adopt a budget. My impression is that GPs are aware that they will face a choice between adopting a budget and being left behind. By voting against the contract last week, they have perpetuated the confusion about the contract and the
930
White Paper. It is difficult not to conclude that the confusion of the two issues is a delaying tactic by some members of the medical profession.
It must be recognised that some elements of the Government's plans require more detailed explanation. That is especially so for indicative drug budgets. Initially, they will need to be very indicative if the reassurance that patients will not go without medicine and appliances is to be honoured. We must also take care not to discourage pharmaceutical research. Nevertheless, one question about drug budgets needs to be asked: why the Government are aiming to curb the worst excesses of drugs spending only by GPs and not by hospitals. The answer, of course, is that hospitals already have proper arrangements for generic prescribing to curb spending.
When the proposals in the White Paper are in place, there will be an opportunity for regional health authorities to hold the budget for drugs. That will create the opportunity for bulk purchasing. Will such opportunities be exploited? What purchasing role is envisaged for regional pharmaceutical officers appointed by regional health authorities? Surely their role should include ensuring value for money for regional health authorities as well as protecting the pharmacists.
There was some discussion earlier about how to square the circle between the Government's desire to introduce tax relief or private medical insurance for pensioners with the stated objective of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, to which I have already referred. Opposition Members may be interested—I can obtain copies for them if they are—in Post Magazine The Insurance Weekly last week, which published a series of articles about the future of private medical insurance. One article deals with the reasons why some people prefer private medical care. It states:
"Why do people choose to go for private treatment when there is a free National Health Service? Market research indicates the reasons are that they can enter hospital quickly and they can choose their admission date, and thus avoid holidays and particular business commitments. They have a choice of which hospital they wish to be treated in, and they can choose their specialist when there is no choice on the NHS. They can have a single room with telephone and their own bathroom and there are flexible visiting hours for family, colleagues and friends."
It then states—this is the key point:
"The NHS is making improvements as private hospitals have demonstrated how the patient environment can be improved."
Putting the patient first, as the White Paper states, is the purpose of the reforms.
I welcome the opportunity that the House has been given to debate these matters tonight. However, in securing this debate, the Opposition have scored something of an own goal. The vote against the contract last week was a sad embarrassment for the General Medical Services Committee, not for the Government. As my right hon. and learned Friend said, if he is forced to impose a contract, it will be the contract agreed to by the GMSC.
8.46 pm
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: The hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) made an interesting speech, although he looked very uncomfortable throughout most of it, especially when he was referring to the potential closure or opting-out of hospitals in his area.

931
I understood the hon. Gentleman to say that he was in favour of the Secretary of State renegotiating certain aspects of the proposed GP contract. I agree with that. He referred to his distinguished constituent Dr. Wilson, chairman of the General Medical Services Committee, who negotiated the contract that was so resoundingly rejected in the ballot. I am sure that Dr. Wilson conducted his negotiations in good faith and that he recommended the deal to GPs only because he thought that he could not get the Secretary of State to move an inch further. It remains to be seen whether he is right, but certainly the Secretary of State appears to be setting his face against any further movement—despite the advice of the hon. Member for Ryedale.
It is silly nonsense for good and useful hospitals such as Malton. in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, to consider opting out jus t to preserve their existence. I am sure that Dr. Wilson would agree that it would be better to turn it into a community hospital, run by GPs, to serve the local community.
I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman that the Opposition have shot themselves in the foot. The debate is both timely and important because of the result of the GPs' ballot last week. I shall concentrate my brief remarks on that. More than anything else, the profession is suffering from the Secretary of State's adopted attitude during the negotiations. I for one was surprised by the size of the vote to reject the proposed contract. It might, however, have been different had the right hon. and learned Gentleman been a little more conciliatory during the negotiations. He used insults when GPs needed answers; he used threats when he should have negotiated. He lost the argument not only because of the detail but because of his hostility to people's genuine concerns. It would be a major breakthrough if he accepted that doctors and patients have genuine concerns that need to be dealt with rather than sneered at.
The proposed contract is not entirely about pay and conditions of service; it goes much wider. It embraces the whole future of the development of primary care. I profoundly reject the Government's view that the row is simply one about how much income GPs will receive in the future. I object to the Secretary of State writing letters to Members of Parliament which include sentences such as:
"The current argument over the GPs' contract which is often confused with the White Paper arises from contract negotiations involving doctors' salaries."
A great deal of the argument is about the future of primary care—and, for rural areas, the very existence of primary health care. The Government are attempting to switch the focus of the argument and make pay the issue, so that they can use salaries as a weapon to cut costs and to impose their vision of a market-led NHS.
Doctors would respond positively to a new and radically different contract. They are not interested only in pay and conditions. As evidence of that, as far back as 1985, the eminent Dr. Wilson wrote to the Department expressing his disappointment at the speed of progress on the contract. At that time he called for the development of
"a comprehensive system of paediatric surveillance, by extending the cervical screening programmes and by encouraging GPs to undertake minor surgery for their NHS patients."
In that letter, Dr. Wilson outlined other proposals, including reducing the maximum list size, improving incentives to appoint additional partners to practices,
932
encouraging the development of GP community hospitals such as the one in Malton under threat of closure. ending arbitrary restrictions on patient choice——
Mr. John Greenway: Will the hon. Gentleman accept from me that the chairmen of Scarborough health authority and Yorkshire regional health authority have categorically stated that Malton community hospital is not under threat of closure? There is only a review of the services of the peripheral units within Scarborough district. The hospital is not under threat of closure.
Mr. Kirkwood: I accept that. It is always dangerous to stray into another Member's constituency issues. I shall only say, in Mr. Asquith's famous words, that we should all just wait and see.
In 1985, Dr. Wilson was in the business of trying to promote some of the very matters that arise in the current draft contract. The list that he sent to the Government also included improving services in isolated rural communities. Those proposals could have been the basis of an exciting new and agreed blueprint for the future of primary care. Instead, because of the Government's ineptitude in handling negotiations, the contract will mean that GPs will spend less time with individual patients and less time on preventive medicine and health promotion. It will be extremely difficult to make the contract work in rural areas at all.
My constituency is a rural area and no one there is in favour of using competition as a way of improving primary care in rural areas. The Government's disinterest in the development of primary care is illustrated on the first page of the proposed contract document, where it says that central to the Government's plan for improving general medical services is
"increasing competition between the providers of the services."
None of my constituents who have heard of that new proposal believes that competition is central to his other hopes for the development of primary health care in the NHS. The existence of facilities is the crucial factor. There are few practices within easy reach of my constituents or competing hospitals to which they can turn. I do not see how the new proposals sit easily with the provision of primary care in rural areas.
That applies in particular to how the proposals will tend to increase list sizes. Two years ago, when the original White Paper on primary care "Promoting Better Health" was published, we warned that establishing a direct link between the number of patients on a GP's list and GPs' remuneration would have severe consequences in rural areas. Since then, the position has been made worse. There is now much more emphasis on the income available to GPs in rural areas being related to the size of their lists. In my constituency, the proportion of total income derived by GPs is in the region of 27 per cent. and the contract that we are debating takes that to 60 per cent.—55 per cent. plus marginal changes. That will have a catastrophic effect on income. I understand that the rural practice allowances are still under consideration and that the so-called tartan contract has been extended to cover other parts of the United Kingdom. But we cannot escape the fundamental problem in rural areas in Scotland that general practitioners currently receive 27 per cent. of their income from capitation fees; but under the new scheme that will be at least 55 per cent.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Roger Freeman): Rural practice allowances are still being discussed. There has been no decision. We recognise and understand the pressures on rural practice in England, and an announcement will be made in due course.
Mr. Kirkwood: I am deeply concerned about rural practice in England, but I also have more than a passing interest in rural practice in Scotland. I accept that the Government made a concession, and I said that it was welcome at the time, but the effect in Scotland will be dire. Some practices face a massive loss in income and may go out of business. That will lead to doctors retiring early and to some practices not taking on new partners or waiting a year or two before deciding to do so. I accept that in wealthy areas some practices will have the means to attract entirely new patients; that is what the Government are trying to achieve.
Let me deal now with the effect of increased list sizes on prevention. Average list sizes will inevitably increase because of the fall in the number of GPs for the reasons that I have just explained. Within that average size there will be stark changes that will tend to act to the detriment of patients. Doctors will have less time with individual patients and less time for time-consuming preventive medicine and health promotion. Nor will there be time for doctors to visit factories and schools or to take the health promotion message to those areas which are missing out. If the increase in the link between pay and the number of patients is not designed to increase list sizes, what do the Government think they are doing increasing the capitation income?
I welcome the fact that, as the Minister said, the system of rural practice payments, is set to continue in England and Wales. We hope that that is true. They were properly taken out of the negotiations and, as I said at the time, we welcome that. However, will the Minister confirm that so far there has been no decision to impose changes to the rural practices payments and that he will continue to consult? Even if there are no other negotiations on the contract details, which the Secretary of State seems to be saying is the case, will discussions at least continue on that aspect of the rural practices payments scheme?
What other important areas will be changed by the draft regulations on rural areas that the Minister discussed with the doctors? There is great concern. I cannot believe that he does not know that already. People such as Dr. Farrow, the chairman of the rural practices committee of the General Medical Services Committee, described the original proposals as
"a devious blow and would probably result in the rape of the rural practice."
Dr. John Ball, the chairman of the general medical committee, a Government-appointed committee, said recently that even if rural practice payments continue in their present form, the new proposals would mean that half the English and Welsh practices that have fewer than 1,500 patients will not survive. In Scotland, where list sizes are lower, 25 per cent. of practices would not survive. Those are the sort of terms that we are talking of.
Finally, let me deal with the unrealistic nature of target payments that are being proposed. The Borders area health board has achieved 92 per cent. immunisation. It has always given proper priority to achieving a high immunisation rate, which is in the interests of everyone. However, the Government system of performance-related
934
pay is causing concern further south. The current targets for screening and immunisation remain unrealistic, and will be made more so because of the extra time spent dealing with the bureaucracy inherent in the contract. The systems of paediatric and geriatric surveillance that the contract stipulates are time-consuming and will produce very little reward in return for a high degree of effort.
The Government's system, even in its modified form, will not work. It will be difficult to decide on the base number of patients. FPC and general practitioners' lists rarely agree because of the lists' ever-changing nature. GPs in deprived areas will be penalised because the migratory population that they serve will make it difficult to trace target groups, and even then they must be convinced of the need for screening and other provisions. Cultural differences mean that many women are anyway reluctant to undergo smear testing.
There is also a need for exclusions from immunisation. I refer to whooping cough and the pertussis vaccination that is the subject of medical controversy of which the Minister is surely aware. A number of patients have medical histories that prohibit them from receiving vaccinations against whooping cough, and they should be excluded from any calculation of a general practitioner's vaccination target. Evidently I did not explain that point very clearly, because the Minister's brow is furrowed. Nevertheless the Government's system of target payments for cervical screening and immunisation schemes are unrealistic.
The Secretary of State must return to the conference table to renegotiate the terms of the new contract. It- he does not, it will be the first contract in history that has not been implemented by agreement, and we shall move into a period of non-co-operation by general practitioners that will not be in the interests of the Government, doctors or patients. Certainly it will not be in the interests of people living in rural areas. I hope that the Government will properly consider all those matters when giving the right hon. and learned Gentleman future instructions as to whether to continue negotiating with the General Medical Services Council.
9.1 pm
Mr. Jerry Hayes: The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) says that the Government should return to the negotiating table. The truth is that the Government reached an agreement with the General Medical Services Council and British Medical Association negotiators that was welcomed by Dr. Michael Wilson and recommended for acceptance by the BMA's membership in true trade union style. The trouble is that, in true trade union style, Dr. Wilson and the BMA so whipped up the blood of the association's members that they rejected the agreement. Only a few weeks after sensible negotiations, and after sensible concessions were made by Ministers, the BMA said, "This sort of agreement comes from the jaws of Hades," and the doctors became upset.
The hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) was right, for once, to bring to the attention of the House the serious difficulties facing the Health Service, particularly in respect of waiting lists. It may be helpful if I quote the BMA's chairman on that issue:
"The sum of human misery represented by those record figures is a scandal without parallel in any technically developed country."

935
I am certain that the hon. Member for Livingston and his right hon. and hon. Friends agree with that sentiment, as will the rest of the House. But it was expressed by Dr. James Cameron, chairman of the BMA, in 1978. Nothing changes very much. Lord Donoughue, writing in his memoirs about Labour Government cuts—I do not want to go too much into old history—commented:
"It was the usual rag bag of random cuts in public investment … cuts in education, the National Health and public industry investment were imposed in full … Half the cuts were in capital investment."
I shall offer one more quotation from the past:
"I do not believe that the problem"
of soaring waiting lists
"would be solved by any means by simply holding on to a large number of small, uneconomic hospitals."—[Official Report, 10 May 1977; Vol. 931, c. 1087.]
One can imagine what the response of the hon. Member for Livingston and his right hon. and hon. Friends would be if that remark had been made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State, or by my hon. and learned Friend the Minister. In fact, that statement was made by the then Labour Secretary of State for Social Services, David Ennals.
What has changed, however, is the amount of money that is pumped into the Health Service. I do not necessarily agree with the argument that relates such expenditure to gross domestic product, but it is used from time to time. When the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen), who is not now in the Chamber, was Health Minister in the halycon days of the Wilson Government, that Government were spending 4·8 per cent. of GDP on health. In the days of David Ennals and the Callaghan Government, the figure was 5·3 per cent. Now, in the wicked days of the Thatcher junta, we are spending 6·1 per cent., and that does not include private health care. Nor does it take into account the fact that the economy is positively booming, and not on the rocks as it was in the days of the last Labour Government.
The trouble is that none of us knows where the money is going. We do not know the cost of treatment and operations, and if we do not know that, how on earth can we plan for the future? That is the essence of the reforms in the White Paper, and what we should be discussing this evening.
It is probably the exception to the rule, but I have read the motion very carefully. It has all the balance of a wet blancmange. At one moment the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) wobbles on the subject of the Prime Minister; at another he wobbles on private health insurance. Not so long ago, it was easy for the hon. Gentleman to have a crack at the Prime Minister for using private health care. The fact is that we have a democracy, and people have the right to choose: that is the basis of Government policy, although the hon. Gentleman disagrees with it. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has done something very important in stating publicly that the Government's aim is to make the Health Service so good that people will neither want nor need to use private medicine. As the hon. Gentleman said, they use it now to jump queues. The White Paper proposals will stop the queues forming in the first place.
I cannot understand the Opposition's paranoia about private practice. I could understand that paranoia if the Government were proposing a Health Service that was not free at the point of delivery; I could understand it if they were proposing a Health Service that would not be funded
936
primarily from taxation. Those, however, are the major principles behind the proposed reforms, as is made categorically clear.
The West Essex health authority, in my constituency, has one of the 22 longest waiting lists in the country. My people are waiting two years for hernia operations.
Mr. McCartney: That is how a Tory Government treat them.
Mr. Hayes: I do not consider it right or fair that my constituents should have to wait two years for a hip or cataract operation, when the health authority could have the opportunity of giving the patient the choice of going a little further up the road and having the operation done privately—provided that the patient does not have to pay for it and the health authority does not have to provide any more money. That strikes me as absolute common sense. We are proposing to allow people choice and the chance of having their pain and suffering removed quickly.
Judging by what we see on television and in the newspapers, hear on the radio and, indeed, hear from Opposition Members, one would think that the medical profession was 100 per cent. against the proposals. But those of us who go around the country speaking to the presidents of the royal colleges, to general practitioners and to hospital consultants can tell Opposition Members that those people—including the British Medical Association and the Joint Consultative Council—are in favour of medical audit. They have been pushing for it for years. They are also in favour of resource management: many of them have been pushing for that for years. They are in favour of money travelling with the patient, because they know that it will lead to the abolition of the efficiency trap.
Without those three fundamental foundation stones of policy, there will not be self-governing hospitals or GPs' voluntary practice budgets. If self-governing hospitals are as wicked as some people say, people will not want to take up the proposal. If voluntary budgets are as hopeless as some people say, GPs will not put their names in for them. It is a matter of choice. There is agreement about the fundamental reforms of medical audit, money travelling with the patient and resource management, and as the Secretary of State said earlier, those constitute 80 per cent. of the proposals.
I was bemused by something said about the GPs' contract. Many hon. Members have talked to a large number of GPs over the past few weeks. Anyone who has read the letter from Dr. Michael Wilson will see that they are in favour of the main thrust of the contract and have been pushing for many of the major proposals of the contract for a number of years. However, I am saddened when GPs tell me that they cannot see the point of visiting someone over the age of 75. They say that it is a waste of time. I cannot understand GPs who ask why on earth they should bother about screening when it simply means that they will find more things wrong with the patient. I cannot understand GPs who ask why they should have to immunise in the way the Government say, even though our figures are well below what the World Health Organisation advocates. That is absolutely wrong.
The Opposition were right to have some doubts about private medical insurance. However, they could have had more doubts if the Government were planning to offer overall tax relief for private medicine. That would be

937
totally wrong because it would withdraw a great deal of funding from the Health Service. That is not the case. The Government are trying to help the elderly, many of whom may have been trade unionists, who had many options open to them through their companies and who find as soon as they retire that those options stop. It is all a matter of choice.
I am not criticising the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman), but when she goes home tonight she will go back to a nanny. There is nothing wrong with the hon. Lady having a nanny to look after her children. She does not receive tax relief for it, although some say that she should. She is probably not satisfied with the sort of cover available to her children in the community. However, it is her choice. There is not a great Labour party campaign against nannies and there is not a whacking great trade union of nannies which pays the Labour party. Therefore, it is hypocritical for the Labour party to criticise the Government's proposals in this way.
I have read the motion carefully. I hope that the hon. Members for Livingston and for Peckham will look carefully at the first line and welcome with enthusiasm the Prime Minister's pledge and support what she has been saying, as it is a laudable aim.
9.14 pm
Mr. Ian McCartney: Having listened to the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Hayes), I have decided to tear up my original speech. The hon. Gentleman and I have one thing in common—we are both members of the Select Committee on Social Services, which has considered the review being proposed by the Government. Its final report will be produced on 10 August. I am rightly bound by the rules of the House not to discuss its contents, although they have been widely discussed in The Independent, The Guardian and other newspapers.
Whatever the recommendations of the Committee, its members—including many Conservative Members—were influenced by the evidence received through cross-examination, personal interview and other means when considering carefully the Government's proposals. Throughout the Committee's investigations, the attitude of the Secretary of State, which he displayed today, was sometimes foolish and sometimes insulting. With one exception, he displayed the same attitude to and perceptions about the working role of the Committee, despite the attempts of its members to try to tease out of him the Government's intentions for implementing their proposals.
The hon. Member for Harlow is a barrister. He proved tonight that if a barrister is given a brief he will argue that black is white. On 24 May, the Committee produced an interim report based on evidence received and the cross-examination of the Secretary of State and his senior officials. The hon. Member for Harlow signed that report. Time will not allow me to go through all the report's conclusions, so I shall read only two with which the hon. Member for Harlow agreed. The report says:
'''A programme of persistent improvement … will provide a more effective way forward for the National Health Service than the search for a radical reconstruction of the service.'"
The hon. Member for Harlow agreed with the report's final conclusion, which says:
938
"If the Government's proposed timetable for introducing the vastly greater changes to the health service proposed in the White Paper is adhered to, we have serious fears that the stability of services and continuity of patient care may suffer during the years of transition to a new, untested system. As we said in our Report last year:
'the strengths of the NHS should not be cast aside in a short-term effort to remedy some of its weaknesses'.
That remains our considered view."
That was the considered view of the hon. Member for Harlow on 24 May. I am saying not that he is trying to bring his profession into disrepute, but that in the white heat of argument this evening——
Mr. Hayes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. McCartney: I will give way in a minute.
The hon. Gentleman is trying to protect the Government, which is an honourable intention for a Conservative Member, but he is suffering from amnesia about the evidence that he assisted in taking, which he supported only a few weeks ago.
Mr. Hayes: The hon. Gentleman should read the report carefully. Although I am unable to talk about the report until 10 August, a minority report will be produced in due course. Everything with which I agreed in the report is a matter of public record. I have never said that I wholeheartedly agree with the Government's timetable. The part of the report to which the hon. Gentleman referred was written after we had heard from the Secretary of State. As will be apparent from the next report, the Secretary of State made it clear that the projects will be pilot projects in all but name. He further said that they would be evolved and run in, which satisfied me, and I hope will satisfy the hon. Gentleman. I should be grateful if he did not misrepresent the work of a respectable Committee.
Mr. McCartney: Far be it from me, a member of the Committee, to misrepresent it. I fear that, following the example of many barristers in tight corners, the hon. Gentleman is wriggling. The report in question was produced and voted on after interviews with the Secretary of State, accompanied by officials of his Department, on two occasions.
Mr. Hayes: It was written before that.
Mr. McCartney: I have made my point, and the hon. Gentleman will have to be content to allow history to determine whether my or his version is more acceptable to the nation—if indeed the nation decides to take note of what either of us has said.
Rather than being acceptable to the communities covered by the district health authorities, the review is provoking panic in many areas. For example, I have in my area the Wigan health authority, one of the largest metropolitan areas in Britain in terms of population and geographical size, with four parliamentary constituencies. It contains a number of district hospitals.
That authority has reached the interim conclusion not to support the concept of opting out, but it is fearful that competition will mean that the district hospitals will not be able to compete in the ever-increasing scramble for resources. The health authority takes the view that resources have been cut consistently every year by the Conservatives through the north-west regional authorities and through political appointments such as the chairmen of the region and district health authorities.

939
In other words, the district health authority's political chairman and the politically appointed district general manager have come up with a radical new idea following the decision not to opt out. Their idea is to close all our district general hospitals. Their proposal would asset-strip and sell off the land to whatever speculator would like to purchase Whelley, Billinge, Atherleigh and Astley hospitals and the Royal Albert Edward infirmary in Wigan. Their argument for asset-stripping such a large organisation of its district resources is to amalgamate them into one component.
Within the last 48 hours, on the ground of an emergency financial crisis, it has been decided to close one of our hospitals which cares for the mentally confused elderly and people suffering from senile dementia. Because it is claimed that an emergency exists, it is proposed not to consult the community health council, the patients' representatives or the patients' relatives.
I understand that, perhaps even this evening, those patients are being moved out into the private sector. The community health team, the social services and those involved in the care of the people in that hospital have not been consulted about the adequacy or otherwise of the alternative arrangements in the private sector. Astley hospital is to close following an announcement in recent days.
A few months ago, a Minister came to Wigan to make a triumphant speech about the local Royal Albert Edward infirmary, stating that that hospital was safe in the Government's hands and that a multi-million-pound development project would go ahead. On that occasion, my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott) and I stood outside in the rain trying to make the point that a scheme was afoot to close that hospital. That was greeted with denials. Last week the health authority, in closed session, was informed that the Wigan Royal Albert Edward infirmary was indeed to close.
Assurances were given by the regional chairman, and even by the Department, that new developments taking place at Wigan infirmary would continue. We were assured that it would have a place in the 1990s as a modern district general hospital. Last week, the authority was informed that it was to close.
Not three years ago, the Department said that Billinge hospital would be developed in the 1990s on a district basis with the latest maternity facilities. We were also assured that it would have facilities for the short-term care of the mentally ill. On that basis, we agreed to the closure of a nursing facility in Leigh. That was closed and sold off for a housing development.
It was announced that weekend facilities at Billinge maternity hospital would close, and there is a long-term proposal that the maternity unit at Billinge hospital will close completely. It does not service just the Wigan health area, but also parts of the St. Helens and Knowsley health authority area, which are two of the most socially and economically deprived areas in the north-west region, which is one of the most socially deprived regions in the United Kingdom.
The facilities for the mentally confused at Billinge hospital are so overstretched that Wigan borough council social services department is having to retain patients who would, under normal conditions, be contained in the units at Billinge and at other facilities at the Leigh end of the authority. Because of the cash crisis, the social services department is having to take on the nursing requirements
940
of the mentally confused and the elderly ambulant, in growing numbers. That is the reality of, and the background to, the Government's proposals.
Not one part of the Government's proposals has shown that there will be any new financial resources available to my authority. What is happening, in advance of the proposals, is an asset-stripping job on a grand scale. Public assets worth hundreds of millions of pounds will he sold, and not one local person will be asked if they would like Wigan hospital, Billinge hospital, Leigh infirmary, Atterleigh hospital and Astley hospital to remain open.
None of us is in the ball game of keeping open hospitals that need to be closed if alternatives are provided, but we are opposed to the naked opportunism of those politically motivated people in the Health Service—people who have been appointed by Conservative Members and Conservative party members—who are asset-stripping on their behalf in advance of the Health Service reviews.
I ask the Secretary of State—with whom I have clashed several times—to institute an immediate inquiry into why Wigan health authority, on the grounds of an emergency. is taking patients out of hospitals and dumping them into the private sector, without any consultation with the social services or with those people who are currently responsible for looking after them. The least that the Secretary of State can do is give them a commitment that he will look into that within the next 24 hours.
I hope that, when the report is produced on 10 August, the Secretary of State will respond effectively to it.
Mrs. Audrey Wise: I have listened with the utmost attention, as my hon. Friend represents a constituency in the north-west, to the catalogue of disasters that are befalling his area. I do not want to compete with him by raising larger issues, as he has done, but I would like to draw my hon. Friend's attention to a small but significant matter which has occurred in my area, which shows the madness caused by the so-called search for efficiency.
Preston district health authority has saved the magnificent sum of £1,500 during the past year by cutting the availability of free incontinence pads for elderly ladies. Whether we look at the large scale, as my hon. Friend has done, or at the small scale, as I have done, the picture is the same.
Mr. McCartney: My hon. Friend is correct. On the day that the former Under-Secretary visited Wigan and salmon sandwiches and a huge banquet were provided in Billinge hospital, babies were being born and the supply of nappies had to be restricted. That shows the Government's priorities.
I hope that the Secretary of State will, after 10 August, take into account the views in the majority report, and that he will assure the public and Opposition Members that he will not ride roughshod over the doctors, the midwives and the nation, who are totally opposed to the proposals.
9.29 pm
Mr. Tony Baldry: I hope that the House will understand if, given the short time left in the debate, I do not propose to give way as much as I would like.
I think that hon. Members agree that the ultimate purpose of the National Health Service must be to improve services to patients. The White Paper's proposals will do that by giving doctors and medical staff more

941
control, by cutting central administration controls, devolving managerial power and by allowing general practitioners to become budget holders and hospitals to become self-governing—all within a framework of a publicly funded Health Service. In that way, patients will come first. The ambition of everyone must be to ensure that each and every patient in the NHS is treated as an individual.
Central to the NHS, as with every publicly funded service, must be money. It is interesting that, during the debate, we have heard little about money. The Opposition's motion must be the first motion on the NHS tabled by the Leader of the Opposition that has not alleged that the NHS is underfunded. That is perhaps because the Opposition have recognised that, whatever funding proposal they put forward, the Government will always more than match it.
Over the past 10 years, the Government have persistently and diligently provided more money for the NHS. In 1978–79 the Health Service budget was £7·75 billion and in 1989–90 it is about £26 billion. National Health Service spending has increased by 36 per cent. more than inflation and has grown more rapidly than the rate of growth of the real economy. Health spending has risen from 4·8 per cent. of GDP 10 years ago to 6·1 per cent. now. If we reverted to the funding of the NHS when the Labour party was in government, we would have to cut the number of doctors and dentists by about 14,000, the number of nurses and midwives by 67,000 and the number of hospital patients by 1·5 million.
Of course, the National Health Service always faces fresh challenges. For example, 70 per cent. of NHS costs are labour costs, and there has been a dramatic and welcome increase in the number of NHS employees over the past 10 years—5,800 more doctors and dentists. Their pay has grown 25 per cent. more than inflation since 1979. Nurses, whose pay fell under Labour—they received increases below the rate of inflation for three years—have seen their pay rise by 45 per cent. more than inflation since 1979.
As well as trying to ensure that doctors and nurses and those working in the NHS are well remunerated, there are also the challenges of an ageing population and of medical advance. In response, the Government will clearly have to provide ever more money for the NHS, but we all have an interest in ensuring that that money is well spent. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has said many times, the NHS is not a business, but clearly it can be more businesslike.
It is right that the Government should devolve greater powers and responsibility to local levels. For far too long, the NHS has been over-administered and under-managed. This has led, for example, to the Public Accounts Committee discovering, according to a report published last year, that in the five districts whose operating theatre usage was studied, only 72 per cent. of available sessions were regularly scheduled for use and of those about 23 per cent. were cancelled, often at short notice. Consequently, only half the daytime operating theatre sessions were used—no wonder we continue to have long waiting lists for cold surgery. The Public Accounts Committee concluded:
"Traditional practice and habits, framed for the convenience of consultants and staff must be reviewed as necessary."
942
Furthermore, all too often the lunatic situation arises that if a hospital does more work it simply runs out of money more quickly. That is a lunatic efficiency trap. The proposed internal market will replace that efficiency trap with a much better system whereby the more contracts that are won to provide services, the more work is done and the more money secured. Hospitals that increase their referrals will also increase their income.
Let us be clear that there is a consensus on the need for an internal market. In a speech a year ago at Guy's hospital, the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) said:
"Personally, I can see merit in greater flexibility that permits health authorities to convert cross-boundary flows of patients with cross-boundary flows of cash."
That is exactly what the internal market is about—correlating cross-boundary flows of patients with cross-boundary flows of cash.
The right hon.Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) observed that
"bringing the disciplines of the internal market into the NHS is the most important single reform I would advocate, for it can work with the grain of the NHS and not weaken its ethical basis."
As the Prime Minister has made clear, the internal market has nothing to do with privatising health services but everything to do with improving them.
That leads us to the background of the general practitioners' contract and the recent debate. The House should recollect that the GPs' draft contract has had a long gestation period. We have almost forgotten, in the mists of time, the Green Paper "Promoting Health Care—An Agenda", which came out in April 1986. That Green Paper was followed by the White Paper "Promoting Better Health" in November 1987 and that, in turn, led to long negotiations with representatives of the GPs on the detailed proposals.
All hon. Members will have had a letter from Dr. Wilson factually reporting that the general practitioners have voted against accepting that contract. Interestingly, no argument was advanced in that letter to explain why general practitioners had rejected the contract. It would have been very difficult for Dr. Wilson to advance such arguments, because the General Medical Services Committee contract was the very contract that he and the other negotiators had recommended for their own members.
I am looking forward to a happy recess because the general practitioners in Oxfordshire voted in support of the proposed contract.
Mr. Mike Watson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Baldry: No, there is very little time and I made it clear at the start of my speech that I did not intend to give way. The hon. Gentleman, who was not even present then, can hardly expect to intervene now.
It is difficult for Dr. Wilson and the GMSC to suggest that a contract that they negotiated and agreed is flawed in some way. I have yet to see, and I suspect that other hon. Members have yet to see, any detailed proposals from the GMSC on how the contract should be improved.
The background to the contract is that spending on GP services has risen by 50 per cent. over and above inflation during the past 10 years. The number of GPs in practice is up by 20 per cent. and their support staff are up by 50 per

943
cent. Despite that, real concerns remain about the present GPs' contract because it does not sufficiently reward zeal or quality and it is not sufficiently sensitive to patients.
It seems to be suggested that by increasing the proportion of doctors' remuneration that comes from capitation, we shall force doctors to take on more patients and undermine the quality of care. The case for making a significant proportion of GPs' income dependent on capitation is not new. That case was made by one of the authors of the National Health Service, Nye Bevan himself, on the founding of the NHS. He said:
"I cannot dispense with the principle that the payment of a doctor must in some degree be a reward for zeal, and there must he some degree of punishment for lack of it. Therefore, it is proposed that capitation should remain the main source from which a doctor will obtain his remuneration."—[Official Report, 30 April 1946; Vol. 42, c. 55.]
Nye Bevan saw capitation as one of the underlying principles on which general practitioners should be rewarded. Moreover, nothing in the Government's proposals would increase doctors' average list size. Patients will register with the practice of a doctor who they think gives the right quality of care and the right amount of time. GPs' list sizes are falling from an average 2,200 to under 2,000 now. Just as it is impossible to invent new patients, so it is mathematically impossible to increase the average list size.
I hope that, during the summer, GPs will reflect that the contract that they have been offered is a good one and that many concessions have been made by my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Government, after listening to representations that they undoubtedly received from hon. Members on both sides of the House. While the Government's health proposals will not solve everything, they will make several important advances, extend patient choice, encourage enterprise in hospitals and among GPs and improve the quality of patient care and treatment in the framework of a publicly financed Health Service.
9.46 pm
Ms. Harriet Harman: It was evident from the Secretary of State's speech that he did not welcome the debate this afternoon, but he rose to the occasion with his usual combination of trying to distract attention from the real issues and a dose of abuse for the doctors. [Interruption.] Hon. Members who were present will agree that that is a fair description of his speech.
Our main concern about the contract is the incentive that it provides to GPs to increase the number of patients on their lists. Successive Governments have encouraged GPs to reduce the number of patients on their lists. That was for the good reason that, if GPs are to make the correct diagnosis, give appropriate treatment and prescriptions, and manage long-term illnesses properly and sensitively, they require time. Doctors want more time for each patient and patients want more time from their doctor. Yet the Government will make good doctors into bad doctors by paying them to take more patients on to their lists, so that each patient will have less time.
Most people are happy with their GP. A poll in The Daily Telegraph showed that 80 per cent. of people were happy. The 20 per cent. who said that they were not happy said that the doctor always seemed rushed, did not have time to explain and was not interested in them as a person. Increased patient list sizes will increase dissatisfaction with GPs. Studies of what patients want from general practice
944
consistently show that they want a doctor who listens, understands, takes trouble and is prepared to explain. In other words, they want a doctor who has time for them.
Not only doctors take the view that an increase in the percentage of doctors' pay attributable to capitation will result in increased list sizes. The Patients Association, the Association of Community Health Councils and a range of other voluntary organisations and academic institutions that have no vested interest and no axe to grind believe that that will be the effect. So do organisations such as the Centre for Policy on Aging, Age Concern, the Health Visitors' Association and the National Children's Bureau. The Government are alone in believing that performance relates to the number of patients treated rather than the quality of care.
The Government believe that the Health Service centres on cost rather than on care. That is why they are obsessed with the GPs who refer more than the average number of patients to hospital, but are blithely unconcerned about the GPs who under-refer and whose patients suffer because they are not referred to hospital.
The Government are obsessed, too, with GPs who prescribe more than the average for their patients, but they are blithely unconcerned about patients who suffer because their GPs under-prescribe. They are not concerned with the appropriateness of the referral or the prescription; all they are concerned about is the cost. Their real interest is in cash, not care. Their prime concern is a healthy bank balance, not a healthy patient, and the doctors know that.
We have seen what cash limits have done to hospital services and how hospital services have been squeezed. We all know that cash limits will come down on family doctors. The Health and Medicines Act 1988 put in place cash limits on ancillary services for GPs' practices and practice premises. The White Paper plans to cash-limit the rest of GP services—prescriptions and referrals to hospital.
I do not see any shaking of heads, but the Government have up to the present day been denying cash limits on GP services. However, it is clear that they will be cash-limited. I shall use an example that makes it clear that that is what is intended by the White Paper. When a patient goes to the accident and emergency department and is subsequently admitted to hospital, the bill for that treatment will go to the hospital, if it is an opted-out hospital, or to the district health authority. When a patient is referred to hospital and is admitted on the basis of a GP's referral, the GP's practice budget will have to bear the cost of that treatment.
The Government are afraid that GPs faced with a cash-limited budget, who see a patient who needs treatment in hospital, will, instead of referring him to the out-patient department, advise him to go to the accident and emergency department, because then the bill will be paid by the hospital of the district health authority. That is why, in working paper 3, the Government are advising hospitals to have watchdogs in their accident and emergency departments to see whether the hapless patients are real accident or emergency cases or whether they are refugees from cash-limited GP budget holders. That is. clear evidence that GP's practices will be cash-limited. The Government anticipate that GPs will try to escape the cash limit by advising their patients to go to accident and emergency departments rather than referring them to hospitals in the normal way.

945
The most important difference that the Government have with just about everyone else is the substance of the proposals in the contract and the White Paper. We cannot let the debate pass without a comment on the way in which the Secretary of State has handled the issue. Doctors and the public have disagreed with him. His hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) said that the public were too thick to be allowed to have a say on the White Paper. On "Any Questions" a couple of weeks ago, when a doctor disagreed with him about the White Paper proposals, all the Secretary of State could do was to rubbish him and to say, "You have not read the White Paper." He has accused GPs of reaching for their wallets. Anyone who disagrees with him is accused of misunderstanding the proposals. Those people who want change other than that which he is proposing are told that they want no change at all.
The problem is that the Government have not been prepared to listen to those people who work in the Health Service, who use the Health Service and who have been crying out for change. That shows not just sluggishness or bullying, although it certainly shows that, but it shows the Government's inability, refusal and unpreparedness to listen to views that do not fit in with their ideological dogma. It is that same authoritarianism that will prevent people from having a say in whether their hospital opts out.
The Prime Minister has said that she will make the Health Service so good that no one will want to use private health care. Nobody believes that, but if that were the case, we should welcome it. However, as the Prime Minister wants competition and market forces in health care, it is clear that that statement has no credibility.
When we return to the House in the autumn, the Government will try to impose the new contract on the doctors, despite a ballot in which there was a vote of three to one against. We are told that there will be no new discussions. We will oppose the Government's attempt to force a contract on the GPs. The Secretary of State will have to fight his contract through. Any time that Conservative Members vote to impose the new contract, that will simply serve to remind their constituents how little they now have in common with their Member of Parliament.
The more the Government berate the doctors, the more they widen the gulf between Government and public opinion because people do not accept that doctors are stupid or greedy. They do not accept that doctors are interested only in their pockets, not in their patients. When Conservative Members return to their constituencies for the recess, they will discover the huge consensus against the Government's proposals. There is literally nowhere in the country where they will find support for the contract or the White Paper. There are no places to which the Government can run with this proposal.
We often hear talk of Tory heartlands, but even the Tory heartlands are opposed to these proposals—to the contract and to the White Paper. There are no Tory heartlands when it comes to the National Health Service. When Conservative Members vote tonight, they will simply be voting to increase the gulf between themselves and the people they are supposed to represent.
9.51 pm
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. David Mellor): I begin by thanking my hon. Friends the Members for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), for Harlow (Mr. Hayes) and for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) for their supportive speeches. My hon. Friends' penetrating speeches have made my task easier. I must advise especially my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale that I should like to write to him on the specific points that he raised because time is pressing and I want to make other points tonight.
It is clear that the Labour party has cobbled together an end-of-term assault on the Government based on the lowest common denominator of opposition to some of the moves to reform the Health Service. It is interesting that the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) laboured so mightily to denounce a contract which, for the first time, offers the better doctors rewards for doing more to treat their patients.
What can be wrong with a contract which, for the first time, introduces basic payments to include opportunistic screening and check-up invitations for the healthy every few years to give us a chance to be a service for health, not just for sickness? What is wrong with a proposal that all newly registered patients should be offered a check-up? What is wrong with a proposal that doctors should be paid a higher capitation payment for having elderly patients on their lists—an argument that is totally distorted by the suggestion that the contract will somehow provide a disincentive to treat the elderly when the opposite is the case?
What is wrong with extra payments for looking after the very young and for immunising them against preventable diseases when our record on immunisation is far too low compared with that of many other countries and leaves a great deal to be desired? What is wrong—I should have thought that this point would be of particular interest to Opposition Members—with extra payments for doctors who practise in deprived areas to try to do something about the inequalities of health standards that so many research projects have shown exist in some inner-city practices and practices elsewhere?
It seems astonishing that, in the cynical cosy-up between the Labour party and the BMA, all those facts should be disregarded while both the hon. Members for Livingston (Mr. Cook) and for Peckham—the Opposition's Front-Bench spokesmen—have done nothing more than parrot the BMA's case. Indeed, that was taken to absurd lengths by the hon. Member for Livingston when he set out to prove that it is not possible to reach targets of 70 per cent. in inner-city areas. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is perfectly possible, as the public health laboratory service study showed in 1985, given proper incentives, for everyone in the country, wherever they live, to have the opportunity, and to take it up, to have their children immunized. It seems extraordinary that Labour Members should share the patronising view that somehow people who live in inner-city areas are less interested in the health care of their children. When places such as Doncaster and Rotherham, which are not exactly bastions of the middle class, can achieve 90 per cent. immunisation rates for polio, why cannot other parts of the country do the same? For the first time, we are giving people an incentive to do that.
As the York university study showed only too clearly, the problem at the moment is that innovative practises sit

947
alongside those which are practising the medicine of 20 years ago, but there is no difference in the remuneration to the innovative practice. How are we to redress the imbalance in quality between one group of GP practices and another unless we have a contract which, for the first time, rewards good performances? I am astonished that that view cannot be shared on both sides of the Chamber, as all our constituents will gain from the introduction of such a contract.
It is even more astonishing that the Labour party should see fit to put forward the BMA's obstructive arguments against the contract, since whenever any Government have sought to make changes, whether those changes were right or wrong, they have run into difficulties with the BMA.
Mr. Sam Galbraith: That is not true.
Mr. Mellor: The hon. Gentleman says that it is not true, but I shall demonstrate that it is.
In the past 25 years there have been two substantial periods of Labour Government. In the 1964 Parliament it took four months of a Labour Government before the BMA, in February 1965, was advising its members to give three months notice of termination of their contract with the NHS. That is the background against which the contract that we are now replacing was put into place by the Labour Government. In the 1974 Parliament, it took 18 months before the BMA council was condemning what the then Labour Government were doing as unsound and a threat to fundamental freedoms. In 1977 Mr. Anthony Grabbham, now Sir Anthony Grabbham, a spokesman for the BMA then as now, said of Labour's pay policy:
"It is a catalogue of broken promises, a cynical disregard of agreement and progressive emasculation of review body procedures all leading to inexorable degradation of consultants' status.
The attempt to suggest a common cause between the BMA and the Labour party is specious, and the mess of potage which Labour Members have sold is the rights of their constituents to a good and consistent policy of health care that modern reforms can bring about.
Once again, we have heard so much from the Opposition, but not a word about a coherent alternative to address the NHS's central problems. The Opposition motion specifically criticises the Prime Minister's words when she set out the aspiration that she wants to see the National Health Service so good that people will not need private medicine. I consider that to be a perfectly estimable aspiration. It provides an interesting contrast with the Labour party. In the 1970s, the Labour party was prepared to drive the Health Service into total disarray to abolish private medicine. Its latest policy document shows that it seems to have learnt very little from that. The problems of the National Health Service, such as the long waiting lists which have caused some people to go private, are not the source of proper analysis by the Labour party, but simply used as a crude stick with which to beat the Government.
In a free society where people must have the right to make private provision out of taxed income if they choose, the best way is to make them feel that they do not need to do that. One way to make people sure that they do not need to do that is to cut waiting times. We have research that shows that if every district health authority was able to use its operating theatres as effectively as the average,
948
we could get rid of long waiting times overnight. That will come about only if a coherent set of proposals is pursued, which involves not only additional resources for the National Health Service, but a proper and sensible way of ensuring that those resources are set in the right management framework. I hope that the House will reject the Labour party's opportunistic motion tonight.
Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:——
The House divided: Ayes 207, Noes 315

Division No. 321]

[10 pm

AYES

Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

Allen, Graham

Fatchett, Derek

Alton, David

Fearn, Ronald

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Armstrong, Hilary

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

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

Fisher, Mark

Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

Flannery, Martin

Ashton, Joe

Flynn, Paul

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

Foster, Derek

Barron, Kevin

Fraser, John

Battle, John

Galbraith, Sam

Beckett, Margaret

Galloway, George

Beggs, Roy

Garrett, John (Norwich South)

Bell, Stuart

George, Bruce

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

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

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Bidwell, Sydney

Gordon, Mildred

Blair, Tony

Gould, Bryan

Blunkett, David

Graham, Thomas

Boateng, Paul

Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

Boyes, Roland

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Bradley, Keith

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Grocott, Bruce

Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

Hardy, Peter

Buckley, George J.

Harman, Ms Harriet

Caborn, Richard

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Callaghan, Jim

Heffer, Eric S.

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Henderson, Doug

Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

Hinchliffe, David

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

Canavan, Dennis

Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

Cartwright, John

Home Robertson, John

Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

Hood, Jimmy

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Clelland, David

Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Hoyle, Doug

Cohen, Harry

Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

Coleman, Donald

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Cook, Robin (Livingston)

Illsley, Eric

Corbett, Robin

Ingram, Adam

Corbyn, Jeremy

Janner, Greville

Cousins, Jim

Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

Crowther, Stan

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

Cryer, Bob

Kilfedder, James

Cummings, John

Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Kirkwood, Archy

Cunningham, Dr John

Leadbitter, Ted

Darling, Alistair

Leighton, Ron

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Litherland, Robert

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

Livsey, Richard

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

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Dixon, Don

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Dobson, Frank

Loyden, Eddie

Doran, Frank

McAllion, John

Douglas, Dick

McAvoy, Thomas

Duffy, A. E. P.

McCartney, Ian

Dunnachie, Jimmy

Macdonald, Calum A.

Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

Eadie, Alexander

McKelvey, William

Eastham, Ken

McLeish, Henry

Evans, John (St Helens N)

McNamara, Kevin

Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

McWilliam, John

949

Madden, Max

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Short, Clare

Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

Sillars, Jim

Martlew, Eric

Skinner, Dennis

Meacher, Michael

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Meale, Alan

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

Michael, Alun

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

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

Morgan, Rhodri

Soley, Clive

Morley, Elliot

Spearing, Nigel

Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

Steel, Rt Hon David

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Steinberg, Gerry

Mowlam, Marjorie

Stott, Roger

Mullin, Chris

Straw, Jack

Murphy, Paul

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Nellist, Dave

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

O'Brien, William

Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Turner, Dennis

Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

Vaz, Keith

Patchett, Terry

Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

Pendry, Tom

Wall, Pat

Pike, Peter L.

Wallace, James

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Walley, Joan

Prescott, John

Warden, Gareth (Gower)

Primarolo, Dawn

Wareing, Robert N.

Quin, Ms Joyce

Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

Radice, Giles

Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

Randall, Stuart

Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

Redmond, Martin

Williams, Rt Hon Alan

Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

Richardson, Jo

Wilson, Brian

Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

Winnick, David

Robinson, Geoffrey

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Rogers, Allan

Worthington, Tony

Rooker, Jeff

Wray, Jimmy

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Ross, William (Londonderry E)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Rowlands, Ted

Mr. Frank Haynes and Mrs. Llin Golding.

Ruddock, Joan

Salmond, Alex

NOES

Adley, Robert

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Aitken, Jonathan

Brazier, Julian

Alexander, Richard

Bright, Graham

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

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

Allason, Rupert

Browne, John (Winchester)

Amess, David

Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

Amos, Alan

Buck, Sir Antony

Arbuthnot, James

Budgen, Nicholas

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Burns, Simon

Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

Burt, Alistair

Ashby, David

Butcher, John

Atkins, Robert

Butler, Chris

Atkinson, David

Butterfill, John

Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Baldry, Tony

Carrington, Matthew

Batiste, Spencer

Carttiss, Michael

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Cash, William

Bellingham, Henry

Chapman, Sydney

Bendall, Vivian

Chope, Christopher

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Churchill, Mr

Benyon, W.

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

Bevan, David Gilroy

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

Blackburn, Dr John G.

Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Conway, Derek

Body, Sir Richard

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Couchman, James

Boswell, Tim

Cran, James

Bottomley, Peter

Currie, Mrs Edwina

Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

Curry, David

Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

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

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Bowis, John

Day, Stephen

Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

Devlin, Tim

Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

Dorrell, Stephen

950

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Key, Robert

Dover, Den

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

Dunn, Bob

Kirkhope, Timothy

Dykes, Hugh

Knapman, Roger

Eggar, Tim

Knight, Greg (Derby North)

Emery, Sir Peter

Knowles, Michael

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

Knox, David

Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

Fallon, Michael

Lang, Ian

Favell, Tony

Latham, Michael

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Lawrence, Ivan

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

Lee, John (Pendle)

Fishburn, John Dudley

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Forman, Nigel

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Lightbown, David

Forth, Eric

Lilley, Peter

Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

Franks, Cecil

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Freeman, Roger

Lord, Michael

French, Douglas

Luce, Rt Hon Richard

Gale, Roger

Lyell, Sir Nicholas

Gardiner, George

McCrindle, Robert

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Macfarlane, Sir Neil

Gill, Christopher

MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

Glyn, Dr Alan

Maclean, David

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

McLoughlin, Patrick

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

Gorst, John

McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

Gow, Ian

Madel, David

Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

Malins, Humfrey

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Maples, John

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Marland, Paul

Gregory, Conal

Marlow, Tony

Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Ground, Patrick

Mates, Michael

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

Maude, Hon Francis

Hague, William

Mawhinney, Dr Brian

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Hampson, Dr Keith

Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

Hanley, Jeremy

Mellor, David

Hannam, John

Miller, Sir Hal

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

Mills, Iain

Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Harris, David

Mitchell, Sir David

Haselhurst, Alan

Moate, Roger

Hawkins, Christopher

Monro, Sir Hector

Hayes, Jerry

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

Morrison, Sir Charles

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Moss, Malcolm

Heddle, John

Moynihan, Hon Colin

Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

Mudd, David

Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

Neale, Gerrard

Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L

Nelson, Anthony

Hill, James

Neubert, Michael

Hind, Kenneth

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

Nicholls, Patrick

Holt, Richard

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Howard, Michael

Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

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

Norris, Steve

Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Oppenheim, Phillip

Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

Page, Richard

Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

Paice, James

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

Hunt, David (Wirral W)

Patnick, Irvine

Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

Hunter, Andrew

Patten, John (Oxford W)

Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

Pawsey, James

Irvine, Michael

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Jack, Michael

Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

Jackson, Robert

Porter, David (Waveney)

Janman, Tim

Portillo, Michael

Jessel, Toby

Powell, William (Corby)

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Price, Sir David

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Raffan, Keith

Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Rathbone, Tim

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Redwood, John

951

Renton, Tim

Summerson, Hugo

Rhodes James, Robert

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Riddick, Graham

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Ridsdale, Sir Julian

Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

Temple-Morris, Peter

Roe, Mrs Marion

Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

Rossi, Sir Hugh

Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

Rost, Peter

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Rowe, Andrew

Thorne, Neil

Rumbold, Mrs Angela

Thurnham, Peter

Sackville, Hon Tom

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Sainsbury, Hon Tim

Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

Sayeed, Jonathan

Tracey, Richard

Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

Tredinnick, David

Shaw, David (Dover)

Trippier, David

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Twinn, Dr Ian

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Shelton, Sir William

Waddington, Rt Hon David

Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

Wakeham, Rt Hon John

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Waldegrave, Hon William

Shersby, Michael

Walden, George

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Walker, Bill (T'side North)

Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

Waller, Gary

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Soames, Hon Nicholas

Warren, Kenneth

Speed, Keith

Wheeler, John

Speller, Tony

Whitney, Ray

Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

Widdecombe, Ann

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Wiggin, Jerry

Squire, Robin

Wilkinson, John

Stanbrook, Ivor

Winterton, Mrs Ann

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Winterton, Nicholas

Steen, Anthony

Wolfson, Mark

Stern, Michael

Wood, Timothy

Stevens, Lewis

Woodcock, Dr. Mike

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

Tellers for the Noes:

Stokes, Sir John

Mr. AJastair Goodlad and Mr. Tony Durant.

Stradling Thomas, Sir John

Sumberg, David

Question accordingly negatived.
Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
MR. SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House welcomes the Government's proposals for reform in the National Health Service which will bring all parts of the health service up to the very high standards now achieved by the best, put the needs of patients first and secure the best value for money; recognises that to make the health service more responsive to the needs of patients as much power and responsibility as possible need to be delegated to local level in future whether in directly managed or self-governing National Health Service hospitals; looks forward to large general practitioner practices being able to apply for their own budgets to obtain a defined range of hospital services so as to improve the quality of service to their patients; and fully supports the Government's decision to proceed with the implementation of the general practitioners' new contract, the contents of which were agreed with the general practitioners' leaders on 4th May.

Road Safety
Mr. Speaker: I must inform the House that I have not selected the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken).
10.14 pm
The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Michael Portillo): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 4303/89 on road safety, 9228/88 on seat belts, 4252/89 on maximum permitted alcohol concentration for vehicle drivers, and 4156/87 and 4305/89 on speed limits; and endorses the Government's commitment to resist proposals in this area which are outside the field of Community competence, and not clearly related to the objectives of a common transport policy of the internal market.
This debate comes late in the Session, for reasons that I have explained. It deals largely with road safety matters. First, it might be appropriate to say how inadequate to the task I feel. One would normally have expected to see here my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) who has long been associated with road safety matters. He gave evidence to the Select Committee on European Legislature whose report we have.
It is obviously important that the House should have the opportunity to express its views on the Commission's overall approach to road safety and on the specific proposals now under consideration. I am sure that the House is grateful to the Select Committee for its most helpful report. The Committee fitted in an oral evidence session and should be congratulated on producing a report very quickly so that we could have this debate. It is a fair report, summarising the arguments on both sides, and there is nothing significant in it with which the Government disagree.
In one crucial respect, there is nothing between the British Government, other Governments and the Commission. We all want to reduce the appalling toll of death and injuries on Europe's roads and we all want to find the most effective ways of doing so. However, we must recognise that the task cannot be carried out by simple solutions. Safety measures need to be suited to different geographical, cultural and economic conditions. They need to be carefully judged, targeted and monitored.
Two separate groups of issues are involved in the debate. First, there is the broader political and legal question about the rightness of community action in this area. Secondly, there are the safety merits of the Commission's proposals. The basic issue is whether it is politically sensible for the Community to act on road safety matters which relate almost entirely to human behaviour. Clearly, where the Community has to grapple with difficult areas to ensure the achievement of its primary objectives—economic progress and the completion of the internal market—the British accept that, and we play a constructive part in trying to find a Communitywide solution. However, we do not see road safety as one of those areas. Road conditions, social habits and outlooks, driver behaviour and police enforcement practices vary enormously from country to country within the Community.
Mr. Tony Marlow: We seem to have a potential problem. The British people thought that road safety laws were a matter for the competence of the

953
United Kingdom. The European institutions, probably aided and abetted by the European Court, using procedures based on a majority vote on the basis of initiatives coming from the Commission, composed basically of bureaucrats with no democratic control, seem to have taken from the British people the power that they thought they had over road safety. If that proves to be the case, how shall we recover those powers?
Mr. Portillo: My hon. Friend puts his finger on the crux of tonight's debate and that is the very issue that I am addressing. The issues have been clearly set out in the Select Committee's excellent report. I was trying to expound some of those issues. I was saying that road conditions, social habits and outlooks and driver behaviour vary from country to country, as does police enforcement practice. I agree that to try to legislate effectively from Brussels to encompass such variation risks imposing over-simple solutions on complex issues. We do not need harmonisation in this area to obtain the primary objectives of the treaty. The principle of subsidiarity should apply. Road safey measures are best decided by national Governments to suit different circumstances. I think that my hon. Friend would agree with that.
Mr. Teddy Taylor: I am grateful for what the Minister said. It gives us a splendid idea of what the Government think. But my hon. Friend must be aware that the Commission's representatives have said clearly and categorically that practically all these measures are covered by the common transport policy which enables any other appropriate provisions to be made. The House would like to know whether the Government take the same splendid view. If the Commission's view is wholly different, as it is, what can we do about the proposal before us and a host of other imminent proposals, in which the Community is extending the EEC's powers by stretching the treaty of Rome and the Single European Act?
Mr. Portillo: We are dealing here with a disagreement between the Commission and the British Government, which the Select Committee report describes well. I point out to my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) that all the matters covered by the report and which are the subject of tonight's motion were taken before the Council of Ministers but did not find favour there. The British Government opposed Community competence, and fortunately our view found favour with other member States. None of the provisions included in the motion has been adopted by majority voting, contrary to the wishes of the British Government, because a blocking minority in the Community clearly shares our view.
Mr. Marlow: My hon. Friend said that there has been a blocking minority, but I understand that when it came to tyre tread depths, that blocking minority evaporated. Therefore, we found that we were outvoted and that the measures were imposed on us. These are more important measures, to do with road safety, drink-driving, seat belts and road speed signs. My hon. Friend said that he is opposing what the Commission is trying to put forward. Supposing that my hon. Friend is defeated.
Supposing that the Government are defeated, and the Commission, through its various machinations and
954
through use of the European Court—to help it to use majority voting where the Government do not believe that it should use majority voting—succeeds? What then will we do about it? How then are we going to get the powers back to this House? That is what we are here for—to exercise powers, to exercise the sovereignty of the British people. We had it recently over signs on cigarette packets, when we lost that one. How are we going to get it back?
Mr. Portillo: My hon. Friend asks a series of hypothetical questions. He is saying that, so far, our Community partners and ourselves have formed a blocking minority so that the proposals in question could not be adopted. Therefore, our policy must be to continue to oppose the proposals and to encourage our Community partners who form the other part of the blocking minority to maintain the same view.
My hon. Friend asked me also about the measure on tyre tread depths. He will appreciate that that is not the subject of tonight's motion, but he is right to say that, in that instance, the blocking minority evaporated. The motive behind the decision by some of our Community partners not to back us on that issue related to their belief that there were broader considerations relating to freedom of trade within the Community. Whether or not one agrees with that point of view—as the British Government do not, they voted against that proposal—the same argument was advanced by other member states. Therefore, that would not be a promising case to take to the European Court.
As to the proposals now before the House, I give my hon. Friend a pledge that we shall continue to resist the Commission's proposals. If we are defeated in due course—although I have no reason to think that we will be—we should have to consider taking our case to the European Court.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: With this measure, as with 1,001 others emanating from Brussels, we are witnessing the continuing diminution of British parliamentary sovereignty. To answer the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor), there is little or nothing that the Government can do about Community measures relating to road safety or to the fishing, steel, and many other industries. We are witnessing the remorseless diminution of our parliamentary sovereignty.
Mr. Portillo: We are witnessing the consequences of a series of decisions, taken by Parliament over a period, to bring the United Kingdom into the European Community and to make it a signatory to the Single European Act. The British Government doubt the Commission's competence to advance proposals arising from that.
There are two ways in which those proposals can be resisted. In the first instance, the British Government can oppose them and seek to make common cause with other Governments who take the same view: that tactic has been deployed successfully in the case of the measures that we are discussing this evening, which were not adopted owing to a blocking minority. If, however, we were unable at some future time to sustain that blocking minority and some of the measures were adopted, and if we continued to doubt the competence of the Commission or the Community, it would be open to the British Government to take the matter to the European Court, where the treaty of Rome and any other relevant provisions could be interpreted.
Mr. William Cash: If our Government and the legal advisers to the Select Committee on European Legislation consider that a measure goes beyond the competence of the treaty, there are other options, not least the opportunity to exercise a veto. It really is not good enough to assume that the only possible route leads to the European Court of Justice: that is a protracted and uncertain route, especially in view of the political integrating policy of that court. Will my hon. Friend be good enough to tell us whether the Luxembourg accord has been considered, and whether we propose to exercise it in this case?
Mr. Portillo: So far, consideration of that has not been necessary, because it has been possible to bring about a blocking minority in the matters that we are discussing. The United Kingdom Government will, of course, be willing to consider any means of carrying forward their view that such matters go beyond the competence of the European Community.
Mr. Roger King: May I pursue a slightly different tack? Why can we not adopt a common policy on drink-drive levels within the European Community? Presumably we have common standards for airline operation because the flights transcend national boundaries, but does not the same apply to motor cars, heavy goods vehicles and coaches? What is wrong with arriving at common standards on a voluntary basis?
Mr. Portillo: In the unlikely event that I am allowed to progress with my speech, I intend to deal with that later. I see no reason why we should not have the same standards in every country, but I think that there is a strong argument against the imposition of that by the Community. Perhaps my hon. Friend's question should be my cue to make faster progress.
We consider our line of argument to be one endorsed by the treaty of Rome. The founding fathers were political realists as well as idealists; nothing in the general articles at the beginning of the treaty—or in the transport chapter—suggests that the development of common road safety policy and rules was ever perceived as a necessary part of Community activity.
Arguments may be put to the contrary: the issue has never been tested head-on before the European Court. One particularly relevant case, mentioned in the Select Committee report, is the Schumalla case, which goes a long way to suggest that the court would share our view if the matter was ever tested to the full. In that case the Court's Advocate-General, in his analysis of the legal issues involved, suggested that road safety could be seen as an objective of the treaty, and it is on that opinion that the Commission relies. In its final judgment, the court seems studiously to have avoided endorsing the wider arguments suggested by the Advocate-General. The omission of any endorsing comment suggests that the full court, when confronting those arguments, had serious misgivings about them.
The Commission relies on what it calls the "precedents" for legislation on transport safety. The main examples are the drivers' hours legislation on road transport and various maritime transport measures which have significant safety implications. In each case, the primary purpose of the measure is something other than "pure safety". The drivers' hours legislation is primarily about competition; the maritime measures are primarily about
956
Community trade. We have no problem with measures which serve the primary objectives of the treaty arid have related safety benefits. We give a positive welcome to the concept that the Commission should give more weight to safety considerations in many of its proposals, but that is different from bringing forward pure safety measures which have little or no relevance to the Community's primary objectives.
The House may wish me to go into the safety merits of each of the proposals later, so for the moment I shall be brief. The essential point is that the content of the proposals heavily underlines why it is unnecessary and inappropriate for measures such as this to be enacted at Community level. We are far from satisfied with the United Kingdom's road safety record, which is why we set the target of reducing road casualties by a third by the year 2000. We are constantly on guard against complacency, but the fact remains that we have the best road safety record in the European Community. Although we are not among the best on some specific aspects of road safety, the Commission's proposals are concerned not with any of them but with driving and occupancy of motor vehicles, on which our record is second to none.
On drinking and driving—this answers the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King)—the Commission proposes setting a legal limit of 0·5 per cent. The legal limit in the United Kingdom is 0·8 per cent., as it is in most other Community countries. Even in the United Kingdom, where drinking and driving has been falling significantly over recent years, over half those convicted have consumed more than twice our current legal limit. Moreover, there is little evidence of a significant accident or casualty problem for drivers who have consumed between 0·5 and 0·8 per cent., although evidence is not easy to obtain.
In the light of those considerations, we do not believe that it makes sense to invite the police to diversify their enforcement effort instead of continuing to concentrate on the worst offenders and those above the current limit. We believe that the same applies for most Community member countries. If circumstances in other countries are different, we should be the last to suggest that they should adopt a strategy that does not fit their circumstances.
Much the same is true for the proposal on speed limits. The Commission has addressed only passenger transport and goods vehicles. In general, those vehicles have a better than average safety record. In this country at least, many coaches are equipped with speed limiters. As 75 per cent. of casualties occur on local urban roads, the speed limits suggested by the Commission have little relevance to casualty reduction. If another car or person is hit by a bus, coach or lorry, even at much lower speeds than those under discussion, the results can be serious.
Mr. Teddy Taylor: We have been provided with helpful papers showing that under the EEC's proposal we might have to spend many millions of pounds changing our road signs from a speed limit of 30 miles per hour for vans and goods vehicles to 31 miles per hour, which is quite a significant change. Will permanent derogation ensure that that will not happen? Does the Minister accept that it would make not only the Common Market but the Department of Transport look terribly stupid if we were made to change our signs from 30 mph to 31 mph? May we be assured that we have a permanent derogation from the metrication which would make 50 km an hour apply?
Mr. Portillo: Although I am anxious to answer my hon. Friend's question, I fear that my inadequacy must show, being a late stand-in for my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham, who would have been able to answer immediately. I shall, however, take pains to answer my hon. Friend before the end of the debate.
As to whether I believe that it would be foolish for us to have to change our 30 mph speed limit to 31 mph, I concur with my hon. Friend, who gave an extremely good illustration of the problem that faces us in this area. He has done more than anybody to point out the ludicrousness of some of the suggestions that are being made.
There is the proposal to make seat belt wearing mandatory. Here, the content causes us fewer difficulties. Front seat belt wearing is already compulsory in this country, and we have already made it clear that the compulsory wearing of rear seat belts is our aim. The point at issue is, again, whether it is sensible to legislate on this at Community level.
Our 95 per cent. compliance rate with front seat belt wearing stems almost entirely from the fact that public opinion was ready for, and supported, the regulations when they were introduced. If we want the same to apply to rear seat belt wearing, we need to assess again the readiness of public opinion for such a change. With front seat belt wearing so widely accepted, I do not believe that there will be any significant difficulty. We also need to consider the proportion of vehicles that are equipped with rear belts. There is little point in making the requirement mandatory until, at the very least, half the vehicles on the roads are so equipped.
As it happens, that is likely to be the case in this country by about 1992, which is the date the Commission proposes for the introduction of mandatory belt wearing. But although that is true here, it may be possible to move faster in some countries, while others may not be ready for many years longer. In principle, we support the safety aspects of this Commission proposal, but again, it illustrates the difficulties and potential dangers of seeking to legislate, in this sort of area, at Community level.
We are all striving for the same objective—the reduction of deaths and serious injuries on Europe's roads. But for fundamental legal reasons, and for the sake of effectiveness, measures should be considered, initiated and monitored at the political level which is most appropriate. In the case of the proposals under discussion, the right level is that of national Governments in co-operation with local authorities. They are not right for action at Community level.
10.37 pm
Ms. Joan Ruddock: I must at the outset acknowledge our disappointment at the departure of the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) from his post and the loss of his unusual sense of humour, which we were beginning to enjoy.
We are considering tonight five European Community documents relating to road safety. As the Minister said, the debate must address not only questions of policy and the issues arising from the European Commission's proposals, but whether, at a more fundamental level, the commission is going beyond its powers in drawing up these proposals.
The Minister argued that there is no competence within the Community's legal framework for these measures—
958
that is, that there are no, or only dubious, legal grounds to justify the Commission's measures. The Government argue that article 75 of the treaty of Rome provides for the adoption of measures within the framework of a common transport policy to implement the treaty's objectives. Those objectives are the removal of restrictions on trade and the removal of obstacles to free competition. The Minister is therefore arguing that. where those primary objectives are not met, the European community has no power or competence to adopt any other measures relating to transport.
The Government have made it clear that they will accept Community competence only in the area of harmonising vehicle standards which relate directly to competitiveness. But they have set their face against measures proposed on safety grounds alone. My hon. Friends and I note that that view is not unanimous in member states, although the Government have said that Germany and Denmark at present share their position.
In an interesting presentation to the Select Committee on European Legislation, to which the Minister referred, the European Commission set out its justification for the measures. According to the Commission, article 25 left it open to the Community to adopt
"any other appropriate measures relating to the implementation of a common transport policy."
Hon. Members may be aware that the treaty of Rome mentions transport, agriculture and fisheries as sectors that are moving towards a common policy and, in the Commission's words,
"In these sectors you have all room to manoeuvre".
The Commission cited a legal case to which the Minister referred, the Schumalla case, in which the Advocate General has advised that road safety of itself was an objective of the treaty, as was rail and inland waterway safety. The Commission argued that safety issues directly affect the play of market forces and that accidents have economic and financial consequences.
It seems clear to us that a court decision is needed to settle the issue, which appears to hinge, as the Sub-Committee states,
"on different interpretations of the Schumalla case".
However, we believe that a legal framework that is so narrowly based on freeing up the market and allowing unfettered competition is an inadequate basis for promoting a coherent and integrated Community transport policy. Much is made of the need to harmonise standards in preparation for 1992 and the single market. Should not equal attention and value be given to the social and human consequences of 1992, to improving working conditions and safety standards and to giving environmental considerations a far greater role and value than hitherto? Unless that is done, if the Government's view prevails, the single market will work for the benefit of the few, not the many.
If the European Commission puts forward sensible proposals within the transport sector that advance road safety or, for instance, stimulate the commitment of member states to protect the environment as a key factor in their transport policy, we believe that the Commission should be supported. The Opposition support good proposals, whatever their source.
Mr. Marlow: The hon. Lady has just said that the Opposition would support good proposals from the Commission. Would they do so even where the Commission did not have competence?
Ms. Ruddock: I have made it plain that the issue of competence is not clear, either in the Select Committee's report or in the Government's statement, and that, to determine this matter, there would have to be a court case. However, the hon. Gentleman will understand from looking at the Select Committee's report and at the evidence of the Commission's legal adviser that the Commission believes that the Government's case would not succeed in court, because article 75 allows for the possibility of proceeding on the ground of road safety measures alone, without additional measures relating to competitiveness.
Mr. Marlow: The hon. Lady's original statement was wider than that. She said that she would support good ideas from the Commission, not necessarily just the ideas that we are considering in the debate. Does she mean that she would support any good ideas, whether or not the Commission had competence?
Ms. Ruddock: We would support any ideas on their merits. It is always possible, even if there is not agreement among all member states, for states to support good ideas and introduce them in their national Parliaments. The Minister has argued that such measures are best left in the hands of national Governments who are more in tune with national behaviour and social norms. I do not see why both paths cannot be pursued.
I acknowledge and applaud the efforts by the former Minister for Roads and Traffic in reducing road casualties and in promoting road safety. I hope that the Minister for Public Transport and his new colleagues will continue to make road safety a priority, as the Opposition have long argued. The former Minister acknowledged in his evidence to the Sub-Committee that, if he were the Commission, he would try to find every peg on which to reduce road casualties, and surely that must be the duty of all of us. He spoke also of the progress that could be made on those measures where there was doubt about Community competence, principally on design modifications to vehicles. We would support all the measures to which he referred, such as technical changes, improved seat belts, softer steering wheels and better protection on motor bikes.
The proposal that is most contentious and most strongly resisted by the Government is the draft directive on the maximum permitted alcohol concentrations for vehicle drivers. We have heard that the Commissioners propose to set the maximum alcohol limit at 50 mg. It is currently 80 mg in the United Kingdom. The Minister has outlined his reasons for his opposition to lowering the limit, and in what he says there is much with which we agree. Working to influence attitudes towards drinking and driving at all levels is vital, and a focus on the drinking limit may have the effect of implying that it is safe to drink up to that limit.
A strategy of public education and stricter enforcement has resulted in a gradual reduction in accidents resulting from drinking and driving, but the toll still remains unacceptably high. About 900 to 1,000 people are still killed on Britain's roads as a result of drink-driving, and more than 20,000 are injured annually. More steps are needed further to reduce the rate, and it may be that a reduction in the limit will be part of a package of measures
960
designed to reduce drink-driving, although, like the Minister, we are doubtful of its effectiveness as a single measure.
A more productive measure, for which there is widespread support in the House and outside, would he the introduction of random breath testing. We would support highly visible, systematic mass testing at roadside check points, but because of the possible abuse of people's civil liberties we would not support providing the police with unfettered powers to stop and test at their own discretion.
The value of random breath testing is as a deterrent to drivers. Its secondary role is as a detector. We would support such a measure, and we hope very much that the new Minister for Roads and Traffic, the hon. Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins), will soon be making it clear to the House where the Government stand.
I move on to the draft directive on seat belts. There is little disagreement between ourselves and the Government.
Mr. Rupert Allason: I think that I might have missed something. Perhaps the hon. Lady will be kind enough to explain what the difference is between random breath testing and calling drivers into the side of the road in a visible way, as she described, which is surely random breath testing as well. I do not understand the difference between the two.
Mrs. Ruddock: There is a significant difference. Accompanying the introduction of random breath testing is the need scientifically to randomise it. The check must be truly random. For example, one would stop one vehicle in 100, 500 or whatever. If discretion is left entirely to the police officer, there is always the possibility that that individual will choose certain types of vehicle or drivers. That can arouse suspicion among drivers that they have been picked on for some purpose other than pure random testing. It is a serious consideration for civil liberties. I can say from my constituency experience that there are many complaints from young black people who consider that they are stopped disproportionately often. If we have a random system, we must be careful that we can demonstrate that it is truly random.
Mr. Bowen Wells: Does the hon. Lady believe that the type of testing which she has described, with which I have much sympathy, should be imposed by national Parliaments' decisions or by the Commission? She appears to be willing to consider imposition by the Commission.
Ms. Ruddock: We are not talking about a measure that the Commission has proposed.
Mr. Wells: Not yet.
Ms. Ruddock: The hon. Gentleman may be correct. We agree with the Government that what the Commission is currently proposing—a reduction in the permitted alcohol level in the blood—is not the present priority. I acknowledge that in the fight to reduce the number of drink-drive offences we need to introduce new measures. The priority of groups such as the Parliamentary Advisory Council on Transport Safety is deemed to be that of random testing. If the Commission were to bring that forward, I am sure that it would have

961
our support. We know that with 1992, drivers will be constantly crossing national boundaries. There is sense in having measures equalised throughout the Community.
Perhaps, I can continue with my speech, or I shall be taking too much time from other hon. Members who wish to participate in the debate.
There is virtually no disagreement between the Government and ourselves about seat belts. The Commission proposed to make the wearing of seat belts compulsory for all occupants of cars, with certain exceptions. Again, we know from the surveys by the road research laboratory that only 6 per cent. of adults use rear seat belts, but that the use of them could save about 70 per cent. of rear seat fatalities. There were 25,000 casualties in 1987, 4,000 of which were fatalities. We very much support the wearing of rear seat belts. There is a difference between the projections of the Parliamentary Advisory Committee on Transport Safety and of the Government about the percentage of cars that will be fitted with rear seat belts. PACTS believes that 45 per cent. of all cars will be fitted with rear seat belts by the end of this year. I urge the Minister to re-examine the figures, because it may be possible that, even if we are not going to act within the Commission, we can act on the national question sooner rather than later.
The Commission has justified its proposal to harmonise speed limits on several grounds, the least persuasive of which was that speed limits have a direct effect on prices and that a distortion of competition could result from different speed limits in different countries. We tend to agree with the proposition that adequate signing is equally important, so that drivers crossing borders are aware of the different speed restrictions. Secondly, speed limits are closely related to congestion problems in each country and, as such, are not perhaps appropriate for community harmonisation. Having said that, we acknowledge that there are arguments for bringing down some speed limits. Evidence shows that reducing speed limits can reduce the accident rates, although a judgment needs to be made as to at what point a reduced speed limit may result in it being disregarded.
There is a strong case for lower speed limits for buses and coaches, as outlined in the Commission's proposal. Many motorists feel threatened by the speed and size of
962
coaches travelling in the fast lanes of our motorways and passengers in such coaches, especially in double deckers, are frequently concerned about safety.
Mr. Roger King: Clearly, the hon. Lady will have studied the accident record of coach travel in this country and on our motorways. Is she aware that the biggest operator in western Europe has not harmed a passenger in three and a half years?
Ms. Ruddock: I am aware of that. I did not make any claims about safety. I simply referred to the effect on other drivers on the motorways and the feelings of many passengers on those coaches.
Mr. King: They do not feel that way.
Ms. Ruddock: They do.
Mr. King: I travel on coaches.
Ms. Ruddock: The hon. Gentleman may have travelled on them, but many people who have also travelled on them have spoken to me about their concerns. Anyone who is driving down a motorway at 70 mph, and is passed by a double-decker coach, is somewhat intimidated.
The points which I wish to make on speed do not just concern safety. We need to work to increase an awareness among motorists of the environmental consequences of speeding. High speeds produce higher vehicle emissions and lower speeds reduce vehicle emissions, especially nitrates and oxides. The Commission states that a reduction in average speeds in the Community to 100 km per hour could reduce car emissions by 10 per cent. That is an important factor which we also need to take into account.
All the specific proposals are set out in the context of a continuing programme of road safety work undertaken by the Commission, as set out in its document on road safety. The arguments about the legal basis of the Commission's proposals have already been rehearsed. They should not obscure the fact that, with 50,000 people dying and 1·6 million injured each year on Community roads, much work still needs to be done.
We note that the legal adviser to the Commission has said that a proposal related to road safety per se would stand a good chance of being accepted as falling within article 75. However, as the Minister has said, the matter is currently academic because of the blocking action of member states, and we are content to leave it as it is.
10.54 pm
Mr. Teddy Taylor: I hope that the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) will listen carefully to my brief comments. She said that the Commission is saying some wise and knowledgable things. Perhaps it is because I am sure that there is no group of people in the world that does not say wise things from time to time, but we may differ about their wisdom.
I hope that from the point of view of constitutional democracy, the hon. Lady will be careful about what seems almost an obsession to pass over the right to make decisions to something that is not democratic in the sense in which British people have always understood our way of making laws. I hope that the hon. Lady will accept that when proposals come forward from an unelected body such as the Commission, when the powers of the various organisations are decided by the non-elected European Court, and when the final decisions are made by the Council of Ministers, who often "swop" support in different councils on the basis of what is happening, we are moving many miles away from democracy as we understood it. I therefore hope——
Ms. Ruddock: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is entirely innocent in this matter, but it was his Government who agreed to all these measures and powers for the Community.
Mr. Taylor: I accept that the decisions on the treaty of Rome and on the Single European Act were made by Parliament—I happened to vote against them and that is my own business—but they are now the law of the land. I hope that the hon. Lady will hear very much in mind the fact that if those powers are consistently and regularly extended by the Commission when there is insufficient protection for member states to do something about it, we have a serious constitutional problem.
We know that there are only two things that the British Government can do if a directive is brought before the Council which they think is in excess of the powers of the Community under the terms of the treaties that we have approved. First, they can seek to get the Council unanimously to say no, if it is a question of majority voting. However, it is very rare for that to happen and I am not aware of any decision in which that has happened—[Interruption.] Yes, at its first meeting the Council of Ministers can say no unanimously, but to my knowledge that has not happened.
Secondly, one can go to the European Court. The hon. Lady will be aware that in a large majority of the cases—even in the minority, there were other factors—the court has consistently supported extensions to the powers of the institutions of the Community.
Dr. Godman: Is it not the case that domestic legislatures have little or no control over the decision-making of the European Commission and that domestic Parliaments have no control over Council of Ministers' decisions? Therefore, is it not almost inevitable that over the next decade or so the Strasbourg Parliament will gain more and more power as Parliaments such as this lose power?
Mr. Taylor: I agree with almost all that the hon. Gentleman has said, but there is no question of the
964
Strasbourg Parliament getting all the power. When the EEC is based on the initiating power of the Commission, on the decisions of the Council of Ministers, and on the extension of its powers by the Court, there is no role for the European Parliament. There could be a role if we had a European Government. If we had a European Foreign Secretary, a European Chancellor of the Exchequer and a European Parliament, with nothing but a county council at national level, those powers could rest with that Parliament.
The hon. Gentleman must be well aware that for the present, and in the immediate future, if the European Parliament were to disappear, tomorrow, nobody would notice. Indeed, on these issues, if this Government and this Parliament were to disappear nobody would notice. Even if all of us decided—I exclude the new Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, because he may feel that this is not one for him—to reject this whole business, it would not have the slightest effect on what the Minister might do.
We must appreciate that we are facing a serious democratic issue. That is why some of us have asked the Government, if they think that this is an extension of Community powers, to try to do something about it. We must remember that we have given certain powers to the EEC, and if it is going out of its way to extend those powers unreasonably, the Government must do something about it. That is why we have to go all the way to the European Court. Although the answer might be no, we have to make it clear that we are not happy with the way in which things are going.
Ultimately, given the way in which the Commission is working, almost nothing will be our business. Almost every decision will be taken by the European Community, sadly, in a society which is basically not democratic. That should worry us, and the Government.
The Minister, sadly, did not refer to what I regard as terribly important proposals—those on driver licensing. The Minister will be aware of the Common Market's latest ploy, which involves those wonderful vehicles to which some of us have subscribed—the special minibuses which transport blind and disabled people. They are run by wonderful charities and driven by volunteers, and have fabulous safety records. The latest proposals are for a special licence category and trained drivers.
I have received many letters from charities asking what will happen to them. I have had to reply that I cannot do anything about it, as it has all been decided in Brussels. Will the Minister make the position abundantly clear? Is he saying that the proposals are blocked? Can the charities therefore forget about the matter? Alternatively, is the question still open? The Minister must be well aware that the proposal is causing the charities huge concern and they would like to know exactly where they stand. It is on page 3 of the memorandum issued on 8 March 1989.
Mr. Roger King: I believe that the matter has been resolved successfully and that it is all right for existing drivers to continue operating minibuses with up to 17 seats. In future it may be necessary to have a higher standard of test for such vehicles. We would welcome that as it would improve safety records. Running those vehicles is an important task. We need to ensure that those who drive the vehicles, which are often loaded with scouts, cubs, football teams and so on, attain a very high standard of driving.
Mr. Taylor: My hon. Friend the Minister will probably disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) as he is aware that the standard of driving of those volunteer drivers is about the highest of any group of drivers in the country. My hon. Friend should also be aware that some of our leading charities have written to say that if they are forced to take all their new drivers as trained drivers, unfortunately those vehicles will have to stop carrying blind and disabled people, not because of a decision taken by the Government, but because of the directive. The Commission may consider it appropriate for Europe, but why on earth should we be forced to say that trained drivers must drive the minibuses for which most of us have collected cash or contributed to and believe are important to take disabled people on trips to the seaside and regularly on other journeys?
I hope that the Minister will tell us the score. Will new drivers have to be specially qualified, adding enormously to the costs of operating the minibuses, or has the matter been entirely blocked? It does not say so in any of the documents, and we should like to know.
My second question concerns speed limits. The Opposition did not comment in detail on the proposals for speed limits. I was hoping that they would. I hope that those who study such matters will look at page 2 of the document issued on 22 February which puts forward proposals that for a large number of vehicles, the 30 mph speed limit should change to 31 mph, the maximum rate for certain goods vehicles should be reduced from 70 mph to 62 mph and for others the maximum of 60 mph should be reduced to 50 mph. Those are fundamental and important changes. The Government have said that to change the signs for some of those limits would cost £10 million. There are many worthy causes for which £10 million could be used, but I do not see how it will help society or the cause of the Common Market to spend £10 million on changing signs from 30 to 31. Apart from the road signs, many official forms would have to be changed.
I understand that we can get out of this if we obtain something called a permanent derogation. Even the Commission, despite what the hon. Member for Deptford says—I know that she agrees with it—and a commissioner who wants a united Europe would say, "If they have a 30 mph limit and we want a 31 mph limit, it does not make a great deal of difference." We could split the difference and call it 30·5 mph. I think that it is something that we can resolve.
The Minister may say, "Do not worry about it, we have a blocking minority"; but he will know that such a minority disappears. We have to ask whether we can stop provision being made long term, and the answer is that we can—if we have a permanent derogation. It would be crazy and confusing if some vehicles had a speed limit of 62 mph, others had a limit of 44 mph, and still others had a limit of 50 mph.
What is wrong with our speed limits? If they are wrong, we can probably sort them out. If the buses are going too fast in the constituency of the hon. Member for Deptford, we can resolve it. What is the need for this obsessive commitment to get everyone harmonised on 31 mph? If, as the driver of a van, my speed limit was 44 mph, I would say not that that improved road safety but that it added to confusion.
The Government agree with me. They say that the proposals would lead to unsafe bunching, to an increase in
966
journey times, to increased costs and to a reduction in the competitive position of road transport and the freight industries in relation to other transport modes. I should have thought that they would appeal to the Labour party—they will undermine public transport. I am sorry to see the Labour party fulfilling the role that we used to expect from the old Liberals, now the SLD or whatever it is called—that everything from the Common Market is to be approved of. It seems that the more that we can give to Brussels, the more likely we are to get the uniform Socialism that Labour wants. In view of that, I hope that the Government will appreciate that we have a problem. We must do something to stop silly, costly measures.
I refer only to the Front Bench of the Labour party. Quite a number of Back-Bench Labour Members are still sensible and do not want this nonsense. They want to try to preserve the rights of a free democracy. I hope that they will exercise the same power over their Front Bench as some of us are exercising, with great success, on our Front Bench, which has resulted in a change in the Government's attitude to these issues.
We must accept that the Government have said that there is a problem of competence here. They told the Select Committee on European Legislation that they have substantial objections on competence grounds. The Commission said that it can do almost anything because article 75 refers to, "any other appropriate provisions". That means a lot.
I was sorry to hear the Minister say that the Schumalla case confirmed that everything is okay because the Commission's chief legal officers took the opposite view. The title of the case was "Road Safety", and a sentence in the penultimate paragraph of the judgment said that the safety of transport by road, rail and inland waterway was indeed an objective of the common transport policy.
I hope that the Government will give us some idea of where they intend to go on this extension of policy. They cannot simply ignore it and say that they have a blocking minority in the meantime. This is a growing and continuing problem, and we would like to hear from the Government what their long-term policy on such matters will be. Can we stop silly things happening? Can we stop a 31 mph speed limit permanently?
I hope that the Government will make it abundantly clear to the Common Market that, although there may be some wise and even sensible men there, we do not like their seizing powers, and that the Government are determined to do something about it.
11.9 pm
Mr. Roger Livsey: I know of no proposals from the Commission to abolish miles, nor of any to abolish hours. There needs to be an injection of common sense into the debate. The hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) made points of academic interest. I hope that common sense will prevail and that we shall retain a 30 mph speed limit.
I would like the Minister to reassure us, as his predecessor did some weeks ago, that the problem of volunteer drivers has been overcome. I am a volunteer driver on some weekends and I expect to be able to continue to be one under a licensing system that makes allowances for the vast number of volunteer vehicles on

967
the roads. His predecessor said that he would make strong representations on the matter, and I trust that they have borne fruit. Perhaps the Minister will confirm that later.
The objectives of the documents are desirable, although the means of achieving them are somewhat contentious, and that has taken up much of the debate. However, having signed and voted for the Single European Act, there is little we can do to unscramble some of these matters. The element of common sense should, perhaps, be applied here.
One of our problems is the need to strengthen the European Parliament. We receive many directives, like tablets of stone, from the Commission, which we are supposed to follow to the letter. If the European Parliament were stronger, it might have more impact on the Commission and be able to bring about some reforms in that respect.
Mr. Cash rose——
Mr. Tony Marlow: The hon. Gentleman seems to have stirred up a hornets' nest. Will he remind the House when it was explained to the House, how it was explained to the House and how clear it was to him at the time that the Single European Act meant that transport policy would be totally within the competence of the European Community and that it would be totally within the competence of the European Community on the basis of majority voting? I was here all the time and it never occurred to me.
Mr. Livsey: As I understand it, transport was one of the points incorporated in the treaty of Rome. That is now history. We are involved in a rather academic debate about it now. We are confronted this evening with documents that the Commission wishes to implement.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: The hon. Gentleman is perfectly correct in saying that the Single European Act did not particularly affect the issues we are discussing. However, is he aware that, neither under the Single European Act nor previously, would these matters have gone for a second round to the European Parliament after the initial opinion? Is he therefore advocating that they should do and that many other issues should do? In that case, what is he expected to be doing here?
Mr. Livsey: The hon. Gentleman must recognise that we are set on a path to greater European integration. That will undoubtedly take some time, and it is taking a long time already. Some Europeans believe that we are not moving fast enough and there are a variety of views in the House on the topic. However, we should get back to the documents.
The objective of reducing deaths on the roads of Europe is laudable. The figure for those injured—other hon. Members have mentioned a figure of 1·6 million—is enormous and the number of injuries in a single year on the roads of Europe equates with figures for the second world war. When 50,000 people a year die, it is equivalent to wiping out a town the size of Hereford or Merthyr Tydfil, for example, every year. It is a serious problem, and we should not sell ourselves short in wishing to improve matters.
I know that the Government are attempting to improve matters. Britain's record on road safety and road deaths is extremely good, but that does not mean that there is no room for improvement in future. I would certainly support
968
measures to achieve improvement. Successive Governments have introduced measures to reduce the number of road deaths. We are somewhat ahead of other Community countries in that respect.
We must consider each item on its merits. Stringent tyre tread depths have been implemented in Europe, and that will help road safety in this country. It is difficult to achieve the harmonisation of speeds, because there are different road conditions in this country. It is highly desirable to reduce the alcohol limit—50 ml per litre of blood is a controversial figure, but, none the less, it is a move in the right direction. To achieve adequate road safety, no driver should drink at all.
Many crocodile tears have been shed about Europe's powers, but, whether or not we like them, they exist. We must try to see the matter through in the best possible way.
Mr. Bill Walker: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Livsey: I will not give way, as I am coming to the end of my speech.
We must examine road safety and related matters in greater detail. I refer in particular to speed, in relation to which it is more difficult to achieve harmonisation.
11.16 pm
Mr. Bowen Wells: Hon. Members are, or should be, dealing with a common-sense matter—the way to reduce deaths and injuries on our roads. The Commission should proceed in the time-honoured and traditional manner in which many European states have constitutionally proceeded, and that is to devolve this type of decision-making to national Governments, local governments and other authorities. These matters concern culture, tradition, and road conditions, which differ greatly in various parts of the Community.
I direct the Minister to the idea of subsidiarity when arguing these matters in the Council of Ministers. Europeans would understand such an argument. It is not offensive to greater European unity. It is a method by which we could proceed harmoniously to produce the road safety measures that we are discussing. Such measures would be understood by the people who use the roads in the Community and they would be enforced by the police. We will enforce such measures only if they are supported by ordinary people in the Community.
Mr. Cash: My hon. Friend invokes the principle of subsidiarity. That is based on the assumption that the Commission is the remotest degree interested in reducing its powers to the point at which it would leave such matters to member states. Does my hon. Friend agree that, if it is proposing to invoke a common transport policy as the basis upon which it would take up this matter and proceed with it as it is at the moment, there is not a cat in hell's chance that it would agree to the principle of subsicliarity?
Mr. Wells: My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. The Commission is entrusted with the duty of taking all initiatives and making all proposals to the Council of Ministers. Our hon. Friend the Minister will attend the Council of Ministers, so it is to there that our arguments and ideas must be directed. We want to reject the proposed legislation on the three matters before the House. The Council must ensure that road safety is a

969
matter of subsidiarity. Although there is some dispute about the powers of the Commission, they might prevail in a court. Nevertheless, for the reason of common sense, the Commission should not proceed.
The first matter relates to the amount of alcohol a driver can consume before committing an offence. In this country, the permitted level is 80 ml of alcohol per 1,000 ml. of blood, but in the remainder of the Community the level is 50 ml. The question is, what are the cultural traditions on the drinking of alcohol in the various Community countries? In Bavaria, for example, employers regularly supply workers in their factories with cold drinks—not Pepsi Cola or other soft, non-alcoholic drinks, but Bavarian lager. It is normal practice for them to drink lager throughout the day. In Britain, such a practice would probably induce a large number of people leaving work to drive while over the alcohol limit. That is just one example of how cultural traditions play an important part in the decision on the correct level under which people are permitted to drive.
In other parts of the Community access to alcohol for young people is severely limited. If they took in as much as 50 ml it would be dangerous because they are not used to alcohol and their judgment and driving skills would be affected. Decisions on this matter should therefore relate to national traditions and be covered by national, not Community, legislation.
It has been argued that one should not drink and drive at all, but that is not the law of this country or that of most of Europe. The law allows people to drive below a certain level of alcohol in the blood. The decision on what alcohol limits should be set has nothing to do with competition between the various Community countries, and it is through the anchor of the competitive element that we should try to make Europe a common market.
If, by having different regulations, one Community country achieved an advantage over another, there should be a common European standard. However, alcohol content and back seat belts cannot be anchored to a competitive advantage for any country. There might be a slight argument of competitive advantage on the issue of speed limits. However, as speed limits on roads in any Community country will apply equally to any driver, from wherever he comes in the Community, they are in fact all on the same level. All drivers should check the speed limits applying to roads—whether 30, 60 or 70 mph—and they should remain continuously aware of them. Having the same speed limits throughout Europe—especially the ridiculous change from 30 to 31 mph—would make absolutely no difference to road safety. It would not save a single life or a single limb.
This is not just a matter of whether the Community has competence in this matter, it is simply a matter of common sense. I appeal to the European honoured tradition of subsidiarity—that a law should not be made at a higher level if it can be made at a lower level and thereby gain consent for that law and aid its enforcement.
11.24 pm
Mr. Nigel Spearing: The hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) has put his finger on the important difference between scientific specification, particularly for vehicles, depth of tyre tread
970
or places for seat belts, which is a physical and clear matter which can be tested, and human conduct, social habits and custom. The two are different. One can be measured exactly and the other is local.
I agree with genuine co-operation on standards, particularly on safety matters, but in matters of human conduct, where compliance is subtle, deterrence is important. My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) illustrated that in her remarks on random breath testing.
We all know that compliance, deterrence, penalties, sentencing policy and the way in which police operate are sensitive matters even in different parts of our own land. Therefore, it is fundamental that we should leave this to a level where there will be the best practical result. The evidence given by the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) to the Committee was strong in that respect.
However, the evidence given to the Select Committee on competence was not reassuring. One of the Commission's witnesses appeared before the Committee and the Chairman asked:
"I am wondering if you could indicate to us, on your interpretation of the Treaty, what you would regard as being appropriate for a national government or parliament as legislation within the sphere of transport? As you have explained it, one would assume that there was none. Am I right in that?"
The reply was ambiguous and at question 44 the Chairman again said:
"As you have answered that, it would appear to us that as transport is clearly an economic activity, nothing would be excluded. I am not sure whether you would agree with that?"
Mr. Gosalbo-Bono replied:
"Legally speaking, according to the Treaty of Rome, every possible subject that will come in the field of transport—there will need again to be established a common transport policy—will fall inside the competence of the Community."
That was the view of the legal officer to the Commission's Director General of Transport. It is not necessarily that of the European Court, but that is clearly the case that the Commission would argue if it ever got there.
I would have hoped, along with the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford, that common sense would intervene. Irrespective of whether it is a good thing or not, and even if it could be proved that it was within the competence of the treaty, surely any wise Government would not push legislation to the limits of its own constitution. Some Governments may do that. Some politicians, even some Prime Ministers, may do that. But whether that is wise is a different matter.
I hope that Ministers will argue that, irrespective of whether there is competence—the Commission thinks that there is, but Ministers think not—it would be unwise to use it in this respect. That would be in accordance with good human nature and so would be more likely to yield the practical results that we all wish to see.
11.29 pm
Mr. Roger King: I listened with interest to right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House, and agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) in his criticism of the European Community inflicting ideas and legislation on this country. However, in respect of motor transport policy and of motor vehicle construction and usage, it may be to our advantage to arrive at a consensus throughout the Community, in establishing a legal framework within which all member states could operate. The opening of the

971
Channel tunnel and the broadening of Europe's motoring horizons will bring a far higher number of heavy goods vehicles on to our roads. Some commonality of speed limits, driving hours and usage would only be sensible.
We must ensure that the message goes from this House that the Commission's proposals are unacceptable as they stand. Annex 1 to the Committee's report shows the percentage distribution of blood alcohol concentration across a sample of 728 road accident fatalities. Thirty-five per cent. of fatalities occurred among drivers having an alcohol level of 0·09 per cent. in their bloodstream. That is a tiny limit, and one wonders whether the accidents could be blamed on other factors or were wholly attributable to the drivers concerned being in a highly inebriated condition. The same question arises in respect of the 29 per cent. of the sample having an alcohol concentration of 0·5 per cent.
The majority of accidents occur among drivers having an alcohol level of 0·8 per cent. and above. Our limit is 89 mg of alcohol per 100 ml of blood, and experience over many years shows that most fatalities occur among drivers with an alcohol concentration well in excess of that limit. We should try to ensure that the standard adopted throughout Europe is that which the majority of member states already apply.
Much greater controversy surrounds speed limits. British road conditions, widths, signposting and other variables make it difficult to apply to our motorways the limits that are imposed elsewhere in Europe, and the reverse is true in respect of German autobahns. British roads consisting of three lanes and a generous hard shoulder may be classified as motorways, whereas two-lane roads with narrow shoulders in Germany may be designated as autobahns. Nevertheless, it is probably safer driving fast on a British motorway than it is on an autostrada—even though the motorway has a higher speed limit. It would be difficult to establish a pan-European speed limit for motorways.
Nevertheless, a European scale of speed limits seems sensible as we move gradually towards a more integrated Europe. The 30 or 31 mph limit exemplifies the ludicrousness of some of the proposals: what we mean is that we will stick to 30 mph, and if the rest of Europe wants to do 31 mph who is going to argue? Surely it is not necessary to insist on a 30 mph limit if the rest of Europe can accept 31 mph, because of the difficulties involved in translating metric speeds into miles per hour.
The hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) discussed proposals for heavy goods vehicles and coaches. The European requirement that coaches should he restricted to 62 mph on motorways is clearly ludicrous; there is no evidence to suggest that that is much safer than our standard 70 mph limit. Coach travel—which many people have had an opportunity to sample as a result of the rail strike—has become more popular since deregulation, and there is no evidence that passengers travelling at 70 mph on the top deck of a Rapide coach are frightened out of their wits. On the contrary, drivers on the M1 passing Scottish Citylink coaches on their way to Glasgow in the late evening will see the passengers sound asleep, or perhaps watching a video, at speeds at and over 65 mph.
I am also appalled at the suggestion that expressway vehicles—whatever they are—should be limited to 50 mph. We would certainly wish to contest such a restriction. I note from the requirements that coaches will be traveling
972
at, or very near, the same speed as heavy goods vehicles. The present speed limit for coaches makes a good deal of sense, and experience has suggested that coach travel is extremely safe.
Perhaps the European Commission should have a look at our railways: some of the trains do not seem to hold the track nowadays, as we have seen recently. I doubt whether they will get round to it, however, as far too many environmental lobbies favour rail transport and are constantly seeking to place more restrictions on motor vehicles and travel.
We are lucky in this country: because of our attitude to coach travel we have built up a very popular system, which enables passengers to journey from one end to the other at an economic price. That is not possible in Europe. because coaches travelling at 50 or 60 mph cover ground so slowly that it is not an attractive form of transport. If we wish to retain the competitive nature of our transport—road versus rail versus air—we must ensure that all modes of travel are encouraged in the right way. I favour a limit of 75 mph for cars, with higher speeds for quieter motorways.
Let us consider the legislation carefully: we need to get matters exactly right.
11.38 pm
Mr. Portillo: I welcome the generous remarks made by the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) about my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley): he put his heart into his efforts to improve road safety, and I believe that he has a good deal of achievement to his credit. I also welcome the many points that she made in agreement with the Government's position, as set out by me. I shall, however, study with great interest what she said about giving support for good ideas, whatever their source. My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) responded quickly to that feature of her speech.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East also asked me why I had not mentioned minibus driver licensing. The answer is that it is not included in the documents that we are discussing. I refer my hon. Friend to a written answer given by my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham on 21 July 1989, in which he said that he had made good progress in direct discussions with the Commission about minibuses. He thought that the Commission's proposals on the second driver licensing directive could be modified to allow ordinary car licence holders, including the deaf, to drive minibuses with up to 17 seats under wide-ranging circumstances, which are set out in the written answer. Obviously, at this stage, the modifications are only proposed, but the discussions have been highly encouraging. I thank my hon. Friend and other hon. Members for the support that they have given the Government, which has been instrumental in persuading Community officials that they should suggest such a compromise.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) referred to speed limits. It is clear that the Commission has not thought sufficiently about the practical implications of harmonising speed limits or, in particular, the cost of harmonising speed limits or, in particular, the cost of conversion. We robustly pointed out the difficulties to the Commission. Opposition to harmonisation of speed limits among other member countries is so firm that so far no attempt has been made

973
to begin Council negotiations. Derogation does not arise because there is no community law on speed limits. It is clear that harmonisation will not be pressed, because, if it were, ludicrous consequences would result. I am happy to assure my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East that we would be prepared to go to the European Court if necessary, but a strong issue would have to be involved.
The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) said that it is not sensible to try to legislate Europewide on local custom or human behaviour. I believe that we have used that argument in the past, but I am happy to endorse the hon. Gentleman's remarks.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) stressed subsidiarity, and I agree that we should press that important principle. We should like it to be applied in the United Kingdom as well as in the European Community. We depend on local authorities for much of the good work that is done.
The principle underlying our approach to road safety is that we should concentrate on measures on which we can be reasonably sure that our proposals will reduce casualties. Many questions have been asked about whether the Community has competence to deal with this matter. We doubt whether some of its proposals meet the test of having been proven to improve road safety——
It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted Business).
Question agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 4303/89 on seat belts, 4252/89 on road safety, 9228/89 on maximum permitted alcohol concentration for vehicle drivers, and 4156/87 and 4305/89 on speed limits; and endorses the Government's commitment to resist proposals in this area which are outside the field of Community competence, and not clearly related to the objectives of a common transport policy or of the internal market.

Freedom of Movement
Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): I must inform the House that Mr. Speaker has not selected the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken).
11.43 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Patrick Nicholls): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 5786/89 relating to freedom of movement for workers; supports the broad objective of free movement for workers within the Single Market; and endorses the Government's intention of seeking amendment of inappropriate provisions.
The Commission's proposals aim to amend the basic Community law on the free movement of workers which was established more than 20 years ago. We adopted the principle of free movement when we joined the Community and continue to support it as an essential element of the free market. The right of a national of any member state to take or seek work throughout the Community gives everyone a stake in the success of the free market.
The existing rules have provided that right for 20 years. They also require workers from other member states to be treated equally to nationals of the host state, and allow them to be accompanied by their immediate family dependants of any nationality. The Commission now proposes to amend and extend those rules. The proposals are at an early stage and we are seeking the views of the House before they come to be discussed in the Council of Ministers.
However, it is already clear that a number of member states, including ourselves, would have difficulty accepting all the proposals as they currently stand. The proposals are detailed and technical, but they also contain some general principles the effects of which are far from clear. It seems that in some respects they go beyond what is appropriate to the free movement of workers and that they raise some questions about Community competence on the admission of people who are not themselves nationals of member states.
Mr. Tony Marlow: I hope that I am in order in harking back to the previous debate. The theme running through that debate was concerned with Community competence, and the Government said that what the Community was trying to do was not within its competence. My hon. Friend is saying that on the important matter that is now before the House, which touches the basis of statehood—immigration—he believes that the Community does not have competence.
I ask my hon. Friend the question that was asked in the previous debate. Supposing that the Community gains competence by the use of these measures, uses the European Court and uses the majority voting procedures that are available to it. What then will the Government do? The Government know well that the British people would regret, would resent and would be totally against the Community gaining competence over immigration measures. What would the Government do? We need to know the answer.
Mr.Nicholls:As I said when I gave way to my hon,.Friend, ther is a question of competence here, Although

975
this is a wide-ranging proposed regulation, the Government take the view that in one respect at least the question of competence is not made out, and that relates to what is proposed as regards those members of a family who are non-EC nationals. The question of competence is whether the Community is competent to make regulations or directives about non-EC nationals. The Government take the view that the right way to approach the issue is to try to negotiate it in the usual way, and to make sure that the Community is confined so that it deals with matters of competence, because, as my hon. Friend knows——
Mr. Marlow rose——
Mr. Nicholls: —or he would not make the intervention that I suspect he is about to make—there is no way in which competence can be challenged before the event. One cannot go to the court and say, "Here is a measure which, if it were to be made, would be ultra vires." If, at the end of the day, the directive or regulation is made and it is alleged that it is ultra vires—because the Community was incompetent—that could be challenged before the court, but that is a long way down the road. Obviously, the correct procedure is to negotiate, and take the view of the House at an early stage, to make sure that the Community confines itself.
Mr. Marlow: As my hon. Friend looks at this issue—an individual issue—in prospect, that might be right. But we have had examples in the past where the Government fought Community competence and that competence was established, and measures which the Government did not like were passed. Once a directive or regulation is in, even if it is challenged, it is the law of the land until the court overthrows it. So one is saddled with Community legislation until the court overthrows it.
The court, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) said in an earlier intervention, is a political court, biased towards Community competence. Time and again the Government have been defeated, and it is becoming an accelerating process; the Government are more and more being defeated over Community competence. When will the Government do something about that? We are being rolled over and we do not like it.
Mr. Nicholls: I have been accused of many things, but never of rolling over my hon. Friend, and I would like to think that tonight will be no such occasion. My hon. Friend just made an interesting and telling intervention in which he set out again his views on qualified majority voting. He has his views on that and he expresses them with his usual moderation and eloquence. But with respect to him, that is not the point with which we are dealing tonight.
Whether or not my hon. Friend likes it, the Single European Act is a fact. It allows for qualified majority voting, a subject to which I shall return. It is not a question of a one-way street, and we acceded to the Single European Act because, candidly, we reckoned that there was something in it for us. To that extent, the Government are prepared to take the rough with the smooth. My hon. Friend wants to take the smooth with the smooth, and I am afraid that in an imperfect world that option is not available to him.
The Commission has looked carefully at the experience over the past 20 years and at relevant judgments of the
976
European Court of Justice, and it has proposed a number of detailed technical amendments to bring the regulation and directive up to date.
For example, the right to receive vocational training becomes a general right, not limited, as at present, to training in vocational schools. The right to equal treatment in housing is explicitly extended to cover housing finance. All this is welcome clarification, which we support.
We support, too, changes to simplify the granting of residence permits to people with the right to work.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: In paragraph 13 of an explanatory memorandum dated 5 May, the former Minister of State, Department of Employment—the right hon. Member for Northavon (Mr.Cope) —said:
"There is a widely shared concern that as drafted the proposals are much too uncertain in their effects and that in some areas they go beyond the reasonable scope of Article 49 … into areas concerned with the freedom of movement of persons generally."
Given the comments of the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) and this imprecision, do not these proposals conflict directly with section 14 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1988? It was designed specifically to exclude 95 Spanish fishing vessels from fishing in contravention of United Kingdom quotas. Do not these proposals confound not only the Merchant Shipping Act but the ruling of the other place in favour of the Government? Are we not seeing, once again, a diminution of parliamentary sovereignty and an increase in the power of the European Commission?
Mr. Nicholls: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that, tempting though it may be, I shall not pass an opinion on whether the Merchant Shipping Act begs that interpretation. However, I agree wholeheartedly with the more important part of his remarks when he said that there was some imprecision in the language of the regulations. As I said in my opening remarks, we want to hear what the House has to say. I do not disguise the fact that the language is imprecise. Not only the United Kingdom but other member states want the legislation to be much tighter. You would probably restrain me, Madam Deputy Speaker, if I tried to use all the available lime to make out a case against some of the imprecise language. We are considering this matter at an early stage so that we can ventilate our anxieties and highlight the possible advantages. We want to ensure at an early stage that we do whatever we can to tighten the language.
Mr. Teddy Taylor: My hon. Friend has kindly said that he wants the views of the House, so will he say whether the Government believe that this proposal, which would give non-community nationals right of access to this country, is a matter for majority voting or for unanimity? It would help the House a great deal if my hon. Friend said that the Government believe that this is a matter for majority voting.
Mr. Nicholls: I have said in the main part of my speech and in responding to the interventions of my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) that the question of competence comes into this. If the EC purports to deal with the rights that may attach to non-EC nationals, there is—to put it at its most neutral—an argument about competence. We are taking that argument

977
back to Europe. That is one factor that will come out of this debate, and I make no apology for saying that. After all, I raised this matter in the earlier part of my speech. I concede that the question of competence is directly relevant.
Mr. Teddy Taylor: What about majority voting?
Mr. Nicholls: The Government believe that this is a case in which majority voting will apply.
Mr. Taylor: I thank my hon. Friend very much.
Mr. Nicholls: In case my hon. Friend attaches more importance to that than he might otherwise do, let me say that that is how it seems to us at this stage. It remains to be seen whether that remains the position in the light of events.
We and other member states have said that these proposals cannot be agreed as they stand without looking further at the effects that they might have and seeing whether they should be considered under that part of the treaty that deals with the free movement of workers.
First, the current regulation gives the right of free movement to the worker's spouse and dependent children of parents. That is quite right, and clearly has a bearing on whether the worker will feel able to move to another member state. The Commission proposes to extend those rights to cover relatives who may or may not be dependent. This includes people who may not be nationals of member states. The Commission has not attempted to define the scope of the further family members concerned, other than that they are dependent on the worker or live under the same roof. We are concerned that this could include remote relations who have little to do with the worker. The worker's ability to move and take work is not influenced by whether he can take these family members with him. In our view, those people should not be covered by a Community instrument on rights of workers because their movement is not necessarily connected with that of the worker.
Giving the right to enter and move within the Community to more distant relatives or to ex-husbands and ex-wives would be difficult to control. It would make the job of deciding who had such rights very difficult and could lead to false claims to free movement rights from non-Community nationals. If such people are to be given the independent right to free movement, this should be in the context of general rights of residence, on which the Commission has other proposals, not in the context of free movement of workers. The Commission has other current proposals on rights of residence, but as they stand they would not deal with the rights of the remote relatives of workers whom I have mentioned. That is no reason why the issue should be dealt with in these proposals on the movement of workers.
The second difficulty is the proposed general principle that anything that happened in another member state should be treated as though it had happened in the state where someone is living, for the purpose of getting a tax or social advantage. That goes beyond the existing principle of equal treatment because United Kingdom citizens do not necessarily have the right to have anything that happened to them abroad taken into account to qualify for tax or other social advantages. Whether such experience is
978
counted will depend on what the rights in question are, which is not at all clear. Rather than agree to such a general principle without knowing the implications, we would want to examine exactly which rights and which circumstances it refers to, and ascertain whether they are acceptable on an individual basis. That might or might not be appropriate to this Community legislation.
Finally, the Commission proposals seem to imply that there would be a duty on the Governments of member states to take action to pursue any case of apparent infringement of the principle of free movement. Remedies for that already exist. Anyone who feels that he has been discriminated against can take action under the race relations legislation, or can use existing Community law which has direct application. Cases of such discrimination are extremely rare. Laying an extra duty on member states would seem to us unnecessary and over-bureaucratic.
We are keen to encourage full application of the principle of free movement—for example, by breaking down barriers caused by failure to recognise professional qualifications. Many of the Commission's proposals will be helpful, but unfortunately others seem to go beyond what is needed and cause problems because their implications are so uncertain and wide-ranging. We, and no doubt other member states, will be examining them closely to try to get them clarified and amended as necessary to ensure that the changes finally agreed will contribute to the process of completing the single market and not cause unnecessary difficulties and uncertainties.
I repeat that the Government are interested in hearing the views of the House on this matter. It is clear from the amendment that hon. Members share our concerns about the wide issues that the Commission intends to cover in this measure. The proposals are in the early stages of negotiation and we believe that the best way forward is to deal with the concerns that are highlighted by the amendment during the negotiation process and by identifying other member states that share our concerns. We can welcome in general, and do, the principle of updating rights for the free movement of workers in preparation for the single market, and therefore we cannot accept the amendment. I assure the House that the underlying sentence in the amendment is something with which we have a great deal of sympathy, but we believe that the way of taking forward the concerns expressed lies very much in negotiation.
11.59 pm
Mr. Tony Lloyd: When the Minister replies to the debate, I hope that he will expand on his final comment. He said that he has a "great deal of sympathy" with "the underlying sentence in the amendment". The amendment is clear——
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I must make it clear to the House that Mr. Speaker has not selected the amendment and that therefore it is not under consideration.
Mr. Lloyd: I accept what you are saying, Madam Deputy Speaker, but it is fair to point out that the debate covers such matters as the majority——
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have made clear what we are debating.
Mr. Lloyd: That the Minister should tell the House that he has considerable sympathy with the underlying view that the majority voting system is wrong will be news to the Prime Minister. Hon. Members on both sides of the House will remember that she was instrumental in dragooning the necessary legislation through the House against the will of the bulk of hon. Members on the Government Benches.
I also point out to the Minister that when his hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) created a mini-debate earlier, he raised the important issue of where we stood on the issue of majority voting. It is clear that, in the case of freedom of movement, the Government are not in a position one way or the other to decide what will happen, because the decision for that has passed from the hands of the British Government into the domain of majority voting in the rest of the European Community.
Whether the Government like it or not, the Prime Minister, in fairly unequivocal terms, gave a commitment when she described freedom of movement. That is one of a number of legs on which Mr. Delors' "infamous" social charter stands. The Prime Minister made it clear that the measure was to be a test case for the Court of Justice in Luxembourg. Perhaps, the Minister can tell us how that test case will be instituted, because it is clear that no test case will be possible unless the Government are able to bring freedom of movement outside the majority voting system. I do not believe that they will be able to do that.
It is fair, too, that I should point out that freedom of movement is part of what the Prime Minister described as the Marxist interventionism into which the Commission is now leading us. That is the point at which the Labour party clearly will draw the line and say that we will go no further with the Government. The Government are becoming increasingly isolated in their views on the need for some form of social charter for employment rights. Whether we accept it or not, the Government have put themselves and the nation into the position of having to accept that many parts of the social charter will be implemented by the majority voting system. It will be interesting if the Minister could tell us what other parts of the social charter will be implemented by the majority vote and whether it is the Prime Minister's intention to go to the Court of Justice. If it is her intention, what parts of the social charter will she challenge?
The most disappointing aspect of the Minister's speech was what it did not say about the Government's views on, and attitudes towards the social charter generally and the particular aspect of freedom of movement. The Minister did not say that the freedom of movement of workers must be considered in the context of the rest of the social programme that the European Commission has proposed. If we have only the narrow interpretation of the freedom of movement put forward by the Minister, where he welcomes, for example, as we do, some movement towards ratification of common qualifications, of course we accept that. If the Minister is, however, seriously saying that the only important aspect of freedom of movement concerns such things, he is taking a very mechanistic and economic view of the arguments.
It is significant that when, in January, the Chancellor made his speech about freedoms, while he was prepared to talk about freedom of capital and other freedoms, the one that he left off his list, importantly, was the freedom of movement, of workers, because that did not play any significant part in the Government's thinking. The
980
Government must accept freedom of movement of workers, because that was enshrined within the treaty when Britain acceded to it.
There is no going back on the principle of freedom of movement. I am sorry that the Minister seems prepared to skirt around and perhaps to pander to the more unpleasant aspects of the Government's opposition to the freedom of movement, because we know that it would bring Britain's immigration laws into conflict with the European Community.
As one whose constituents suffer considerably from the impact of such laws, I would have to welcome anything that forced an easing of that problem. We have the ludicrous position where, on marriage, my constituents can take their spouses into any other city in Europe—as long as it is not one in the United Kingdom—where they can live under Community law with their spouses, but they cannot bring those same spouses into this country. I find it not only ridiculous but disgraceful that my constituents can be treated in this way by the Government. It is just as disgraceful that the Minister has skirted round that issue tonight and that he is not prepared to address it straight on. That is, in effect, what the Government are saying.
Mr. Marlow: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that he would like to see much higher levels of immigration, and is that the view of his constituents?
Mr. Lloyd: No, what I am saying is quite clear. Like the European Community, I believe—as the Government claim to believe—that there should be a right for spouses of British nationals to join their husband or wife in this country. That is a principle that the Government claim to believe and a principle that the hon. Gentleman, who supports the Government, obviously accepted when he stood for election as a Conservative Member of Parliament. There is nothing unique about that, except for the fact that the Government dishonourably and dishonestly pretend that that is what they stand for, when they are administering the system in a way that makes that impossible. That is outrageous.
I want my constituents to be able to be joined by their spouses, irrespective of where they come from—be it Italy, Wales or, as it happens, from India, Pakistan or anywhere else. I hope that establishes my point clearly. There should be that right. Indeed, it is accepted in both Community and in British legislation. In principle, the United Kingdom says that it supports that right, but in practice the Minister skirts round the fact that the Government are afraid that they will lose the power to keep people out of this country by administrative means, generally on the ground that they are black, which I believe is the hon. Gentleman's position—and it is one with which I have no sympathy.
When freedom of movement and the other issues in the social charter came to the fore earlier this year, it was significant that the Secretary of State for Employment, when speaking to the other European Community Ministers, was isolated when he said:
"It is seriously misleading to draw a sharp distinction between what is in the interests of business and what is in the interests of citizens."
I fully concur with that, although I do not concur with his conclusion that we do not need any social legislation or assistance for the work force. The Minister has made it clear again tonight that he has less sympathy with the aspects of freedom of movement for workers that provide

981
social support or other things to make the life of individual workers easier and that allow them to transfer the benefits of one country to another. In wanting to withdraw from that social debate, the Government are not only completely out of step with public opinion in this country, as was amply demonstrated in the European elections, but they have made themselves almost totally isolated among other European Community countries. The vote on the social charter in the meeting of the heads of state in Spain was 10:1, with only Denmark abstaining for a technical reason, not because it was hostile to the proposals.
The British Government do not just stand alone within the member nations, the British Government and British employers stand almost alone in all European opinion on this matter. When the economic and social committee was asked to look at the social charter, the vote in favour of proceeding along those lines managed to unite the bulk of business opinion throughout Europe and the bulk of trade union opinion throughout Europe. We also had the odd position of British employers being in alliance with the French Communist trade unions as the only groups opposing the social charter. The Minister may derive some satisfaction from the fact that the Government are in that uncomfortable alliance with the French Communist-led trade unions. The Minister may glory in that isolation, but he and his colleagues appear not only isolated but foolish in the eyes of Europe.
If the Minister is prepared to accept the freedom of movement of workers as they move around Europe in the interests of the freedom of capital, but does not recognise that the bulk of opinion in Britain and throughout Europe is that that freedom of movement can exist only with the rest of the social charter, with protection for workers in Britain and throughout Europe, his vision of Europe is so barren and irrelevant to the long-term needs of Britain and the rest of Europe that it will be rejected, as it was rejected by the electorate in the European elections.
The Minister and his colleagues talk about a Britain based on the principle of a low-wage economy where capital will magically appear. But we will end up with the branch-plant economy that has bedevilled British economic history for the past 10 years. We know that Ford in Europe regards Britain as a low-paid, low-tech economy and prefers to locate high-tech production and investment in West Germany, which has higher labour costs but higher levels of skills. The Minister must accept that the future without the social charter puts Britain in the low-tech, no-tech league with low pay and not much future as we head into Europe.
That is why the Opposition believe that the future is clearly with the social charter. We understand why the Prime Minister described the social charter as a piece of European Socialism. If the Minister and his colleagues care to read the Labour party's policy review, they will find that many of the better features of the social charter run parallel to the views expressed in that document. That would not appeal to the Prime Minister or to the Minister because they know that the tide of public opinion in Britain and throughout Europe is moving to that view of the future—a Europe where people in employment are offered not only the spurious employment rights that the Government claim they have, but proper protection.
Mr. Marlow: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman, if there is one, could tell the House his limit and the Labour party's limit as to the level of competence the European Community should have over social policy. Should they decide on social security benefit levels or on housing? Where should it stop? We have heard one speech already from the Labour Front Bench which says that Europe ought to have competence where it has good ideas. Where does the hon. Gentleman feel, if there should be a limit, that limit should be with regard to European competence?
Mr. Lloyd: It is only fair that I point out to the hon. Gentleman that the Labour party's views on the Single European Act were quite consistent. It was not a Labour Government that forced that Act through Parliament. The hon. Gentleman will remember that the Labour party made its position quite clear at the time.
Mr. Marlow: How many opposed it on Third reading?
Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman will also know the Government's position at the time. He supports the Government. He may care to rebel against them at moments of pique and angst, but he keeps them in power, and has done so for some years now. On that basis the hon. Gentleman does not have much credibility. It is one thing to talk about rebellions and grand gestures, but the serious politics of the European Community is an entirely different matter. He has been prepared to sustain the Government in power so that they could give away those rights under the majority voting system.
The hon. Gentleman has to accept that fact. He has been part of the process that has given the Commission considerable control over the decision-making of this House. He will know that most social policy and some employment rights are not subject to the majority voting system. We are where the Government have put us. That is what we are debating.
Which parts of the social charter do the Government think they will be able to take to the European Court of Justice? The Prime Minister is on record as saying that she will go to that court, but it would be helpful to know what aspects of the charter are preventable on that basis and what aspects the Government have already given up the right to oppose. Their crass and pig-headed operations in Europe guarantee that they will not be listened to in any debates on improvements or amendments to this document.
Mr. Marlow: Will the hon. Gentleman now answer my question? What level of competence should the European Community have over social policy? What is his view and that of the Labour party on that? How far should it go?
Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman is asking a question that has no relevance, because the Government have already sold the pass in areas where majority voting applies. There is nothing that a Labour Government can do to withdraw it. Where majority voting might be extended is not an issue.
The Labour party will be fully supportive of the European Community in efforts to bring in a social charter that guarantees people's rights to be members of trade unions—unlike the Government, who have tried to prevent that. Labour will support a social charter where it enhances social benefits and brings uniformity of pensions, and increases pensions. Britain is the poor pensioner nation of Europe. Labour will support a social charter

983
where it enhances benefit rights, and where it enhances people's rights at the workplace in terms of health and safety. The Government fight shy of and run away from all of those things because of their misguided view of Britain as a low-wage and, they claim, high employment economy. In fact, it is an increasingly vulnerable economy as it depends on the whims of outmoded technology and employment practices. Theirs is a future which simply does not work.
The Minister made a narrow and fairly technical speech about freedom of movement. He has not answered the broader questions about why the Government oppose parts of this document. I suggest that the reason lies in the Government's desire to protect our rather nasty immigration rules. To discuss the freedom of movement of workers without the wider context of the social charter is simply to misunderstand why there is value in freedom of movement from the point of view of employees. I hope that he will put his mind to the serious issues that are raised in the document.
12.18 am
Mr. William Cash: This is an open-ended provision. There seems to be no limit to the number of people who can come in or to the benefits that they can seek. It strikes me that it is extremely peculiar that, at this late hour, we are discussing something which should never have seen the light of day in its present form.
Why is the Commission given the opportunity by member states to make proposals that are so open-ended, when it would be far more sensible to retrench its powers by giving greater powers to the Council of Ministers? I concede that that would have to be done by way of treaty amendment, but in the light of the Single European Act, it seems highly desirable. I have said repeatedly that I am not, in principle, against the Single European Act. I voted for it and I have said that I would do so again. However, a fundamental difference has occurred since the passing of the Act.
Before the Act, proposals such as the one we are discussing tonight could be justified in terms of their being produced and drafted by the Commission, because there had to be an on-going negotiating process with the Commission as part and parcel of the watchdog apparatus of the treaty of Rome. Now that we have the Single European Act and far more majority voting, I cannot see why we cannot have a treaty amendment, the effect of which would be to give greater power to the Council of Ministers. However, the time is coming—particularly in the run-up to the intergovernmental conference and in the context of matters such as extensions of the economic and monetary union—when we should look seriously at the other side of the coin—amendment of the treaty. The aim would he not to get away from the benefits of the Community, but to put on a more sensible basis the manner in which legislation emanates from the Community.
The power of the pen—that is, the power of the Commission—to produce proposals such as this is so open-ended that there seems to be no limit to the extent to which it can come forward with proposals which then inevitably end up either having to be cut back as a result of meetings of working groups behind closed doors, or in the European Court of Justice itself. Most of these matters could be resolved at a far earlier stage.
984
I hope that we are also about to improve the procedures in this House for dealing with the scrutiny of European legislation. This is not an airy-fairy, ivory tower exercise, but the serious business of trying to make Community legislation relevant to the electorates of the member states. Can we not examine the way in which legislation is produced and prevent it from being so open-ended? We should do what we can to ensure that greater clarity is obtained in the documents at an earlier stage. I have a suspicion—which I cannot prove—that there is sometimes an intention to produce grey areas and ambiguities in Community legislation, precisely because there are those who are conscious of the fact that it is bound, therefore, to end up in the Court of Justice.
The hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) talked about the social charter. If one examines the provisions of the Single European Act, as opposed to the original provisions of the treaty of Rome, in the area of competence to deal with matters relevant to the social charter, one sees that they are riddled with grey areas and ambiguities. The opportunity to clarify these matters was when the Single European Act was negotiated. Instead, we have been put in a position where we can guarantee that proposals will go to the Court of Justice. As I said in an intervention on the previous directive, we are then in the unhappy position of knowing that, because of the tendency in the Court of Justice towards political integration, it will interpret the proposals in favour of ghat objective at the expense of the rather more narrow and specific approach that would be taken in this country.
As the bottom line, I am talking about democracy. I have constituents in Stafford, as the hon. Member for Stretford and all other hon. Members have constituents, who will be affected by the proposals. We have an absolute right to require that the basis upon which the documents are prepared in the first place are far clearer before they reach us. The Council of Ministers should seize the opportunity, in the run-up to the intergovernmental conference, to try to identify ways and means of ensuring that documents come before us and the Council of Ministers on a far clearer and more specific footing.
1.24 am
Mr. James Wallace: I support the call for clarity by the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash). No regulation or directive does anyone any good if there are large grey areas in it. The Minister referred to the Government entertaining some doubts about the part of the measure that relates to enjoying certain social services in other countries. I do not think that hon. Members have much idea of what we would be letting ourselves in for if that point were to go forward. To that extent, greater clarity would be welcomed.
My right hon. and hon. Friends and I believe in the concept of freedom of movement throughout the European Community, not least for those in employment. That matter is at the heart of what we are considering. We would like the European Community to be more than an economic club—one that actually impinges on all aspects of people's lives and gives them a greater opportunity to exercise freedom of movement throughout the Community.
At present, only 4·8 million European Community nationals live in other European Community states—in other words, in a state other than their own national state

985
—which, at one point, was 5 per cent. of the total European Community population. That is far lower than the degree of internal migration in the United States of America, for example.
Certain aspects of the measure will help to reduce some of the barriers that otherwise operate against freedom of movement. For example, equal treatment in housing loans and grants is important, and we should welcome it. Other things could be done. I welcome what the Minister said about reducing the barriers that result from different professional qualifications. We could look to allowing workers to transfer private pension rights across frontiers and to giving migrants free access to job agencies. They would be positive developments.
I cannot accept what the hon. Member for Stafford said about this proposal being an open-ended commitment to all and sundry to move between countries X and Y in the Community. If the hon. Gentleman looks carefully at the words of the motion, he will see that that is not the case. It is confined to people in the ascending line and to descendants. We must look at the issue in practical terms. Of course, descendants could theoretically be a larger number. Ascendants are restricted to parents, parents-inlaw, grandparents, and grandparents-in-law. It is unlikely that great-grandparents would want to move.
One thinks of what happens within the United Kingdom. Families often move from what has been the family home, and couples often move with their children. It is probably more the rule than the exception that the whole family moves—grandparents, great-grandparents, the lot. When my wife and I set up home in Orkney, I do not think that either set of parents thought of moving with us. They had their own lives and occupations in places where they had been for a long time. We are not necessarily opening the doors for a great influx or efflux of people. There might be circumstances in which, for reasons that fall short of dependency, a close, integrated family, including the grandparents and the children who are not necessarily dependent, would want to move to another part of the European Community.
Those of us who have a slightly greater vision of the European Community than one confined to business purposes see nothing wrong with families being able to move and stay together. Other parties may genuinely support the concept of the family and would be prepared to accept that there are circumstances in which non-dependent children and grandparents may wish to move with the family. It would not lead to a great number of people going to and fro, but it might prove a worthwhile provision in certain family circumstances.
Dr. Godman: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is some ambiguity about the proposals as they were outlined by the then Minister of State on 5 May? He said that they shaded into
"areas concerned with the free movement of persons generally."
Does not such ambiguity give some comfort to the Spanish quota hoppers?
Mr. Wallace: I do not think that there is ambiguity, because the definition of who is and who is not covered is quite clear. There is no reason why that should not be
986
extended to non-Community nationals. It is a fine dividing line if a worker's grandchild happens to be Austrian or Swiss rather than West German or Italian.
The position of Spanish quota hoppers is different from that envisaged in the proposals. The whole concept of fisheries quotas could be said to be contrary to the concept of the internal market. The quotas exist for good reasons, which I am sure are fully understood on both sides of the House. The Commission was wrong to challenge what we did, with all-party support, in the Merchant Shipping Act 1988 and to try to impose rules that might be generally applicable for the purpose of achieving a single market, but are not relevant or applicable under a system for fisheries, set up by the Community, that allows for national preference and does not accept a common market.
It might have been wise had the Government—they may yet do so—told the Commission that we were trying to preserve the integrity of the national quotas that had been accepted by the Commission. The whole Community should accept that. The legislation is a step towards ensuring that what the Community has agreed as proper for fisheries is implemented. Until the Commission can come up with a better means of doing that, within its rules, it should not challenge us for trying to uphold the quotas. The onus should be put on the Commission to find a way to deal with quota hopping, which actually flies in the face of what the Commission tried to achieve when it established fisheries quotas and total allowable catches.
The proposals allow divorced spouses, widowers and widows to remain in a country after a marriage has broken down or a spouse has died. If a Portuguese person has settled in Spain, or a Spanish person in the United Kingdom, it is humane to allow them to remain following the death of a spouse and not immediately or after a short time to lose their residency qualifications.
I want to emphasise what the hon. ember for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) said about the importance of the social charter in ensuring that what we are trying to achieve is not just a business men's club but something that actually affects people. The Government, and Britain as a whole, could lose out if it is perceived that other European Community countries have better rights for employees. We could be in danger of losing some of our best-equipped and skilled people if there are better opportunities in other countries. If the prospect of employee rights is better in Bonn than it is in Birmingham, our skilled workers might take employment in Bonn, which would be our loss. To see a narrow advantage in having lower standards, hopefully to attract capital, is short-termism at its worst.
The Government would do well to look at popular opinion. The Euro-barometer survey reported by the Financial Times earlier this month confirmed that three out of four Europeans regard the social charter as a good thing and welcome uninhibited movement across internal borders. That is one of the advantages that ordinary people perceive from greater European integration. It happens readily in the United States. No one there stops to think about moving from Florida to California to North Dakota. That could be achieved in Europe, and we must progress towards it. It does not imply moving to a united states of Europe, as I understand is feared in other parts of the House. Ordinary people would see European integration coming closer to reality, and we support the general thrust of the document.
12.35 am
Mr. Tony Marlow: I apologise profusely for taking up the time of the House at this late hour, but is it appropriate that such important issues are regularly debated at such a late hour in such a thinly attended House? The two European Community matters that we have debated tonight are pregnant with great relevance for national competence and national sovereignty and have a great potential impact on the British people, how they are governed and the laws by which they are governed.
I was fascinated by the speech by the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd). He complained at great length about the way in which the Government railroaded the Single European Act through the House. One would have thought from that that he was vehemently opposed to it, but no. He effectively went on to say that he hoped that before long the Community would take over the running of the United Kingdom's social security budget. I may be thought to be traducing the hon. Gentleman for saying this, but he also seemed to imply that he hoped that the Community would take over the running of British immigration law. He did not go quite that far, but in certain respects he implied that, if the Community gained competence over some aspects of our immigration law. We now know that the Labour party wants to surrender control of our social security budget and our immigration laws because it believes that the unelected undemocratic Brussels bureacrats, the Commissioners at Brussels, are more competent to do that. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State made an eloquent and brilliant speech in opening the debate, as one would expect from a lawyer. He said that we have accepted the Single European Act. My hon. Friend knows that I voted against it, but that is irrelevant. It is the law of the land. In accepting that, we accepted majority voting. We accepted majority voting over the single market, but we did not accept majority voting over immigration policy. If my hon. Friend can show me anything whereby the Government said, or implied that they understood or anticipated, that any respect of our immigration policy would be subject to majority voting by the EC, I shall stand corrected. However, I doubt whether my hon. Friend will be able to do that.
The explanatory memorandum refers to freedom of movement for relatives. They do not have to be relatives in the ascending and descending line of the worker and spouse, but relatives who are dependent on the worker or living under the same roof. What does "dependent on the worker" mean? Could it be a nephew, or a sort of nephew, or a second nephew, or a cousin's nephew living under the same roof? We know what we in Britain mean by right of abode, but what does living under the same roof mean? Does it include someone who has come on a visit from north Africa or the Indian subcontinent who happens to stay with a relative, the nephew of a second cousin staying with a relative who has come from Morocco who is living in France, if the Moroccan who has become a French national then decides to come to Britain? Can he bring all those "nephews" with him? Is that what this regulation implies? Is that what the hon. Member for Stretford believes that his constituents want, and that they want it decided at the European level?
The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) said that when he went up to live in Orkney, his
988
great-grandparents and the rest of his family did not necessarily want to come up with him. All right, but it is a beautiful place and they may change their minds and want to go there later. That is not really what we are talking about. If they want to go to Orkney, splendid—and if they are living in my constituency and are inclined to vote Liberal, it is a very good idea if they go up there. I put it to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland that that is not what we are really concerned about.
We have a problem in Europe and in the United Kingdom, in that there are vast numbers of people in the Third world who are poor—poorer than us—and, for very genuine and sensible reasons, they want to migrate. For economic reasons, they want to migrate to the rest of Europe. It is a very powerful move, and we have got to have very clever, fair, and sophisticated laws to deal with it. That has nothing to do with whether or not the hon. Gentleman's great-grandfather wants to move to Orkney. The pressures are different. The situation is wholly different, and the hon. Gentleman is not talking about what we are talking about in this debate.
The proposed regulation states:
"All such people would have the same rights … arid of her social advantages generally".
What does that mean? I think that it means social policy. But if they are going to gain rights to social policy, and if the Community is going to decide on these aspects of social policy, where is it going to stop?
Mr. Matthew Taylor: At the Orkneys.
Mr. Marlow: I think that the answer to my question is that it will stop at Calais.
The regulation also states that people ought to have the right to come to this country after the dissolution of marriage. Somebody could come to this country who was from a different culture or background, who could have had several spouses in the past. All those marriages could have been dissolved five years ago, 10 years ago or 15 years ago. Where do the records exist? Is it not going to be a problem? Is it not going to be difficult? People who have never been in this country—ex-spouses—would, under the regulation, be allowed to come to our country. I think it is nonsense, and if the hon. Member for Stretford thought about it, he would agree that it is nonsense.
Paragraph 6 of the regulation states:
"Member States would be required to take action to curb discrimination against those entitled to free movement."
We know that the Irish have for a long time been entitled to free movement in this country, and we do not complain about that. But there is evidence—and it is very difficult to get clear facts on this—that an Irishman in Ireland who contracts AIDS or who becomes drug-dependent will for preference, and for reasons of anonymity—and perhaps because of pressure from the Catholic Church and for reasons of better treatment—wish to come across and have his AIDS or drug dependency treatment in this country. I think that a lot of people go to the Parkside health authority.
The average AIDS treatment costs about £20,000 or £30,000. Perhaps that is something that we would want to do something about. If we accepted that
"Member States would be required to take action to curb discrimination",
we would not be allowed to do anything. If somebody wanted to come here for any such reason, because the

989
treatment was better or because they would get a better deal in this country, they need never have been here in their lives before—never have worked in this country before.
Maybe at the moment we can do something about it, but if we allow the regulation to go through, all those things will be beyond our competence—beyond the competence of this sovereign House—to control. It would be beyond the competence of the hon. Gentleman's constituents to get their elected representative to do anything about it, because it would be outside their control.
In the text of the regulation, the Province of Northern Ireland is mentioned. We have problems of terrorism in Northern Ireland. How will the regulation, directive, ordinance, or whatever it is, from the European Council affect our right to prevent potential terrorists from going to Northern Ireland?
The legal basis is being dealt with under a qualified majority. This is pregnant with significance for our immigration policy, and it is to be dealt with by a qualified majority. If this gets through on the basis of qualified majority, it means that the whole of the immigration policy of the United Kingdom is potentially subject to be decided by qualified majority in the Council of Ministers.
I believe that when we signed up with the European Act we did not anticipate that. I believe that we did not want it, and I believe that we do not want it now. Furthermore, I believe that my hon. Friend who so eloquently opened the debate—and the rest of the House, by and large-do not want it. But if it happens—if the single majority vote forces it through—and if we then take it to the Court, which is quite likely because it is a political court, as has been said several times in the House this evening, and we are defeated, what then are the Government going to do?
Time after time, issues are put before the House; time after time, the Government say that they are reluctant; time after time, the Government say, "It is on the wrong treaty article, and it should not be by majority vote. If it does go through we will take it to the court." Time after time, these issues come to the House, are disclaimed by the House, go to the Community and are agreed by the Community—and then they are forced on British people.
We never anticipated, when we signed up with the Single European Act, that many of these things would come through. It was never explained to the British people that the Community would gain competence over these issues. We never wanted the Community to gain competence. But day by day, mile by mile, the Community is gaining competence. What are we going to do about it? That is what this debate is about; that is what the previous debate was about; and that is the answer that we want to hear from my hon. Friend in his eloquent, lawyerly way.
12.46 am
Dr. Norman A. Godman: The hour is late, and I promise that my speech will be brief.
According to paragraph 4 on page 16 of the document 5786/89, one objective is
"strengthening the rule of equal treatment for nationals of the host State and other Community nationals".
As I said in an earlier intervention, just two months ago the former Minister of State pointed out a degree of
990
ambiguity in that: it seemed to deal with much more than the free movement of workers, and to drift into the sphere of free movement of persons generally.
I suggested to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) that, given their ambiguity, the proposals might provide some comfort for the owners, managers and crews of the 95 quota-hopping Spanish fishing vessels. The hon. Gentleman was absolutely right when he said that the Government's Merchant Shipping Bill—which became the Merchant Shipping Act 1988—received the undivided support of the whole House, especially what became section 14, which provided that a fishing vessel should be eligible for British registration only if it were British-owned and managed from within the United Kingdom.
Might not some of the workers defined in the somewhat ambiguous phraseology of the documents be managers of such vessels? Section 14 sought to exclude them from fishing against the United Kingdom quota. This is an important issue, because between now and the end of 1991, the United Kingdom fishing fleet must divest itself of some 35,000 gross registered tonnes. In crude terms—we can offer only a rough approximation—that might constitute between 600 and 800 vessels, and affect fishing communities from Shetland down to Cornwall.
If, however, the United Kingdom Government were to win their case in the European Court of Justice—the case will end up there—those 95 Spanish vessels might total some two thirds of the gross registered tonnage that must be shed by the United Kingdom-registered fleet in just over two years.
With the active encouragement of the Spanish Commissioner, Manuel Marin, the other Commissioners are maintaining proceedings against the United Kingdom. Despite the House of Lords ruling in support of section 14, all 17 Commissioners have said that there is a powerful case to be developed in the European Court of Justice against the Government. An important point of principle is involved, because if the Commissioners win their case will not the Government have to amend the Merchant Shipping Act? Would not section 14 be thrown into the wastepaper basket? The decision is important for the fishing communities scattered around the United Kingdom coastline.
The Commission claims that the nationality requirements in section 14 of the Merchant Shipping Act contravene article 7 of the treaty on discrimination on the ground of nationality. The Commission's imprecise proposals might strengthen its case on section 14.
The primacy of parliamentary sovereignty is an important issue. Is the Merchant Shipping Act powerful enough to withstand——
Mr. Wallace: It is an English doctrine.
Dr. Godman: From a sedentary position, the hon. Gentleman rightly says that it is an English doctrine.
We have a clash between the European Commission and English legislation. It may be two years before the European Court of Justice reaches a decision. In the meantime, what will happen to the British fishing fleet, bearing in mind all the vessels that will be stripped from it? Will the European Court of Justice instruct the Government to amend important legislation—section 14 of the Merchant Shipping Act?
12.53 am
Mr. Nicholls: When I opened the debate, I said that I looked forward to hon. Members' comments on the proposed regulation. I said that I expected hon. Members' comments to be helpful to the Government, and they have been.
I thoroughly enjoyed the speech made by the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd). How anyone can combine such genial eloquence with brazen cheek in equal measure is quite remarkable. To listen to the hon. Gentleman, one would have thought that he had spent his political life advocating the virtues of the Common Market in a way that would have made my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) apoplectic with outrage. The hon. Gentleman had the nerve to describe the Government's view of Europe as a "barren view of Europe." If anyone had wanted to listen to a barren view of Europe over the years they could have done worse than listen to speeches made by Labour Members, including the Leader of the Opposition, until recently. If we needed any lectures—and we do not, at this time of night or any other time—about the virtues of being communautaire or having a proper commitment to the European ideal, the last people to whom we would go would be Front Bench spokesmen of the Labour party.
What the hon. Gentleman described as barren was described by other hon. Members as narrow. I accept that tonight I have set out a narrow view of the issue. I have dealt with the document that is before the House, and it does not relate to immigration policy in general. It does not even relate to the question whether EC nationals should have an automatic right of abode in other countries in the Community.
It deals with amendments to principles that have been accepted in the Community for the last 20 years concerning the circumstances governing the ability of workers to travel around the Community with—in layman's terms—those dependent relatives whom they might wish to take with them. We have agreed with the Commission and said that, after 20 years, those rights may need to be uplifted. The hon. Gentleman may have thought I was being narrow, but in fact I was simply attempting to stay in order.
The hon. Gentleman went on to express surprise that I might find anything with which to sympathise in the amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow). One must address the underlying concerns, and I referred to them at the beginning of my remarks—underlying concerns about imprecision of language, which is in nobody's interest except that of the lawyers, along with matters relating to competence.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) made an interesting point, as usual. He has considerable knowledge of the workings of Europe. He made some proposals, which amounted to saying that we might have gone down a different path from the point of view of qualified majority voting. He seemed to suggest that perhaps it was not too late even now to consider doing something about that. That is a broader point, which does not touch on the issues which concern us tonight.
I have had many dealings over the years with the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) in Standing Committees on employment matters. I am never certain how the hon. Gentleman will end his remarks,
992
whether he will sympathise with the views of hon. Members on these Benches or on the Benches opposite. He seems to take the classic mugwump's view, in that he leaves his mug on one side of the fence and his wump on the other, and one never knows until he has finished of whom he has been speaking in favour.
The hon. Gentleman thought that there was no imprecision that mattered in the definitions about which we are talking. I disagree with him. There is a great deal of imprecision, and my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North referred to it. The explanatory memorandum produced by the former Minister of State states:
"Workers who are Community nationals, and their spouses and dependent children and parents of any nationality, are currently allowed to live and work anywhere in the Community."
So far so good, and even my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North might be with me in that.
It goes on:
"This right would be extended to all relatives in the ascending and descending line of the worker and spouse, whether or not dependent, and to all other relatives who are dependent on the worker or living under the same roof in the home country."
I was asked what that meant. I do not know, but I say as a lawyer that it is pregnant with possibilities. I can imagine, in a previous incarnation, doing massively well on behalf of whomever briefed me, arguing that it meant one thing or another, or both things or neither. It is in nobody's interest to have that sort of imprecision in measures that come before the House, so our business tonight is to try to ensure that imprecision of that type does not exist.
The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland then raised a fair point relating to people who may have retired or to the dependants of people who may have died. Those moving to take up work or to set up in business, and their dependants, are given right of residence. If they stay for more than six months, they are given a resident's permit, which is renewed so long as they are working and, perhaps more to the point in view of the hon. Gentleman's concerns, they can remain with families in the host state on retirement and families can remain after the death of a worker who has worked for two years, and those rights of residence do not depend on the issue of a permit.
My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North made, as always, a splendid speech. I had heard it before and I am sure that, if my luck is out, I shall hear it again. He makes an old song sound fresh every time he sings it. He does something which, were I to share his views, I would do also. But I do not, so I shall not. He takes us through the situation that might arise when, as we know, such matters cannot be challenged for ultra vires in advance.
What would happen, asked my hon. Friend, if one went down all the paths of negotiation, debates in this House and finally to the court, where the wicked old Europeans, as my hon. Friend would have it, again exercised their political judgment? My hon. Friend has an honourable tradition of not liking Europe and its works, so in advancing that course, he is bound to see the very worst side all the time. The difficulty is that those of us who are committed to Europe see the advantages in the system as well—advantages in freeing up and having sensible voting systems through qualified majority voting, because at times it works in terms of 1992. It is very much a matter

993
of taking the rough with the smooth, but from my hon. Friend's point of view, there is never any smoothness in respect of Europe—it is roughness all the way.
Mr. Marlow: If my hon. Friend does not mind my correcting him, he has got it wrong. I am in favour of Europe, but unto the Europeans that which is Europe's and unto the United Kingdom and the sovereign territories of Europe that which should be their sovereign matters. We have the Single European Act, and we all understand that there is agreed majority voting on the single market. What we are rightly concerned about and what I wish my hon. Friend would be concerned about is the creeping competence of the European Community. It is trying to gain majority voting competence over issues and areas that we never contemplated would be controlled in that way.
Mr. Nicholls: I assure my hon. Friend that I understood that that was his position. He said that it was never intended under the Single European Act that, for example, immigration questions should be brought within the Community's competence. To some extent, it depends on the way that one uses the language. My hon. Friend may see this as primarily an immigration matter; I see it more prosaically, as no more than a recognition that, if there is to be freedom of movement of workers within a common market, it seems to make sense logically and morally to allow them to take their dependent relatives with them. Whether the term "dependent relatives" should be extended widely is another matter.
I accept the point that the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) made about section 14 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1988. I hope that he will accept that, at this time of night, I should write to him about that matter, rather than try to deal with it at the Dispatch Box.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 5786/89 relating to freedom of movement for workers; supports the broad objective of free movement for workers within the Single Market; and endorses the Government's intention of seeking amendment of inappropriate provisions.

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

    WASTE
    That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 8066/88 relating to waste; and supports the Government's intention to seek to ensure that the provisions of these Directives are necessary to protect human health and the environment from the danger arising out of waste disposal.—[Mr. Sackville.]
    Question agreed to.

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

    HOVERCRAFT
    That the draft Hovercraft (Application of Enactments) Order 1989, which was laid before this House on 22nd June, be approved.—[Mr. Sackville.]
    Question agreed to.

    NORTHERN IRELAND
    That the draft Appropriation (No. 3) (Northern Ireland) Order 1989, which was laid before this House on 29th June, be approved.—[Mr. Sackville.]
    Question agreed to.

    REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE
    That the draft Representation of the People (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Regulations 1989, which were laid before this House on 6th July, be approved.—[Mr. Sackville.]
    Question agreed to.

    HOUSE OF COMMONS (SERVICES)
    Ordered,
    That Mr. Trist an Garel-Jones and Mr. David Hunt be discharged from the Select Committee on House of Commons (Services) and Mr. Alistair Goodlad and Mr. David Lightbown be added to the Committee.—[Mr.Saclville.]

NHS Reform
1.2 am
Mrs. Alice Mahon: I beg to ask leave to present a petition containing 5,500 signatures. It represents the voice of the people of Yorkshire and Humberside telling the Government of their fears for the future of the National Health Service. They have reached the clear and logical conclusion that, if their NHS hospitals are set up as hospital trusts and become businesses with information systems, giving the costs of every treatment in detail, and can borrow money in the City, set their own wage rates and hire and fire staff at will, they are set for total privatisation, and the people want none of it. The Government should listen to their voice.
The petition states:
To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the people of Yorkshire and Humberside showeth that they are opposed to the Government NHS White Paper proposals, particularly on the opting out of local hospitals.
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable house does not approve these proposals and maintains the NHS as a truly national service. And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, etc.
To lie upon the Table.
1.5 am
Mr. David Hinchliffe: The petition which I wish to present to the House has been organised by members of the National Union of Public Employees and signed by about 5,500 people from various parts of Yorkshire and Humberside who oppose the proposals that are contained in the White Paper on the National Health Service. The petitioners believe that the Government are effectively breaking up the NHS by proposing to allow the formation of independent hospital trusts whereby individual hospitals, or health units, opt out of local health authority control. They are concerned that the setting up of a series of separate, individual competing units will result in the ending of the comprehensive nature of Britain's health care and believe that it is nonsense to introduce a system whereby the health provision and treatment available in any locality will be dependent upon the business acumen of individual health managers.

995
The petitioners are worried that the proposals in the White Paper are part of a longer-term plan to pave the way for health care provision that is based entirely on market forces. They stand by the original principles of an NHS based on need and not ability to pay. Accordingly, they urge the House to reject the White Paper in its entirety. I am happy entirely to endorse their wishes and concerns.
The petition states:
To the honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled. The humble Petition of the People of Yorkshire and Humberside showeth that they are opposed to the Government NHS White Paper proposals, particularly on the opting out of local hospitals.
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House does not approve these proposals and maintains the NHS as a truly national service.
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
To lie upon the Table.

Health Service (Cornwall)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Sackville.]
1.6 am
Mr. Matthew Taylor: I welcome this opportunity to express my concern about the conditions and future of the National Health Service in Cornwall. I thank the Under-Secretary of State for being in his place in the early hours of the morning to respond to my concerns. The hon. Gentleman is most welcome. It is not always easy to wait for other debates to finish, to wonder what time we shall finish and to keep awake. I make no apology for holding the Minister here, however, because I believe that health is of immeasurable concern to my constituents. The Health Service is the issue on which I have received the largest post bag in recent months.
It is sad that people nationwide, but especially in Cornwall, have grown to expect the problems that are associated with long waiting lists. Despite considerable investment in the county, which I acknowledge and welcome, we have failed to keep pace with growing needs. Cuts have been made, but not as a result of a rational examination of the county's health needs. Instead, they have been the result of an immediate cash crisis. Even now, we are concerned about the future of the Tehidy hospital and the possible privatisation of St. Mary's hospital within that context.
The publication of the White Paper, with proposals for general practitioners' contracts, has horrified people as never before. The concern of many Cornish doctors centre around the likelihood that the proposals outlined in the White Paper, especially on the proposed doctor's contract, will be detrimental to the welfare of rural practices in particular and to the people whom they seek to serve.
The purpose of the document appears to be to increase competition between the providers of health care in the hope that this will mean a better service and the better use of resources. Unfortunately, for the people of Cornwall, the Government are so certain in their faith that competition is the answer to everything that they have seemingly failed to assess the effects of their policy on different and peculiar parts of the country. People who are ill are not interested so much in having the right to exercise choice about the form of treatment that they will receive and which hospital they will attend. Instead, they want confidently to expect that they can rely on receiving quality care when they need it and within easy access of their home.
In my view, the current proposals could all too often mean no choice at all. The Secretary of State, when defending the reforms in early May, recommended a study of the magazine entitled Medeconomics. I am glad that I took the trouble to follow his advice. I found that those who write for the magazine had examined a small rural practice in the south-west which is based in Constantine in Cornwall. The article looked at the proposed changes, and in its conclusions said:
"Unfortunately, there seems to be little scope for these GPs to increase their income. The isolated areas in which they work means that outside appointments are difficult to come by. The GPs have none. The list is a stable one biased towards a higher than average proportion of elderly patients and there is little prospect of change.
Once the GPs know how their remuneration package will change, they will need to take careful stock of their position.

997
If economic realities prove harsh in the future, they should not overlook the possibility of eventually ending the practice and joining partnerships in a more populated part of the country."
In other words, the magazine, which I read at the recommendation of the Secretary of State, says that they may have to give up. That is a practice that has been referred to me by doctors in Cornwall as an example of best practice and of the kind of service that other doctors would ideally like to offer to their patients.
The doctors' contract will have a devastating effect on rural health care. The measures to tie the level of pay to list sizes and the reduction in basic practice allowance will not benefit rural doctors, but will penalise them in order to offer incentives to busier practices in wealthier areas. In many practices in Cornwall, it will be impossible for doctors to acquire more patients, leaving practices either financially untenable or at least less attractive. What kind of choice is that for those for whom it is their only source of health care for many miles? Unlike the views of Conservative think tanks, competition as such is far from central to rural patients' hopes for the NHS. How many areas have different practices with easy access between which a choice can be made? How many areas have a range of hospitals which doctors can play off against each other?
The reforms for rural practices appear to run counter to the Government's expressed aims. Rewards for larger list sizes puts in to reverse the attempts by successive Governments of all parties to encourage GPs to take fewer patients on to their lists so as to improve individual care. How can preventive medicine truly be encouraged, when it is best achieved with a small list size and time with the patient? In the rural areas of the south west, the distance between split-site surgeries, the difficulties that the patients have with transport and the travelling time required to visit patients are all real problems that the Government have singularly failed, as yet, properly to address.
A poll conducted by the Cornwall and Isles of Scilly local medical committee found that 98 per cent. of patients registered with GPs in Cornwall think that there will be little or no improvement in patient care following the changes proposed in the White Paper. Incidentally, 96 per cent. view it as nothing but a cost-cutting exercise. Not only are patients disaffected with the Government's proposals, but all the polls show that the very people who are expected to implement them are also overwhelmingly against them. The result of the ballot of GPs announced last week was a clear indictment of the new GPs' contract devised by the Government. At a meeting of the Cornwall division of the BMA in April, the White Paper was also overwhelmingly rejected.
My experience of meetings with GPs has shown to me their overwhelming condemnation of the Government's proposals. I believe that that condemnation springs not out of interest in their wallets, as the Secretary of State has tried to suggest, but out of concern about the impact that they will have on the treatment of patients. Indeed, at the meeting organised by the BMA in Plymouth, which I attended, I witnessed the most unexpected sight of a doctor breaking down in tears over the proposals, when he tried to ask a question. It shook the Conservative Member of Parliament, who had been asked by the Secretary of State to attend that meeting and defend the proposals, as much as it shook everyone else in the audience.
998
Many of the doctors and patients who are now protesting so vehemently are people who have told me that they have voted Tory all their lives. They have been driven to the point of condemning their Government, because they are so acutely aware of the vital services that rural practices and hospitals offer and of the vulnerability of the situation in which such practices and hospitals now find themselves.
I wish to take the opportunity to call on the Minister, together with his colleagues, to publish immediately a paper on the future of rural doctors, detailing how the proposals will affect them. I look forward to hearing specific comments from the Minister in response to the points that I have made on this. At the very least, it must be clear from what I have said that Ministers have yet to prove their case. They have failed to convince any of those involved that there are not major pitfalls in the proposed reforms. One wonders why, at the very least, the reforms cannot be tried out experimentally in a few districts before being imposed on them all.
I ask the Minister to comment also on the position of GPs who spend much of their working week in community hospitals. Will that time be included in the number of hours that GPs are required to be available in their surgeries? The Minister is well aware of my concern on this point. Indeed, the Minister's recent response to me on this subject seems to hold the clear suggestion that at least at the margin there will be financial penalties for engaging in community hospital work. Those community hospitals are considered to be of great importance by many of my constituents. I hope that the Minister will be able to find ways to protect their position.
I turn now to the crippling problem of lengthy waiting lists. At the end of March this year the waiting list in Cornwall for orthopaedics was 1,207 for in-patients, of whom 434 had been waiting more than a year for treatment; a further 231 were waiting for care as day-patients. In general surgery, a total of 1,768 people were waiting to go into hospital and 1,264 were waiting for day care; 459 people had waited more than a year for in-patient treatment and 224 were waiting for out-patient treatment. Those figures are poor, as are the figures for the number of consultants per patient in the county. I do not believe that the Government's current plans will reduce those waiting times.
How, in practice, can people be sent to another hospital with a shorter waiting list without at the very least breaking their contact with their own community and with their friends and relatives when there is only one main hospital in the whole county? The Government may well conjure up a way of doing so by forcing on doctors, through practice budgets, the task of limiting the numbers treated. However, that does nothing for patients who want treatment. It does not speed things up; it simply disguises the problem. It breaks down the trust between GP and patient as the useful alliance between GP and patient in attempting to get treatment turns to a relationship in which the patient cannot be sure whether the doctor who says, "You do not need treatment just now," is thinking of the practice's accounts or of the patient's needs. That will be intolerable for patients on a waiting list and it should be unacceptable to all of us.
The Government have an opportunity to do something about this matter and to instil some hope in those who had begun to despair of the situation ever improving. Cornwall district health authority has bid for two extra posts of the

999
100 extra consultant posts that the Government have said that they will provide for the whole country. If granted, they could well lead to a reduction in the waiting list and I implore the Government to meet their request. We need more specialist staff.
Ministers and the Department acknowledge that we have special difficulties and needs at present. Like it or not, those problems come down to the level of funding and the provision of staff and, as I have said, the opportunity to improve things is there.
A specific issue concerning funding for the Cornwall health authority is the issue to which I turn next. Cornwall health authority is an unusual position in that it does not currently receive the total funds due for its population. Some of this funding due to Cornwall goes instead to north Devon and to Plymouth. This is because of the area known as the overlap, where people in Cornwall use Plymouth and north Devon hospitals and facilities for acute services. Cornwall does, however, provide these people with community health care and for the needs of the handicapped and elderly. I would hope that all the funding due to Cornish people would now go to Cornwall as it does to other areas in similar situations. This is probably worth an extra £17 million, which currently goes to Plymouth health authority. The Cornwall health authority can then purchase services from Plymouth and north Devon hospitals for the overlap area, as happens elsewhere. More comprehensive packages of service can be possible if Cornwall health authority has responsibility for all the various aspects of its health care. I ask the Minister for an assurance that Cornwall be fully funded for its total resident population.
A final issue, and one of much local concern, is the funding of our air ambulance. Cornwall has the first air ambulance in the country, which receives no Government funding. The generosity of the Cornish people is fulfilling what should be the role of central Government in providing necessary health services. I have pressed the need to take account of the special costs of providing transport services in a rural scattered area. The advantages of an air ambulance in providing such services are considerable. It can reach geographically isolated areas rapidly and areas not served by land ambulances, even as far as the Isles of Scilly. The journey back time can be much shorter than that of a land ambulance. More importantly, it is a highly mobile resource which can be moved, around the county to stand back-up for an area when land ambulances are fully committed.
In a geographically large area, even one land ambulance called to an accident can leave a vast part of the county without effective ambulance cover. The air ambulance is uniquely able to prevent that. If the Minister doubts that, I recommend that he looks at the map on the wall of the Truro ambulance station to see just how wide an area one ambulance may have to cover at any one time, particularly in north Cornwall.
Added to those basic principles is the fact that it appears to have a proven record of success. When the air ambulance is available, the response to emergencies within 20 minutes is 95 per cent. but only 90 per cent. when it is not available. Thus the Government target of 95 per cent. response rate within 20 minutes is met only with the air ambulance in operation.
Currently it costs £22,000 a month to fund the air ambulance. That is cost-effective as, although the cost is equivalent to that of seven land ambulances, it would take
1000
17 to provide the same level of back-up due to the distances involved. It is a vital and unique experiment in the provision of health care in a rural scattered area. It is unique in this country and the first figures seem to demonstrate that it is a success—it is saving lives.
So why is it that a service which has proved so necessary should have to live with the uncertainty that arises from being dependent on donations by the general public however generous they may be? The Government should respond to the generosity of the Cornish people who have given so much to this scheme by recognising this and agreeing to provide funding themselves. Extra financial allowances have to be made for the transport difficulties of a long rural area surrounded by sea, yet I understand that Government funding is being provided for the London air ambulance rather than the Cornish one.
Currently, an evaluation of air ambulance services has been proposed by Ministers, but so far, although I have pressed for Cornwall to form an essential part of it, Ministers have been reluctant, partly on cash grounds. Yet Cornwall has a unique service. I would welcome at least an initial commitment by the Minister to find funds for an independent evaluation of the Cornwall air ambulance. I hope that he can make that promise tonight.
If, once again, funding is refused, Cornwall will conclude that the Government have no interest whatsoever in this innovative method of improving health care in rural areas. I repeat tonight an invitation I have made before. Will the Minister agree to come as my guest to see the service offered from Truro?
I have outlined some of the issues on which I would like a specific response from the Minister. I contacted his offices and spoke to him earlier today to give him the opportunity to examine some of the issues that I hoped to raise. I look forward to his reply and I hope that he will offer a message of encouragement and a promise of Government action that I can take back to my constituency.
There is great advantage in having had the opportunity of the debate and I am grateful for that. At the very least I know that the Minister and his civil servants have taken a special look at the needs of the county. I hope that in future when they examine the needs of the Health Service in Cornwall they will remember some of the things that they have heard tonight.
1.24 am
The Parliamentary-Under Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Roger Freeman): I congratulate the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) on securing time for this Adjournment debate on the Health Service in Cornwall, in which he has always shown a keen interest. I also note that my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) is in his place. He also takes an extremely close interest in health care in his county.
The subject is wide, and I hope that I shall be able to deal with all the points that the hon. Member for Truro raised. I thank him for his courteous opening remarks and for forewarning me of some of the issues that he would raise.
It is as well to start with a general overview of the way in which things have improved recently. Cornwall and Isles of Scilly comes under the purview of the South Western regional health authority, which is responsible for the allocation of resources, for approving districts'

1001
programmess and for reviewing their performance. Cornwall figures large in the region's plans. The district general hospital at Treliske, which is in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, is subject to major capital development. Phase 4 is under construction at a cost of more than £8 million, and a further phase is planned. A new acute geriatric assessment unit has been approved for the West Cornwall hospital in Penzance at a cost of £2 million.
On revenue, Cornwall is the second highest spender in the region, with an allocation of nearly £98 million for 1989–90, which is a real-terms increase of about 2 per cent. over the previous year. Since 1978–79, the region's recurrent resources are expected to have risen by about 35 per cent. in real terms, and Cornwall has benefited from these large injections of cash. Cornwall has also managed to release more than £4 million in its cost improvement programmes cumulatively during the past three years for use in developing and improving services. I congratulate it on that achievement.
All these extra resources have fed through into additional services by more patients being seen in better accommodation. The number of nurses, doctors and other front-line staff has risen steadily, as has their proportion. Patient activity has continued to grow. In-patient, out-patient and day care activity have all risen significantly.
These figures are evidence of substantial improvements to health services in Cornwall recently, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge. In spite of the significantly increased number of patients who are being seen and treated, however, waiting lists have grown. The hon. Gentleman gave some statistics, and I do not disagree with the impression that he has given the House. We have recognised the problem, as has the region and the district. That is why Cornwall and Isles of Scilly was one of the 22 districts which this year received special attention from an independent management team to help find a way in which to reverse the trend.
The waiting lists are no reflection on the hard work put in by Cornwall's consultants; they are simply an expression of demand rising even faster than available resources and improvements in efficiency can match. To help ease the pressure, I understand that the district has put in a bid for two of the 100 additional consultants who were promised by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State when he launched the White Paper "Working for Patients". All regions in England have been asked to submit bids for additional consultants by the end of this month. My Department will then assess priorities with the steering group on "Achieving a Balance", and we aim to make an announcement in October.
Meanwhile, I understand that the district will add a new consultant post in urology to its staff in September. During the past three years, Cornwall has been allocated more than £450,000 from the waiting list fund which, by the end of this year, will have been used to treat some 3,000 additional in-patients and day cases.
Among the many local initiatives, I am impressed by the success of Cornwall's first air ambulance service in terms of public support. It has caught the imagination of the public, who have responded magnificently with financial support. However, I must resist the hon.
1002
Gentleman's specific call for special funding for the service. It is a local initiative and a local service, and it is therefore a matter to be handled by the health authority. However, I am examining the possibility of some help in evaluating the service, in which there will be wider interest. I expect to reach a conclusion on that in due course and I shall ensure that I write not only to the hon. Gentleman, but to my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives, who I am sure has an interest in the subject.
The hon. Gentleman raised the subject of community hospitals and general practitioners.
Mr. Matthew Taylor: Before the Minister moves on, I must say that over the past 18 months, I have repeatedly tried to get a Minister to come down to have a look at the authority. Perhaps this is the moment for the Minister to agree to do that.
Mr. Freeman: I am trying to answer the points raised in the debate. I very much regret that I cannot commit myself to visiting the authority in the near future. I very much hope that I shall be able to do so at the appropriate time.
I was referring to community hospitals and the responsibilities of general practitioners towards those hospitals. General practitioners spend part of their time working for community hospitals. They are paid for that valuable service and we all recognise how important that is. However, we believe that, if general practitioners are to work full time, they must be available for 26 hours over five days a week and that includes surgery consultations, clinics and home visits.
As I hope I have made clear to the hon. Gentleman in the form of a recent letter, and as I want to put on the record now, where those general practitioners are working in community hospitals—I recognise their importance, especially in the rural areas—we believe that they should apply to their family practitioner committees for a waiver of the five-day requirement, so that they can spread their commitment of 26 hours a week over four rather than five days. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will find that a constructive comment.
The hon. Gentleman also raised questions about the general practitioners' proposed contract, especially for rural areas. I want to deal first with rural practice payments, to which the hon. Gentleman referred. The payments recompense the general practitioners for the additional time and expense that might be incurred in caring for patients in rural areas. The main criterion for payment is, briefly, that at least 10 per cent. of patients on the general practitioner's list are resident in his or her rural practice area and live at least three miles from the main surgery. Each of those patients attracts units of monetary value depending on the distance and difficulty in reaching him or her.
Earlier this year, we agreed with the General Medical Services Committee that the special nature of practice in truly rural areas should continue to be recognised in the system of fees and allowances. We also agreed that the current scheme was not as well targeted as it could be. The whole question of payment to general practitioners in rural areas in England, such as Cornwall, is therefore being referred to the central advisory committee on rural practice payments. That is what the doctors' leaders wanted and we are considering how to carry this forward. Meanwhile, the current scheme will continue in operation.

1003
The hon. Gentleman implied that general practitioners and some of their patients are in great turmoil. I believe that general practitioners should await not only the proposed contract, which must be laid before Parliament—and will he in the autumn—but more importantly, the report of the doctors' and dentists' review body, which must price the contract. I hope that I can deliver a message on the contract through you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to the doctors of Cornwall tonight. My message is that they should wait and consider what action they feel they must take in the light not only of the contract, but of our conclusions on rural practice payments and the doctors' and dentists' review body. Doctors will then be able to reach rational judgments on whether they should change their practices, particularly their working practices, and the size of their patient lists.
We understand that doctors in rural areas will have smaller lists. It is very difficult for patients to change doctors. It is not the Government's intention to frustrate
1004
the provision of general practice service to patients in rural and scattered areas. We want to improve the quality and quantity of that service.
I welcome the hon. Gentleman's implied support for our funding proposals and also for contracts. Following the Resource Allocation Working Group, we will fund districts such as Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly on the basis of residence in the district. It will then be up to the health authority, through the medium of contracts. to pay for the provision of services outside districts such as Plymouth. We believe that that will be a fairer and more flexible system. The hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives will join me in welcoming the aim of the White Paper, if not the specific proposals, and the doctors' contract—to improve the quantity and quality of health care, not only in Cornwall but in England as a whole.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-five minutes to Two o'clock.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Misleading Advertisements
  Mr. McCrindle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many complaints he has received concerning misleading advertisements; and if he has any plans to amend the Control of Misleading Advertisement Regulations 1988.

  Mr. Forth
  My Department does not keep records of such complaints. Anyone complaining to the Department about an advertisement whether in respect of misleadingness or otherwise is referred to the appropriate advertising control authority: usually the Advertising Standards Authority or local trading standards department. Complaints about misleading advertisements which cannot be satisfactorily resolved by the authorities may be referred to the Director General of Fair Trading under the Control of Misleading Advertisements Regulations 1988. I will ask the director general to write to the hon. Member about the number of complaints he has received.

  I have no plans to amend the regulations.

  Vehicle Mileage
  Mr. McCrindle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has had discussions concerning clocking and the possibility of requiring notification of a car's mileage to the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Centre when relicensing, acquiring, or disposing of a car.

  Mr. Forth
  I have seen the recommendations to which the hon. Member refers, which were made by the working group led by the Director General of Fair Trading. As my hon. Friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic told the House on 16 March, the Government do not believe that the expensive system proposed for collecting and storing data in order to deter clocking would be sufficiently reliable to warrant the cost and bureaucracy involved. There are already mileage verification services available from private sector companies, and we believe that motor manufacturers could do much to solve the problem by developing tamper-resistant odometers.

  Second-hand Cars
  Mr. McCrindle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many complaints he has received concerning the failure of garages to carry out pre-sales inspections of second-hand cars; and what discussions he has had concerning the improvement of consumer protection in this area.

  Mr. Forth
  I am not aware of any complaints from consumers received by my Department specifically about the failure of garages to carry out pre-sales inspections of second-hand cars. I receive representations from time to 582
  time about various aspects of consumer protection in relation to used cars, but I have had no discussions specifically about pre-sales inspections.

  Creches
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has received any recent representations about pilot or permanent workplace creches and similar incentives further to encourage the return to employment of women in his Department; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  The Department of Trade and Industry uses the joint management and union arrangements which exist within the Whitley machinery to discuss workplace child care. The Department has received no recent representations outside this forum.

  The DTI is keen both to retain female staff and to encourage women to return to its employ. With other Departments, the DTI has contributed funds to a play scheme in London for employees' children aged five to 12 years. We have also initiated a programme of action to promote part-time working, and have increased flexible working hours. We are shortly to announce details of a career break scheme.

  NESL
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will place in the Library a copy of the letter written to him by the European Commissioner Sir Leon Brittan on 12 July regarding NESL.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  It is not usual practice to publish correspondence of this kind between the European Commission and the Government of a member country. In the particular circumstances of this case, however, a copy of Sir Leon Brittan's letter of 12 July has, with his agreement, been placed in the Library appended to a note by the Department on exchanges between the Government and the Commission concerning NESL.

  Summer Time
  Miss Hoey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1) what assessment has been made of the impact on quality of service for letter deliveries by the Post Office if there is an extra hour of winter morning darkness due to the implementation of single/double summer time;

  (2) what information he has as to what extra costs the Post Office forecasts it will incur if there is an extra hour of winter morning darkness due to the implementation of single/double summer time.

  Mr. Forth
  Quality of service is a matter for the Post Office Board. I understand the change would increase lighting and heating costs and require some changes in staffing arrangements at post offices.

  Astra Satellite
  Dr. Woodcock
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster at what power levels the Astra satellite is authorised by international regulatory agreements to broadcast signals to the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Atkins
  The power level for which the ASTRA. (Transmitting space station GDL-6) satellite has been
  583
  co-ordinated with the United Kingdom under the procedures of the ITU/IFRB (International Frequency Registration Board of the International Telecommunication Union) is 53 dBW eirp (Effective isotropic radiated power).

  Eutelsat
  Dr. Woodcock
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what payments from public funds have been made in each of the last five years to British Telecom International in respect of its involvement in the Eutelsat organisation and for what purpose.

  Mr. Atkins
  No such payments have been made to British Telecom International (BTI). The following payments have, however, been made to EUTELSAT by the British National Space Centre in respect of United Kingdom membership of EUTELSAT:

  £

  1984

  513,523

  1985

  1,389,568

  1986

  1,843,321

  1987

  903,063

  1988

  3,342,463

  These payments are a contribution towards the subscription payable to EUTELSAT by BTI, as United Kingdom signatory, in recognition of the costs associated with demonstrating the commercial applications of the ECS series of experimental telecommunications satellites. The payments will cease by the end of 1994.

  Information Technology
  Mr. Michael Marshall
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he is now in a position to give his Department's considered response to recommendations Nos. 24–26 of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry's report on information technology concerning the zero rating of value added tax on donations of information technology equipment made to educational institutions for research purposes.

  Mr. Forth
  The issues governing the zero rating of value added tax and taxation matters generally are complex and range beyond my Department. I can, however, state that I have taken note of the Select Committee's recommendation and can confirm that my Department remains committed to maintaining and improving the climate for investment for research and technology within the existing legislative framework. It is within this context that my officials have been liaising with the Treasury, but the policy regarding all fiscal matters is determined by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Mortgage Arrears
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Attorney-General (1) how many actions for repossession as a result of mortgage arrears were begun in the Coventry county court in each year since 1979;

  (2) how many county court actions for mortgage repossession occurred in the Coventry county court; how
  584
  many of these actions resulted in an order for possession of the property; how many of these orders for possession were suspended; and how many warrants for eviction were issued, in each year since 1979.

  The Attorney-General
  The number of mortgage actions for possession entered and orders made for possession in Coventry county court in each year since 1983 (the first year for which figures are available) are as follows. No information is collected on how many of these orders were suspended nor how many resulted in evictions.

  Year

  Number of mortgage possession actions entered

  Number of mortgage possession orders made

  1983

  550

  476

  1984

  545

  446

  1985

  471

  404

  1986

  505

  497

  1987

  560

  385

  1988

  454

  536

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Adult Illiteracy
  Sir Anthony Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will publish his current estimate of the number of adult persons in the United Kingdom unable to read or write.

  Mr. Jackson
  Few adults are totally unable to write, but a substantial number have some problems with reading, writing and spelling. Research sponsored by the adult literacy and basic skills unit (ALBSU) and the Training Agency suggests that of the cohort of 23-year-olds who were interviewed in 1981 as part of the national child development study survey, 13 per cent. said that they had some problems with reading, writing or numeracy, and 3 per cent. said that their problems caused difficulty in everyday life. If this were typical of all adults in England and Wales, an estimated 5·5 million people could have some difficulties with literacy and numeracy, of whom about 300,000 might experience serious difficulties with reading and writing.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many letters were received from, and sent to. hon. Members by his Department in(a) January and (b) the whole of this Session up to 1 July.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  This information is not readily available in the form requested. Between 1 December 1988 and 30 June 1989 the Department received 9,985 letters designated for ministerial reply, and 9,385 replies were issued. During January 1989, 1,352 letters for ministerial reply were received, and 1,041 replies issued. Approximately two thirds of this correspondence was from hon. Members.

  Personal and Social Education
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) how many hours the subjects of personal and social education will occupy in the national curriculum; and what will be the format for teaching these studies;
  585
  (2) how many hours the subject of alcohol education is to occupy in the national curriculum.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Under section 4(3) of the Education Reform Act, national curriculum orders may not prescribe the time to he allocated to teaching any subject or topic. How the different programmes of study are taught will be a matter for each school to determine.

  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) what recommendations he intends to make on alcohol education in the draft orders to be laid before Parliament on that subject;

  (2) when the draft orders on the study and attainment targets for alcohol education to be contained in the national curriculum will be laid before Parliament.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The order for science education within the national curriculum was laid before Parliament in March 1989. This includes attainment targets and programmes of study concerning the effects of alcohol on the way in which the human body functions.

  "Fun Eating at School Today"
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what information he has on the response in the Doncaster area to the Fun Eating at School Today campaign.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The FEAST campaign is run by individual local education authorities. Information on its results in particular areas is not collected by the Department.

  Creches
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he has any plans to encourage education authorities and school governing bodies to establish work place or shared facility creches and similar incentives further to encourage the return of mothers to teaching.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Under the education support grant programme for 1990–91, support is available for up to £2 million to boost the local recruitment of former teachers and mature entrants. Provision of creche and other child care facilities will be relevant expenditure for this activity.

  Higher Education (Funding)
  Sir Peter Emery
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will ensure in the future that universities and polytechnics receive the same level of funding.

  Mr. Jackson
  Decisions on the public funding of the universities and the polytechnics will continue to reflect differences in their circumstances, of which universities' research role is part.

  Ethnically Based Statistics
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement about ethnically based statistics on school pupils.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The Department is today issuing a circular to local education authorities and others,586
  instituting from September 1990 a national scheme for the collection of ethnically based statistics on school pupils. I shall be placing copies of the circular in the Library.

  The scheme's objective is to assist schools, parents, LEAs, the Department and others in ensuring that education meets the needs of all pupils, thereby helping to secure equality of opportunity. The great majority of those who commented on an earlier consultative circular welcomed the principle of collection of ethnically based data. The national scheme has been designed in the light of experience of pilot schemes in four LEAs.

  LEA maintained and grant-maintained schools will be expected to collect ethnically based information on pupils entering either the primary or secondary phase of schooling in September 1990, and thereafter. Parents will be asked to provide, on a voluntary basis, information on their children's ethnic origin, religion and the language spoken in their home. The circular emphasises the need for care and sensitivity in the collection and handling of this information. Information supplied to the DES will be aggregated and will not permit the identification of individual pupils.

  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement about ethnically based statistics on students in further and higher education.

  Mr. Jackson
  The Department and the Welsh Office issued a consultation document raising the issues and options involved in the collection of ethnically based statistics for students in further and higher education last March. Comments were received from 100 bodies. There was general support for the proposal that the national data collection on ethnicity for each and every student/enrolment should be obtained via the incorporation of a question in the further education statistical record. Accordingly, we have agreed that a question to elicit this information using the agreed OPCS classification of ethnic groups will be included in the November 1990 FESR return.

  With regard to the collection of data on applications for higher education, both the University Central Council on Admissions and the Polytechnic Central Admissions Systems have agreed to include an ethnicity question in their admission material for full-time first degree courses relating to the academic year 1990–91 and subsequently. UCCA data will then be transferred to the university statistical record in respect of those students enrolled at university.

  The collection of these data will provide a valuable measure to inform forward planning and provision and alert decision-makers to issues and areas requiring further investigation.

  Motor Neurone Disease
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list the projects on motor neurone disease funded by his Department.

  Mr. Jackson
  [holding answer 14 July]: The Medical Research Council, which receives a grant in aid from this Department, is currently supporting the following projects on motor neurone disease:
  587

  Investigator

  Department

  Project title

  Dr. C. R. Slater

  Neurology, University of Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  Structure and function of motor innervation in mice with an inherited disease of the motor neurones

  Dr. P. J. Harrison

  Physiology, University College and Middlesex School of Medicine, London

  The segmental and functional connectivity of group 1B muscle afferents

  Dr. F. S. Walsh

  Neurochemistry, Institute of Neurology, London

  Molecular recognition events in nerve-muscle co-cultures

  Prof. M. F. Scanlon

  College of Medicine, University of Wales, Cardiff

  Investigation of the serum factor(s) in motor neurone disease which increase TRH production by rat brain stem cells

  Dr. K. R. Mills

  Clinical Neurology, University of Oxford

  Mechanisms of muscle weakness in central nervous system disease: a study using magnetic brain stimulation

  Prof. T. A. Sears

  Sobell Department of Neurophysiology, Institute of Neurology, London

  Tropic regulation of protein synthesis in motorneurones

  Dr. R. Navarrette

  Anatomy and Developmental Biology, University College, London

  The role of nerve-muscle interaction in motorneurone functional development

  Prof. G. Vrobova

  Anatomy and Embryology, University College, London

  Restoration of muscle function by regenerated embryonic motorneurones

  The Medical Research Council also supports a range of basic research which may be of relevance to motor neurone disease. In addition, university departments and medical schools support research from block grants from the Universities Funding Council, some of which may also be of relevance.

WALES

  Anthrax
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list all the measures that he has taken since April, together with dates of implementation, to protect people from infection from anthrax; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  Restrictions made under the Anthrax Order 1938 prohibiting the movement of animals and carcases to and from the premises, and of other potentially infected materials from the premises, were imposed by the local authority.

  The community health physician, Wrexham, was notified on 19 April 1989. Where pigs had been licensed to be moved they had been inspected by a veterinary officer prior to leaving the farm; by a veterinary officer at the point of slaughter; and again by a qualified meat inspector after slaughter. Animals dying from anthrax were cremated and their surroundings cleansed and disinfected. Clwyd county council made appropriate arrangements to disinfect and dispose of the slurry.

  Opera (Llandudno)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when officers of his Department last met representatives of local authorities in Gwynedd concerning the establishment of an opera venue at Llandudno; and what is the latest position with regard to this project.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  Welsh Office officials met representatives of Aberconwy borough council and Gwynedd county council on 21 June. An application for
  588
  the scheme to be considered as a project of regional or national importance has since been received from Aberconwy borough council and is being considered.

  Local Authority Finance
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will list the figures by which an individual would be protected by the safety net against the full effects of the poll tax in each local authority area in Wales, showing against each the equivalent figure based on his written answer on 12 June,Official Report, columns 304–6;

  (2) whether, further to his written answer on 12 June, Official Report, columns 304–6, he will list the community charge he estimates will apply to each local authority area in Wales (a) without safety net and (b) with safety net.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  No. The review of standard spending assessments has yet to be completed and the precise details of the safety net have yet to be settled. I agree with the Welsh local authority associations that it would be misleading to produce illustrative figures until consultation on these matters has been concluded.

  Cardiff Bay
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) whether his Department has submitted to the European Commission any plan, project or programme in respect of aid from the European regional development fund for any project within the Cardiff bay development corporation area;

  (2) whether his Department has conducted any negotiations with the European Commission or others on any plan, project or programme in respect of aid from the European regional development fund for any project within the Cardiff bay development corporation area.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  Projects in the Cardiff bay area have been submitted individually for ERDF assistance in the past. Developments in the Cardiff bay area are included in a proposal for an integrated development operation for industrial south Wales submitted to the European Commission in May last year. A linked reconversion plan for industrial south Wales, submitted to the European
  589
  Commission earlier this year also referred to developments in Cardiff bay. Discussions are currently under way between officials of my Department and of the European Commission.

  Welsh Development Agency
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the properties and facilities and their cash values of the Welsh Development Agency and facilities that have been sold in each of the years since 1979; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  [holding answer 5 July 1989]: Details of industrial property sales in 1987–88 and 1988–89 are shown in the tables. Similar information for other years since 1979 is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Location

  Unit Reference

  Consideration

  £ thousand

  Year 1987–88

  Amlwch

  Amlwch No. 1

  187

  Maesteg

  Revlon factory

  360

  Pyle

  Northgate factory

  145

  Blackmill

  G Q Parachutes factory

  105

  Maesteg

  British Vita factory

  140

  Merthyr Tydfil

  Ex-Hoover factory

  3,000

  Bridgend

  Unit B15 Bridgend IE

  60

  Barry

  Unit 1Ty Verlon

  300

  Tenby

  A/F 16 and 17 Salterns IE

  40

  Burry Port

  Units 4, 5, 6, and 7 Pembrey IE

  115

  Aberdare

  A/F 1 Robertstown

  206

  Hirwaun

  A/F 10 Hirwaun

  350

  Newport

  Maesglas IE (26 factory units)

  2,225

  Swansea

  Ex-Northgate premises

  111

  Kenfig

  A/F 4 Kenfig IE

  295

  Pontardawe

  A/F 1 Pontardawe IE

  75

  Cwmgors

  A/F 1 Cwmgors IE

  55

  Ynyshir

  A/F 7 and 8 Ynyshir IE

  73

  Porth

  Remploy factory

  98

  Llwynypia

  Glampak factory

  85

  Llwynypia

  Unit A B 11 Llwynypia

  45

  Treforest

  Commercial Unit, Treforest IE

  13

  Wrexham

  Unit A, Redwither Road, Wrexham IE

  205

  Wrexham

  Ex-Dunlop factory

  725

  Year 1988–89

  Cwmbran

  Units B1 and B3 Ty Coch IE

  228

  Cwmbran

  Units 1, 2 and 3 Caldicot Way, Avondale IE

  465

  Blaenavon

  Andrew Russell factory

  98

  Penyfan

  A/F 5 Penyfan IE

  278

  Tafarnaubach

  Unit 4, Tafarnaubach IE

  555

  Merthyr Tydfil

  Unit 1, Goat Mill road, Dowlais

  238

  Merthyr Tydfil

  Unit 2, Goat Mill road, Dowlais

  200

  Treorchy

  Polikoff Universal factory

  100

  Cwmtillery

  Unit 1, Cwmtillery IE

  260

  Merthyr Tydfil

  Ex-Triang factory

  41

  Maesteg

  A/F 3 Forge IE

  235

  Treforest

  Units A16 and A17 Treforest IE

  527

  Hirwaun

  Unit L2 Hirwaun IE

  11

  Cwmfelinfach

  A/F 1 Nine Mile Point IE

  364

  Hirwaun

  Unit L21, Hirwaun IE

  65

  Hirwaun

  Unit B55, Hirwaun IE

  20

  Kenfig

  A/F 3 Kenfig IE

  465

  Kenfig

  A/F 4 Kenfig IE

  295

  Dafen

  A/F 10 Dafen industrial park

  275

  Dafen

  Unit 1, Dafen industrial park

  350

  Llanelli

  A/F 1 North Dock

  69

  Morriston

  A/F 3 St. Davids IE

  225

  Bridgend

  James Walker factory

  22

  Ammanford

  Unit 2, Park street

  125

  Llandeilo

  Units B, C and D Beechwood IE

  95

  Milford Haven

  Unit 5, Gt. Honeyborough IE

  65

  590

  Location

  Unit Reference

  Consideration

  £ thousand

  Pembroke Dock

  Units 2 and 3 Ferry lane

  375

  Milford Haven

  A/F 3, 6, 7, 8 and 9 Great Honeyborough IE

  210

TRANSPORT

  DRIVE Project
  Mr. Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many British organisations are involved in the European Community DRIVE project.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  British organisations are playing a major part in the DRIVE initiative and are involved in more than two thirds of the contracts let so far.

  Up to now, some 60 DRIVE contracts have been awarded: 27 British organisations are involved in 42 of them and are taking the lead in 19. Bearing in mind the EC has had 189 DRIVE proposals, this is an impressive hit rate and illustrates the depth of technology available in Britain.

  The Government's transport and road research laboratory has been awarded 12 contracts and is lead contractor in one. The local value of these contracts is £12·7 million, of which the TRRL share is £870,000. Work on most of these projects has started and will take two or three years.

  With a budget of 50 million ecu (£32 million), DRIVE aims to create an integrated pan-European road transport environment, mainly using electronic systems to convey information to drivers and for controlling traffic.

  Motor Cyclists
  Mr. David Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for transport what are the latest statistics he has available on the death rate of motor cyclists in relation to the overall population in (i) the United Kingdom, (ii) the United States of America, (iii) France, (iv) the Federal Republic of Germany and (v) Japan; and what were the comparable figures 10 Years ago.

  Mr. peter Bottomley
  the information is as follows:

  Motor cyclist deaths per million head of population

  1977

  1987

  United Kingdom

  21·6

  13·0

  USA

  19·3

  18·6

  France

  53·0

  29·1

  FRG

  35·0

  17·8

  Japan

  16·7

  25·5

  The figures are published in the transport statistics report entitled "International comparisons of transport statistics; Part 2". They do not give an indication of the size of the motor cycle population in each country. The trend in the United Kingdom towards reduced casualties among motor cyclists is a heartening one.

  Driver Testing and Training
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish the driver testing and training business plan for 1989–90.
  591
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Copies of the driver testing and training division's 1989–90 business plan have been placed in the Library.

  Road Safety
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will report on progress in implementing the recommendations of the interdepartmental review on road safety; and if he will indicate his future priorities for work on reducing road casualties.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Good progress has been made in implementing the recommendations of the road safety review. I have placed a full progress report in the Library of the House. This includes a summary of the areas of work on which we shall be concentrating for the next 18 months. Casualty figures suggest that we are making reasonable progress towards the target of reducing casualties by one third by the year 2000. It is also clear that there is no room for complacency and that we shall have to step up our efforts even more in the future.

  Drink-driving
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many drivers involved in accidents were found to have been drinking over the limit in 1988; how this number has changed over the past 10 years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Drivers involved in accidents who are not seriously injured may be breath-tested following the accident. In 1988, it is estimated that 75,000 drivers were so tested, of whom nearly 14 per cent., or just over 10,000, failed. In addition, coroners' reports on drivers who die in road accidents show that about 20 per cent. in 1988, or about 400, had a blood alcohol content above the legal limit.

  The following tables show (a) the numbers tested following injury accidents each year since 1979 and the numbers failing; and (b) the percentages of drivers killed in accidents who had a high blood alcohol content.

  Table A

  Drivers and riders in accidents

  Numbers breath tested, and failing

  Numbers tested

  Numbers failing

  1979

  41,000

  14,100

  1980

  41,600

  13,400

  1981

  41,000

  12,300

  1982

  43,300

  13,500

  1983

  42,300

  12,400

  1984

  43,500

  12,600

  1985

  44,700

  12,600

  1986

  61,200

  11,900

  1987

  65,000

  11,000

  1 1988

  75,000

  10,200

  Table B

  Percentage of drivers or riders killed in road accidents, whose blood alcohol level is above the legal limit

  Killed

  Per cent. over limit

  1979

  2,700

  32

  1980

  2,500

  31

  1981

  2,500

  30

  1982

  2,500

  33

  1983

  2,200

  28

  592

  Killed

  Per cent. over limit

  1984

  2,200

  26

  1985

  2,100

  26

  1986

  2,200

  24

  1987

  2,100

  23

  1 1988

  2,100

  21

  1 Provisional.

  As the figures show, both the numbers of drivers failing the breath test, and the proportion killed who have a high blood alcohol content have been falling. This indicates a real fall in the amount of drinking and driving that occurs, although the levels are still too high.

  We must continue our efforts to change public attitudes so as to accelerate this fall in drink-drive levels, and so reduce the number of accidents on our roads.

  Passenger Aircraft
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will list in the Official Report the numbers of passenger aircraft, in service with United Kingdom operators, which exceed 75 per cent. of their economic design life objectives according to model type and as defined by (a) total number of flights, (b) total number of flying hours and (c) age; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will list in the Official Report the numbers of passenger aircraft in service with United Kingdom operators, by airplane model type, showing how many of each model type have exceeded their economic design life objectives in terms of (a) total number of flights or (b) total number of flying hours or (c) age; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  These data are not held by the Department though some may be available to the Civil Aviation Authority, which has the statutory responsibility for the safety regulation of civil aviation.

  I shall ask the chairman of the authority to respond direct to the hon. Member.

  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many licences for passenger aircraft were issued to United Kingdom operators by his Department under arrangements known as wet leasing; if he will list, according to each model type, the numbers of such aircraft which have(a) exceeded their economical design life objectives in terms of either (i) total number of flights, (ii) total number of flying hours and (iii) age, or (b) reached 75 per cent. or more of their economic design life objectives in terms of either (i) total number of flights, (ii) total number of flying hours and (iii) age; if he is satisfied with the safety standards of aircraft which are wet leased; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  In 1988, the Department approved 19 wet leases of foreign registered passenger aircraft by United Kingdom airlines. A breakdown of the types of aircraft is as follows:-

  Type

  Number

  BAC 1–11 (500)

  1

  B727–100

  1

  B727–200

  4

  B737–200

  5

  B737–300

  4

  Convair CV-580

  3

  593

  Type

  Number

  DC10

  1

  Total

  19

  The other statistics requested in relation to these aircraft are not kept.

  Dartford Crossing
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects construction of the third Dartford crossing to be completed.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Good progress continues to be made on the new bridge. It is expected to be open early in 1991.

  Vessels
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list in the Official Report the names, number of fatalities and port of registration of United Kingdom-registered cargo vessels and passenger ferries lost in each of the past five years; if each loss was the subject of an inquiry; how many masters of such vessels were held responsible; what was the range of sanctions imposed upon them; and to which regulations do these penalties refer.

  Mr. Portillo
  The names and port of registry of cargo vessels and passenger ferries registered in the United Kingdom lost in the five years 1984–88 are listed, with the number of fatalities. Inquiries were carried out by the Department of Transport in all cases. The remaining information requested is not readily available and could be compiled only at disproportionate expense.

  Cargo Vessels and Passenger Ferries Lost 1984–88

  Ship

  Port of Registry

  Deaths

  1984

  Camilla Weston

  London

  —

  Fylrix

  Hull

  —

  1985

  Johanna V

  London

  —

  Bridgeness (Tanker)

  London

  —

  Xanthence

  Colchester

  —

  David F

  Liverpool

  —

  Gwyn

  Cardiff

  —

  1986

  Southern Quest

  Grangemouth

  —

  Eilean Rosin Dubh

  Stornoway

  —

  1987

  Herald of Free Enterprise

  Dover

  189

  Besthorpe

  Hull

  1

  Maral R

  London

  —

  1988

  Grit

  London

  —

  BC Mercurius

  London

  —

  Deepdale H

  Liverpool

  —

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow on 11 July,Official Report, columns 458–59 he will indicate in how many of the subsequent inquiries into such losses the master was
  594
  held responsible for the loss of his vessel; what were the penalties imposed upon those deemed to be offenders; and under which regulations those sanctions were imposed.

  Mr. Portillo
  I regret that information in the form requested is not readily available and could only be compiled at disproportionate expense.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow on 11 July,Official Report, columns 458–59, he will indicate how many of these losses of fishing vessels were subjects of inquiry; how many were lost as a direct result of collisions with submarines; and, of those which foundered following such collisions, how many were fishing at the time with (a) demersal gear and (b) pelagic gear.

  Mr. Portillo
  The Department of Transport made inquiries into the large majority of the losses, including, all where fatalities occurred. None of the vessels was lost so far as is known as a direct result of collision with a submarine.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow on 11 July,Official Report, columns 458–59, he will indicate the number of inquiries where no judgment or assessment was made concerning the reason or reasons for the loss of a fishing vessel; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  In all cases where an inquiry is carried out, an attempt is made to assess the possible causes of the accident. A full list of all cases with information as to the extent to which cause remains uncertain could be compiled only at disproportionate cost.

  Manchester Airport (Far East Flights)
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many additional international flights to and from the far east and Manchester airport have been approved this year; which airlines and destinations are involved; and if he will list all similar applications still to be considered.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  So far this year, arrangements have been made allowing new scheduled services from Manchester to be operated to Malaysia and to Hong Kong, and for additional services to Singapore. United Kingdom airlines can seek licences for these routes from the CAA (at present, only British Airways has one, from Manchester to Hong Kong). Airlines at present designated by the authorities at the other ends of the routes are MAS, Cathay Pacific, Air Hong Kong and SIA. It is for each of these airlines to decide whether or not to take advantage of the opportunities. Apart from a licence application by Virgin Atlantic for services between Manchester and Singapore under consideration by the CAA, there are no outstanding requests for services between Manchester and the far east.

  Airtours and Orion
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures he intends taking about the time-keeping and maintenance performance recently of the Airtours company and Orion airlines.
  595
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  It is the United States Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) that is responsible for ensuring that all United States carriers, including Orion Air, operate their aircraft in accordance with safety and airworthiness standards set by the FAA pursuant to their obligations under the Chicago convention. Our Civil Aviation Authority has already drawn the FAA's attention to the recurring maintenance difficulties experienced on Orion Air's services to and from Manchester.

  Fuel Efficiency
  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether there are any plans to introduce legislation to require vehicle manufacturers to achieve fuel efficiency targets for cars and light vans.

  A2/M2 road maintenance programme (£ million)

  Scheme

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  A2

  Swanscombe-Pepper Hill

  0·2

  2·9

  —

  —

  —

  Barham-Westcourt Road

  1·3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Tollgate-Marling Cross

  —

  0·1

  1·4

  —

  —

  Lydden-Whitfield

  —

  —

  2·0

  —

  —

  Tollgate-Thanglane

  —

  —

  2·1

  0·6

  —

  Coldred-Whitfield

  —

  —

  0·4

  1·3

  —

  Thanglane-M2

  —

  —

  —

  2·6

  —

  GLC Boundary-M25

  —

  —

  —

  0·05

  —

  Brewers Gate

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0·2

  West Court-Lydden

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1·2

  Whitfield Eastwards

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0·2

  County Boundary-M25

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0·4

  Singlewell-Hog Lane

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0·05

  M2

  Junctions 3 and 4–5

  4·8

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Junctions 5–7 Joints Ph1

  —

  0·5

  —

  —

  —

  Junctions 5–7 Joints Ph2

  —

  —

  0·5

  —

  —

  Junctions 5–6 Concrete repairs

  —

  —

  4·1

  0·4

  —

  Junction 4

  —

  —

  0·2

  2·7

  —

  Junctions 5–7 overlay

  —

  —

  —

  5·5

  Junction 5

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3·9

  Junctions 5–7

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3·2

  Junctions 6–7

  —

  —

  1·1

  —

  —

  A2 Improvement schemes (£ million)

  Schemes

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  Barham Crossroads

  —

  1·9

  0·6

  0·04

  Swanscombe-B262

  1·3

  —

  —

  —

  Tollgate-Marling Cross

  —

  0·78

  —

  —

  Cobham-3 Crutches

  —

  —

  0·94

  —

  London Boundary-M25

  0·07

  —

  —

  2·35

  Singlewell-Hogg Lane

  —

  —

  —

  0·01

  A2/M2 Brenley Corner Roundabout

  —

  0·02

  —

  —

  Radioactive Material
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many journeys were made in 1988 of(a) uranium and (b) other nuclear or radioactive material, which were transported through the Doncaster metropolitan borough council area by (i) rail and (ii) road to Sellafield or other destinations; and what reviews are being carried out on the frequency of these cargo shipments.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The Department does not collect data of the kind requested.

  The movement of all radioactive materials must be made in compliance with national and international
  596
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  [holding answer 24 July 1989]: Following the June Environment Council, the European Commission is committed to looking for ways of reducing the emissions from vehicles of carbon dioxide, the principal "greenhouse" gas. These emissions are directly related to fuel efficiency. It is unclear how the Commission intends to fulfil this commitment. We expect it will consult member states at an early stage to explore what might be technically, economically and legally feasible.

  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much has been spent in respect of each A2-M2 road maintenance programme or improvement programme in each of the last 10 years; and if he will list the amounts by programme.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  [holding answer 24 July 1989]: The information readily available is:

  regulations which require safety for both normal and accident conditions to be built in to the container used for transport.

  Safety does not depend on the choice of route used, which is a matter for the carrier.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many letters were received from, and sent to, hon. Members by his Department in(a) January and (b) the whole of this Session up to 1 July.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  This question could be answered only at disproportionate cost.

  Civil Service Dispersal
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress is being made in his Department's review, in line with Treasury guidelines, of the potential for the further relocation of Civil Service posts outside London and the south-east; and when he expects the review to be completed.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Eighty per cent. of DTp staff are located outside London and the Department is reviewing the possibilities for further relocation.

  A decision to relocate the headquarters of the driver testing and training division to Nottingham in mid-1990 was announced earlier this year; a review of TRRL at Crowthorne concluded against relocation; a review of marine HQ posts is nearing completion; and a review of parts of the highways command has recently started.

  A1
  Mr. Holt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the decision was made to undertake the new road works south of Wetherby on the A1.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The carriageway repair work on the A1 at Bramham to the south of Wetherby was planned in February. The works are 0·5 miles long and are expected to be completed by 8 August.

  We are conscious of the need to plan and phase road works and try to keep those on the A1 to a minimum.

  To aid traffic flow, the lane restrictions which were in force on the A1 at Dishforth have been suspended until early September.

  Mr. Holt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many miles of the A1 north of Doncaster to Dishforth are presently under repair.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  One half of one mile.

  Mr. Holt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport to the nearest 1,000, how many cones are presently deployed on the A1 between Doncaster and Dishforth.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  There are approximately 6,000 cones currently in use on the A1(M) Doncaster bypass. Between Doncaster and Dishforth, there are approximately 750 cones deployed for day-time lane closures. A further 750 cones are used for work which is being carried out at night to minimise traffic delays.

  Mr. Holt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are the distances between highways works signs on the Al between the M18 junction and the A19 both north and south.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The works on the A1(M) Doncaster bypass and those at Bramham to the south of Wetherby are 25 miles apart. The works at Bramham are 22 miles from those at Dishforth.

  Mr. Holt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether any departmental Ministers have travelled on the A1/M1 in Yorkshire during the past six months.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Yes. I drove up and down twice last month.

  Motorway HGV Checks
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the number of counties in which major checks have been carried out on the motorways in 598
  the last 12 months, to discover how many heavy goods vehicles were unfit for use; and whether he will hold talks with the Association of Chief Police Officers on the effectiveness and frequency of exercises such as that carried out by Staffordshire county constabulary.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  In the 12 months to the end of June 1989, major vehicle checks were carried out in 23 counties; 470 goods vehicles were prohibited from further movement for offences including overloading, mechanical defects and breach of the drivers hours rules.

  The Department regularly holds liaison meetings with the Home Office and representatives of the Association of Chief Police Officers at which enforcement procedures and other matters are discussed. The vehicle checks carried out by Staffordshire police are effective both in enforcing the law and increasing inter-agency co-operation. The Department's enforcement staff will continue to assist the police in Staffordshire and elsewhere in holding checks on motorways.

  Driving Test
  Sir Anthony Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will include a test of literacy in the driving test procedure before a person is licensed to drive a motor vehicle.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  There are no plans to do so. There is no known correlation between literacy and road safety.

  It is not difficult to envisage someone functionally illiterate driving better than a doctor of philosophy (and vice versa).

  Mersey Rail
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will provide additional resources to improve services on the Mersey Rail northern line; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  No additional resources are required. I understand that once recent traincrew recruits have been trained the problem of cancellations should be much reduced.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Overseas Aid (Annual Review)
  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much it cost to publish the "Annual Review of British Overseas Aid" in 1987.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  Five thousand copies of "British Overseas Aid 1986" were produced in 1987 at a unit cost of £7·87.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty
  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if, pursuant to the replies to the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn), 19 June,Official Report, columns 32–33, he will

  599
  seek from the Governments of the People's Republic of China, Argentina, Republic of South Africa and India the terms on which each is prepared to sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  No. The non-proliferation treaty is open for signature to all states, and we take every suitable opportunity to encourage non-parties to join.

  Civil Service (Relocation)
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress is being made in his Department's review, in line with Treasury guidelines, of the potential for the further relocation of Civil Service posts outside London and the south-east; and when he expects the review to be completed.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  As a result of the FCO review, about 250 diplomatic wing jobs have been identified for possible relocation to the FCO estate at Hanslope Park near Milton Keynes, subject to planning permission and financial provision for the necessary development of that estate.

  The aid wing has carried out two major relocation exercises in recent years and when the current move to Chatham is complete nearly 60 per cent. of ODA staff will be located outside London. Opportunities for further relocation are kept continuously under review.

  Armament Sales (Israel)
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the total value of armament sales to Israel from Britain between 1980 and 1989; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  It has been the practice of successive Administrations not to give details of arms sales to particular countries.

  Human Rights (Israel)
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last made representations to the Israeli Government concerning human rights in Israel; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We have not taken up the question of human rights in Israel proper but have made repeated representations to the Israelis about human rights in the occupied territories.

  Creches
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has received any recent representations about pilot or permanent workplace creches and similar incentives further to encourage the return to employment of women in his Department; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  A survey to assess likely demand for a diplomatic and aid wing child care facility was recently carried out prior to a feasibility study completed in May this year. The results of this feasibility study are now being considered.

  Both the diplomatic and aid wings also contributed to the setting up fund for a 1989 Westminster holiday play
  600
  scheme, and children of school age of employees in both wings registered to take part. Separate play schemes are being planned at outer London aid wing locations.

  A number of measures have been introduced in both the diplomatic and aid wings in recent years, designed to further the FCO equal opportunities policy—for instance, the introduction of flexible working hours, and the extension of special unpaid leave arrangements (for up to a total of five years) to enable an officer to meet domestic responsibilities.

  Hong Kong
  Mr. David Young
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had, and what action is being taken, in secondary education in Hong Kong to lay the foundations for informed participation of youth in a democratic elective system in Hong Kong.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We are consulting the Government of Hong Kong. I will give the hon. Member a full reply as soon as possible.

  Immigration
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) when Mr. Irfan Abdul Alikazi, whose date of birth is 13 October 1969, first applied to the post in Bombay to enter the United Kingdom; on what dates he has been interviewed at the post; and when a decision is to be taken on his application;

  (2) when Mr. Mohd Yasin, who was born in 1962 and whose reference is SN 81140, first applied to the post in Islamabad to enter the United Kingdom; and when a decision is going to be taken on his application.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  [pursuant to the reply, 14 July 1989, c. 673]: In accordance with the guidelines on the handling of representations by Members of Parliament in immigration cases, issued to Members on 14 December 1988, the questions have been referred to the correspondence unit of the migration and visa department of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. The hon. Member will receive a reply from the unit in due course.

PRIME MINISTER

  Prevention of Terrorism Act
  Mr. Nelson
  To ask the Prime Minister whether she has received any recent representations requesting the repeal of the Prevention of Terrorism Act.

  The Prime Minister
  No. The Prevention of Terrorism Act is one expression of our resolve to defeat the evil of terrorism, and there is no question of a repeal.

  Italy
  Sir Hugh Rossi
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has received recent representations regarding the United Kingdom's relations with Italy.

  The Prime Minister
  No.

  Fire Service
  Mr. Marland
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has received recent representations regarding the fire service.
  601
  The Prime Minister
  I have received a number of representations about fire service matters. We all owe a considerable debt to individual firefighters for their courageous service to the community. As with other public services, the Government have a responsibility to ensure that the fire service is run in the most efficient way possible and that it gives the best value for money to the public.

  Pakistan (Prime Minister)
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will make a statement following her recent meeting with the Prime Minister of Pakistan.

  The Prime Minister
  I had a very friendly and useful discussion with Prime Minister Bhutto on 7 July about a number of subjects, including Britain's relations with Pakistan, which are excellent, the situation in Afghanistan and other regional issues. I also welcomed the prospect of Pakistan's return to the Commonwealth.

  Securities and Investments Board
  Sir Anthony Grant
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has received recent representations regarding the performance of the Securities and Investments Board.

  The Prime Minister
  While I receive from time to time representations about various aspects of the financial services regulatory system, only one received in recent months would fall into the category referred to by my hon. Friend.

  Maritime Affairs
  Dr. Goodson-Wickes
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has any plans to rationalise the administration of maritime affairs into one Ministry.

  The Prime Minister
  No. There is a maritime aspect to the work of several Government Departments which could not sensibly he separated from their other responsibilities.

  Environmental Pollution
  Mr. Richard Page
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has received recent representations regarding environmental pollution.

  The Prime Minister
  I have received a number of representations. The Government are committed to the protection of the environment. Government and industry are already investing £2 billion to reduce air pollution, £1·3 billion in the water industry, and £100 million a year on schemes to improve the quality of coastal bathing waters. This investment will improve the quality of the environment for generations to come. We also intend to bring forward legislation to strengthen the powers available to control pollution at source.

  Methodist Conference
  Mr. Archer
  To ask the Prime Minister what reply she has sent to the letter of 1 July from the President of the Methodist Conference.

  The Prime Minister
  It is not my usual practice to publish exchanges of this kind.

  EEC
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has received recent representations regarding the EEC.

  The Prime Minister
  Yes, I receive regular representations on EC matters.

  National Health Service
  Mr. Kirkhope
  To ask the Prime Minister what recent representations she has had on the proposed reforms for the National Health Service.

  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has received recent representations regarding the National Health Service.

  The Prime Minister
  I understand that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health has received some 8,500 representations on the White Paper; many correspondents give strong support for its objectives and endorse its proposals.

  Structural Fund Policy
  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has received recent representations regarding structural fund policy in the European Economic Community.

  The Prime Minister
  My right hon. Friends have received representations from local authorities and others about the management of the funds under the revised arrangements.

  Transport Policy
  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has received recent representations regarding transport policy.

  The Prime Minister
  I regularly receive representations on a wide range of issues concerning transport policy. The programme of investment in railways is now running at the highest level since the transfer from steam to diesel 30 years ago. There is already a major programme of road building which the Government are committed to increasing still further.

  Crime
  Mr. John Browne
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has received recent representations regarding the level of crime.

  The Prime Minister
  I have received a number of such representations. The recent fall in the overall level of crime which is disclosed in the statistics for recorded offences in the year ending 31 March 1989 is encouraging.

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

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

  British Rail
  Mr. Goodlad
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has received recent representations regarding British Rail.

  The Prime Minister
  Yes, especially recently when a number of people have written to me about the great
  603
  inconvenience caused to the travelling public by the rail strikes. Passengers and freight business will suffer unless the railways give a reliable service.

  Commonwealth
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has received recent representations relating to the Commonwealth.

  The Prime Minister
  I regularly receive representations relating to the Commonwealth from hon. Members as well as from members of the public. I am greatly looking forward to attending this year's Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting, an event which is always of great importance to this Government.

  NATO
  Mr. Cyril D. Townsend
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has received recent representations regarding NATO.

  The Prime Minister
  I have received a number of representations relating to NATO, most of them strongly supportive of the continuing, vitally important role of NATO in sustaining peace and security.

  Agriculture Policy
  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has received recent representations regarding agricultural policy.

  The Prime Minister
  The Government frequently received representations about agricultural policy.

  At the Royal Show earlier this month I was pleased to pay tribute to the enormous contribution the agriculture industry and the thousands of individual farmers make to our national life.

  Our policy is to provide a framework within which this industry can thrive. We shall continue to negotiate for a more market-orientated common agricultural policy, building on the major reforms agreed at the February 1988 European Council. Our agricultural industry is well placed to benefit from the opportunities for fair competition that the EC's single internal market will bring.

  Steel Industry
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will make a statement on progress made in rationalising the steel industry since 1979.

  The Prime Minister
  During the period since 1979 the Government promoted the Phoenix joint ventures involving private sector steel companies and the (then nationalised) British Steel Corporation and also a private sector steel scheme. These initiatives have now ceased but they reduced product overlap between the private and public sectors and contributed towards rationalisation within the industry as a whole. British Steel itself was then returned to the private sector in December 1988 and recently announced record profits of £593 million compared with substantial losses while nationalised. Productivity in the United Kingdom steel industry rose by 151 per cent. between 1979 and 1988.

  Mr. Graham Gaskin
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to her reply to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill, of 17 July,Official Report, column 22, whether she will now take steps to set up an independent procedure to consider whether Mr. Graham Gaskin's files should be released to him; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  As my hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Health said in his written answer to the hon. Member on 18 July, a careful look is being taken in the light of the court's judgment in this case at the present general arrangements for social services clients to have access to their files to see whether any changes to those arrangements are needed.

  The court awarded Mr. Gaskin £5,000 compensation and that sum, along with the court's award for legal fees and expenses, is being paid to him.

  Engagements
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 25 July.

  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 25 July.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 25 July.

  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 25 July.

  The Prime Minister
  This morning I had a number of meetings including one with General Yazov, the Soviet Defence Minister, on his first visit to the United Kingdom. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today and will be attending a special garden party to celebrate 150 years of public education. This evening I hope to have an audience of Her Majesty the Queen.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Greenhouse Gases
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if, further to his answer of 27 June,Official Report, column 441, he will give the greenhouse gas equivalents for carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I have been asked to reply.

  Molecule for molecule, the greenhouse warming effect of methane is approximately 27 times that of carbon dioxide and 165 times that of nitrous oxide. Taking account of concentrations in the atmosphere, their current contribution to the greenhouse effect is estimated to be 55 per cent. (carbon dioxide), 14 per cent. (methane) and 8 per cent. (nitrous oxide). The remaining fraction is primarily due to chlorofluorocarbons.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Prison Transfers
  Mr. Hume
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list those prisoners who were refused transfers to prisons in Northern Ireland in each of the past seven years indicating the grounds for the refusals.
  605
  Mr. Hurd
  The records available indicate that the numbers of requests from inmates in England and Wales for permanent transfer to Northern Ireland which were refused were as follows:

  1982–1; 1983–1; 1984–5; 1985–28; 1986–11; 1987–3; 1988–4.

  Information on the grounds for refusal in individual cases is not available, but all decisions were taken in accordance with the publicly stated policy on transfers which was in force at the relevant time. It would not be right to give the names of the inmates involved, many of whom will by now have been released.

  Mr. Hume
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement indicating the various grounds on which prisoners were transferred to Northern Ireland in each of the past seven years.

  Mr. Hurd
  Prisoners may be transferred from England and Wales to Northern Ireland if they are required to face trial there, if their presence there is necessary in the interests of justice, or if they apply for temporary or permanent transfer. Applications for permanent transfer have been granted where the inmate meets the criteria for transfer, as agreed between the Home Office and the Northern Ireland Office, in force at the relevant time, or where there are exceptional compassionate circumstances. The criteria for transfer now in force were announced in reply to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Burt) on 23 June at column 263.

  Mr. Hume
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will provide a list of the names of all prisoners transferred to prisons in Northern Ireland in each of the past seven years, indicating the offences for which they were convicted, the prisons from which they were transferred, their sentences and the time served prior to transfer.

  Mr. Hurd
  It would not be right to give the names of the inmates concerned, many of whom will now have been released. Information on the periods served by the inmates before transfer is not readily available. The remaining information, which relates only to inmates transferred from England and Wales to Northern Ireland to serve the remainder of their sentences, is as follows:

  1982

  No transfers.

  1983

  1. Robbery; HMP Liverpool; five years.

  2. Robbery; HMP Liverpool; five years.

  3. Robbery; HMP Lancaster; 14½ years.

  1984

  1. Theft, grievous bodily harm; HMP Durham three years.

  1985

  1. Robbery; HMP Hull; six years.

  2. Sending explosive substances, causing explosions; HMP Blunderston; life.

  3. Manslaughter; HMP Wakefield; life.

  4. Importing controlled drugs; HMP Wandsworth; three years.

  1986

  1. Robbery; HMP Wandsworth; six years.

  2. Theft, robbery; HMP Long Lartin; eight years.

  1987

  1. Robbery; HMP Long Lartin; 10 years.

  2. Importing controlled drugs; HMP Albany; 14 years.

  3. Murder; HMP Wormwood Scrubs; life.

  606
  1988

  1. Assault with intent to rob, unlawful handling, possessing imitation firearm, deception; HMP Frankland; five years.

  2. Wounding; HMP Channings Wood; four years.

  3. Robbery; HMP Haverigg; seven years.

  4. Attempted robbery; HMP Frankland; four and a half years.

  5. Robbery; HMP Durham; three years.

  Fire Services
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many fire appliances were in operation(a).throughout the United Kingdom and (b) in Wales as at 1 January 1980 and for each succeeding year;

  (2) how many full-time firemen were employed (a) throughout the United Kingdom and (b) in Wales as at 1January 1980 and for each succeeding year;

  (3) how many fully manned fire stations were in operation as at 1 January 1980 and for each succeeding year (a) throughout the United Kingdom and (b) in Wales.

  Mr. John Patten
  I will write to the hon. Member regarding the available information in respect of England and Wales.

  Questions relating to the fire service in other parts of the United Kingdom are the responsibility of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

  Immigration
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to the question from the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East, 26 June, column 323, why he decided not to exercise his discretion in favour of the application for settlement of Mr. Abbas Karbassian.

  Mr. Renton
  As explained in the reply of 5 November 1987, at column 833, to the question from the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser), a case in which continuous residence exceeds 10 years will be considered on its merits for the grant of indefinite leave to remain. Mr.Karbassian came to the United Kingdom on 30 April 1979 and was subsequently granted permission to remain until August 1987—in the first instance as a student and later on the basis of his marriage to a British citizen. An application for settlement (on the grounds of marriage) was refused on 1 August 1988 because the couple had separated. Mr. Karbassian lodged an appeal against this decision on 10 August 1988.

  Mr. Karbassian is permitted, under section 14(1) of the Immigration Act 1971, to remain here pending the outcome of his appeal against the decision of 1 August 1988. However, time spent in the United Kingdom while an appeal is outstanding is not considered acceptable residence for the purpose of the discretionary grant of indefinite leave to remain under the long residence concession unless that appeal is subsequently successful.

  Forensic Pathology
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will publish the report of the working party on forensic pathology; and if he will make a statement.
  607
  Mr. Hurd
  The report of the working party on forensic pathology is published today; a copy is in the Library. Copies have been sent to the Association of Chief Police Officers, the British Medical Association, the Royal College of Pathologists, the local authority associations and others concerned with an invitation to let my Department have their views on it by the end of October. My intention is to consider the report and any representations received as soon as practicable thereafter.

  Risley Remand Centre
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has received the report of the inquiry into the disturbance at Risley remand centre from 30 April to 3 May; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hurd
  I have now received the report of the inquiry conducted by Mr. Dunbar, the director of the south west region of the prison department. A summary of the report, including the list of recommendations resulting from the inquiry, has been placed in the Library. I informed the House on 4 May at columns 374–5 of the nature and effects of the disturbances on male wings at Risley.

  The disturbance was one of the most serious and complex suffered by the prison service in recent years. Throughout there were violent attacks by prisoners upon the fabric of the centre and on the staff endeavouring to contain them. I pay tribute to the Governor and staff for their bravery and determination in resisting the extreme violence they faced and for bringing the disturbance to a conclusion as quickly as they did without serious injury to staff or prisoners. In doing so they prevented the rioters from totally destroying the establishment, which was their clear intention.

  Mr. Dunbar's inquiry led him to conclude that Risley should be closed at the earliest possible moment. I accept that recommendation so far as male remand prisoners are concerned. They amounted to 468 inmates out of a total of 541 males at the time of the disturbance, and the disturbance was confined to them. After careful thought, and despite the practical difficulties of making a change, I do not believe it would be sensible to hold male remand prisoners at Risley for longer than we must. I have accordingly decided to work towards the end of Risley's remand function for males by the summer of next year, when refurbished accommodation will be available. Risley will then take only sentenced prisoners on the male side. In addition, the women's wing, which has not been the subject of criticism—indeed, it was commented upon favourably by Her Majesty's chief inspector of prisons—and which has a valuable contribution to make in the female prison estate, will remain.

  Work had already begun before the disturbance on the phased demolition and replacement of the prison. This will take some years and in the interim, B and C wings are being completely refurbished and strengthened to make them secure against this sort of attack. The male population of Risley will be limited to about 320 until new living blocks become available.

  All the other recommendations have wider application in the prison service and I welcome them. Some—for example, the strengthening of cell doors—are statements of policy on which work is already in hand. Mr. Dunbar's recommendations on contingency planning will be taken fully into account in a major review which has been under way for some time and which is nearing completion. Other
  608
  recommendations on physical resources, on protective clothing and equipment and on intervention plans are also accepted and will be taken on board. I also accept in principle the recommendations that Mr. Dunbar makes on personnel and regime matters.

  The findings of the report concerning medical matters are most disturbing. The director designate of prison medical services and her staff have been to Risley and immediate steps have been taken to clean thoroughly the areas concerned and to remove the health hazards to which Mr. Dunbar has drawn attention. I accept all the particular recommendations in his report and have asked the director of prison medical services to explore further how these serious shortcomings came about and to take steps to ensure that they do not happen again, either at Risley or elsewhere in the prison system.

  Mr. Dunbar makes a number of recommendations concerning the treatment of, and facilities for, remand prisoners. I accept most of them as desirable but they will have to compete for resources with other equally desirable aims in the prison service. I am not convinced that it is necessary for separate rules to be drawn up for remand prisoners, since distinctions between the unconvicted and the convicted can be satisfactorily reflected within a unified set of rules but I am willing to look at this again. I do not rule out reduction of censorship and the provision of telephones for remand prisoners but the security implications in respect of certain prisoners require, and will receive, careful consideration. Research on categorising all remand prisoners is already under way.

  Of the remaining recommendations, those which are matters for the police will be drawn to their attention and I accept the others.

  I have indicated the action being taken on all the recommendations which are of more general application. In addition, an action plan has been drawn up specifically for the purpose of rectifying the failings at Risley identified in Mr. Dunbar's report and making the necessary preparations for Risley's change of function. This will be the direct responsibility of the deputy director general of the prison service, who will be assisted by a small working group and will report regularly to me on progress.

  The disturbance at Risley arose out of a long history of difficulties caused principally by the inadequacy of the buildings and the nature of the prisoners housed in them. It interrupted the considerable progress towards improving the regime for prisoners which the governor and staff had made following the report of Her Majesty's chief inspector of prisons. I am sure that with all the changes I have outlined and, in particular, with confidence established in the renovated buildings, the governor and his staff will be able to resume their positive work to remedy the grave deficiencies identified in the report.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many letters were received from, and sent to, hon. Members by his Department in(a) January and (b) the whole of this Session up to 1 July.

  Mr. Hurd
  The available figures relate to and from Ministers and to and from the secretary to the immigration and nationality board, the great majority of which represented correspondence with hon. Members, and are as follows:
  609

  January 1989

  22 November 1988–1 July 1989

  Received from hon. Members

  2,436

  17,690

  Sent to hon. Members

  2,295

  15,584

  Civil Service Dispersal
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress is being made in his Department's review, in line with Treasury guidelines, of the potential for the further relocation of Civil Service posts outside London and the south-east; and when he expects the review to be completed.

  Mr. Hurd
  A report by consultants on the feasibility of relocation of the immigration and nationality department has been received and is under consideration. A review of the organisation and location of the prison service above establishment level is nearing completion. The scope for relocation of parts of the police department science and technology group and of the Home Office accounts branch is also under review.

  Welford Road Prison, Leicester
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners were transferred to other prisons in the United Kingdom from Welford Road prison, Leicester, before I April, and the latest available date; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hurd
  The information requested is given in the table:

  Number of prisoners transferred from Her Majesty's prison requested of Leicester to other prisons: weekly 1 April—21 July 1989

  Week beginning

  Number of prisoners

  April 3

  27

  10

  12

  17

  4

  21

  19

  May 1

  25

  8

  21

  15

  20

  22

  11

  29

  11

  June 5

  16

  12

  22

  19

  19

  26

  23

  July 3

  9

  10

  22

  17

  9

  Total

  268

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the prison population of Welford Road prison, Leicester, for each day from 1 April; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hurd
  The information requested is as follows:
  610

  Population of Her Majesty's prison Leicester at unlocking

  April

  Numbers

  1

  412

  2

  412

  3

  412

  4

  417

  5

  384

  6

  396

  7

  407

  8

  395

  9

  395

  10

  395

  11

  401

  12

  389

  13

  388

  14

  389

  15

  389

  16

  389

  17

  389

  18

  397

  19

  400

  20

  400

  21

  405

  22

  406

  23

  406

  24

  406

  25

  411

  26

  401

  27

  407

  28

  408

  29

  413

  30

  413

  May

  Numbers

  1

  413

  2

  413

  3

  397

  4

  397

  5

  390

  6

  394

  7

  394

  8

  394

  9

  403

  10

  377

  11

  382

  12

  379

  13

  379

  14

  379

  15

  379

  16

  372

  17

  366

  18

  382

  19

  388

  20

  391

  21

  391

  22

  391

  23

  394

  24

  378

  25

  381

  26

  381

  27

  392

  28

  392

  29

  392

  30

  392

  31

  383

  June

  Numbers

  1

  377

  2

  374

  3

  379

  4

  379

  5

  379

  6

  386

  7

  375

  8

  386

  9

  389

  611

  June

  Numbers

  10

  393

  11

  393

  12

  393

  13

  395

  14

  368

  15

  375

  16

  369

  17

  377

  18

  377

  19

  377

  20

  372

  21

  347

  22

  357

  23

  365

  24

  362

  25

  362

  26

  362

  27

  360

  28

  350

  29

  365

  30

  358

  July

  Numbers

  1

  358

  2

  358

  3

  358

  4

  357

  5

  343

  6

  355

  7

  356

  8

  356

  9

  356

  10

  356

  11

  362

  12

  341

  13

  343

  14

  346

  15

  346

  16

  346

  17

  346

  18

  350

  19

  340

  20

  356

  21

  338

  Emergency Calls
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will call for a report from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis as to the proportion of screened-out emergency calls when the caller is informed that no further action is to be taken immediately or at a future time;

  (2) if he will call for a report from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis as to what proportion of emergency calls in the Leyton constituency are screened out.

  Mr. Hurd
  The police respond to all emergency calls. A decision on whether to screen out any crime is taken only after a thorough initial investigation.

  Probation Service
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is now able to report the Government's response to the Audit Commission's recommendations on value for money in the probation service.

  Mr. John Patten
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) on 17 April at column 24.
  612
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps the Government are taking to promote co-operation between the probation service and other agencies in the criminal justice system, as recommended by the Audit Commission in its recent report on the probation service.

  Mr. John Patten
  We have taken and are taking a number of steps to promote co-operation between the probation service and other agencies in the criminal justice system. The paper "Tackling Offending: An Action Plan" was sent to chief probation officers, justices' clerks, circuit administrators, chief crown prosecutors, chief officers of police, the Association of Chief Police Officers and a variety of other agencies and organisations working in the criminal justice field. That paper emphasised that although the probation service has a key role in achieving the aims of part II of the Green Paper, "Punishment, Custody and the Community", it cannot work alone and that other agencies must be involved; the Home Office has provided funds for a number of seminars on non-custodial penalties, organised by the NACRO, which have included amongst the participants magistrates, justices' clerks, members of probation services and members of police forces; a number of Home Office circulars have encouraged co-operation between the criminal justice services including the probation service; and Ministers and officials also take the opportunity in speeches and meetings to encourage such co-operation.

  Prisons (Security Status)
  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his proposals to change the top security status for certain gaols by 1992 and as the consultation processes which will be involved.

  Mr. Hurd
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham) on 12 April 1989 at columns 544–5. This draws attention to the statement issued by the deputy director general of the prison service (a copy of which is in the Library) which includes details of the plans for the future shape and size of the prison dispersal system.

  A copy of the statement has been sent for information to governors and to chairmen of boards of visitors of prisons normally holding inmates in the highest security category—category A—and copies have also been supplied to the trade unions.

  Consultation with the staff interests concerned at national and local level will take place as appropriate as we work towards effecting the changes planned to take place in the 1990s at the establishments involved.

  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his estimate of the eventual total job losses at Her Majesty's prison, Gartree, due to the change from category A by 1992.

  Mr. Hurd
  It is too early to be certain how many staff will be needed when the prison changes its function but the total staff in post figure could fall by more than 100. No redundancies are anticipated as a result of the change at Gartree. The aim is to absorb surplus staff by redeployment and natural wastage.

  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what prior consultation he had with
  613
  local hon. Members with a constituency interest before announcing his decision relating to changes of category at Her Majesty's prison, Gartree.

  Mr. Hurd
  None. The effect of the change planned for Gartree prison is that from the early 1990s the 50 or so category A prisoners will be replaced by inmates of a lower security category.

  Data Protection
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will list the legislation that applies penalties for unauthorised use, collection or disclosure of personal information from Government computers.

  Mr. Renton
  So far as I am aware, the only legislation that applies such penalties specifically in relation to computers is the Data Protection Act 1984. Other legislation such as the Official Secrets Acts deals with particular categories of information whether or not held on computers.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will list the recommendations made by(a) the Younger committee into privacy and (b) the Law Commission's report into breach of confidence which Her Majesty's Government have supported; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Renton
  Many of the recommendations of the Younger committee were directed to organisations outside Government. Proposals addressed to Government were implemented by the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and the Data Protection Act 1984. In addition the Broadcasting Complaints Commission was established under the Broadcasting Act 1981; and the law on breach of confidence was referred to the Law Commission.

  The Law Commission's report on breach of confidence, which is the responsibility of my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor, amounts essentially to a recommendation for a restatement of the common law and the Government do not propose to give its implementation high priority at present.

  Drug Addicts (Suicides)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many drug addicts have committed suicide in prisons and remand centres in each of the last five years; in which prisons and remand centres the suicides occurred; to what the addicts were addicted; what treatment they were receiving; how many were in single cells; and how many were(a) male and (b) female.

  Mr. Hurd
  [holding answer 13 July 1989]: Information is readily available only from 1 January 1987; four inmates on whom verdicts of suicide have been returned since that date are known to have been addicted to drugs. The details requested are as follows:

  (1) 1987; HMRC Risley; heroin; treated with antidepressant drugs; single cell; female

  (2) 1987; HMP Canterbury; valium; treated with reduced doses of the drug of addiction and largactil; shared cell; male

  (3) 1988; HMRC Risley; heroin; treated with heminevrin as a sedative; single cell; male

  (4) 1988; HMP Lincoln; diconal tablets; treated with antidepressants; single cell; male

  Rehabilitation
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what specialist facilities exist; and what is the total amount invested by his Department for the rehabilitation of perpetrators of sexual abuse of children for each of the years for which figures are available.

  Mr. John Patten
  [holding answer 11 July 1989]: Perpetrators of sexual abuse against children, who receive a prison sentence, are normally identified early in the prison reception process as requiring psychiatric assessment. Where the diagnosis suggests that the offender's behaviour was the result of an underlying mental illness, specific treatment is provided for that illness. If the behaviour was secondary to an aspect of personality disorder, the inmate might be offered psychotherapy. group therapy, behaviour therapy or a combination of these. But the effectiveness of such treatment depends critically on the motivation of the offenders and on their willingness to participate. Those judged to be mentailly disordered receive treatment in special and other types of hospitals. Those under the supervision of the probation service will have available to them a variety of probation and multi-agency facilities. Some probation services have developed or are developing specialist skills in the supervision of sex offenders. The objective of probation service work with offenders, including sex offenders, is to reduce their offending behaviour by making them face up to the consequences of that behaviour, and by helping them to tackle the problems underlying it. No separate figures are kept of resources devoted by prison service establishments or by area probation services to work with those found guilty of sexual offences against children.

  Right to Silence
  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has reached any conclusions on the abolition of the right of silence for accused persons interviewed in police stations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to make an announcement on the Government's review of the right to silence; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hurd
  [holding answers 15 June 1989 and 7 July 1989 respectively]: I have received the report and am considering its recommendations. I have arranged for it to be published today. A copy will be placed in the Library.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Written Questions
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Lord President of the Council how the level at which it is decided that a parliamentary written question could be answered only at disproportionate cost is evaluated.

  Mr. Ryder
  I have been asked to reply. The disproportionate cost level is based on an interdepartmental survey of the cost of answering parliamentary questions and is set at a level to identify and draw to ministerial attention the most expensive 1 to 2 per cent. That cost level is kept under review by the Treasury and currently stands at £250.

EMPLOYMENT

  Sikhs (Headgear)
  Mr. Bidwell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will take steps to introduce legislation to exempt religious Sikhs employed in all sections of industry from having to wear protective headgear other than their traditional long hair and turban.

  Mr. Nicholls
  It was announced in another place on 14 July, during the Second Reading debate on the Employment Bill, that the Government intend to introduce a new clause to the Bill to exempt turban-wearing Sikhs from any statutory requirement to wear head protection in construction work. There are no plans to extend such an exemption to other industries at present.

  Claimant Advisers
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many claimant advisers are in post; and how many interviews with claimants they have carried out in the year to the latest available date.

  Mr. Lee
  There were 1,160 claimant advisers in post at 28 March 1989, the latest date for which figures are available.

  The total number of interviews carried out in the 12 months to 26 May 1989 was 937,496.

  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what have been the outcomes of interviews by claimant advisers showing(a) how many claimants have been referred to the Department of Social Security; (b) how many have been referred to adjudication because of doubts about their availability for work and (c) how many have been encouraged to apply for jobstart or family credit.

  Mr. Lee
  Outcomes of claimant adviser interviews held between April 1987 and May 1989 are as follows:

  Numbers

  (a) Referrals to DSS

  152,390

  (b) Referrals to Adjudication1

  54,919

  (c) Figure not available

  1 This is the total figure for referrals to adjudication—separate figures for referrals on availability doubts are not collected.

  Table 1

  Numbers of availability for work submissions included in the survey

  Region

  Period ending March 1988

  Period ending June 1988

  Period ending September 1988

  Period ending December 1988

  Period ending March 1989

  Northern

  111

  93

  100

  82

  60

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  375

  386

  278

  243

  201

  East Midlands

  258

  244

  249

  185

  163

  Eastern

  174

  227

  154

  171

  157

  Southern

  182

  154

  149

  149

  132

  Western

  301

  222

  203

  196

  198

  South West

  351

  154

  198

  140

  137

  Wales

  102

  73

  43

  36

  137

  West Midlands

  119

  128

  109

  152

  102

  North West

  215

  216

  226

  157

  139

  Scotland

  422

  361

  403

  327

  284

  616
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the cost of the claimant adviser service in 1989–90.

  Mr. Lee
  The claimant adviser service is an integral part of the employment service, and it is not possible to give a total, discrete cost for the service.

  The salary cost of the claimant adviser service for 1989–90 is estimated to be some £18·5 million.

  Training
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give the data from the latest labour force survey showing the training received by employees in the last four weeks broken down by sex and age.

  Mr. Lee
  Preliminary results from the 1988 labour force survey, as requested, are shown in the following table:

  Employees of working age1 receiving job-related training2 Great Britain, Spring 1988

  Thousands

  Age

  All persons

  Men

  Women

  16–19

  396

  224

  172

  20–24

  546

  310

  237

  25–34

  773

  448

  325

  35–49

  847

  448

  399

  50–59/64

  214

  118

  97

  Total

  2,776

  1,547

  1,229

  Source: Preliminary 1988 LFS estimates

  1 Men aged 16–64, women aged 16–59

  2 Those who in the four weeks prior to interview had taken part in any education or training connected with their job or a job that they might be able to do in the future.

  Availability For Work
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will provide details of the sample survey of delays in adjudication officers making decisions on availability for work, showing the number and proportion of cases involved, by regions, for each quarter since October 1987.

  Mr. Lee
  The following tables show the number of submissions on availability for work included in the sample survey in each of the regions covering the period January 1988 to March 1989, and the observed percentages on those cases in which a decision had been reached in less than four weeks.
  617

  Table 2

  Percentage of availability for work cases cleared in under 4 weeks

  Region

  Period ending March 1988

  Period ending June 1988

  Period ending September 1988

  Period ending December 1988

  Period ending March 1989

  percentage

  percentage

  percentage

  percentage

  percentage

  Northern

  97

  100

  96

  100

  98

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  97

  97

  94

  86

  91

  East Midlands

  91

  96

  91

  91

  88

  Eastern

  86

  81

  84

  68

  69

  Southern

  81

  71

  73

  82

  84

  Western

  87

  78

  72

  85

  70

  South West

  87

  85

  80

  80

  71

  Wales

  84

  97

  91

  89

  91

  West Midlands

  85

  79

  77

  89

  95

  North West

  93

  86

  92

  89

  88

  Scotland

  92

  91

  85

  83

  86

  Records are no longer retained for periods prior to January 1988. However, I refer the hon. Member to the replies that I gave her on 25 March 1988 at column 259 and 12 April 1988 at column 38.

  Job Clubs
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what has been the latest number of(a) referrals to job clubs, (b) the number of starts with job clubs, (c) the number of job club leavers and (d) the number of job club leavers getting jobs, or becoming unemployed for Great Britain and each training agency region for each month since September 1988.

  Northern

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  East Midlands and Eastern

  London and South East

  South West

  Wales

  West Midlands

  North West

  Scotland

  Great Britain

  September 1988

  Starts

  824

  984

  1,007

  2,309

  489

  696

  1,095

  1,894

  1,743

  11,041

  Total leavers

  799

  1,069

  1,087

  2,640

  560

  797

  1,452

  2,209

  1,790

  12,403

  Of which:

  Jobs

  418

  592

  679

  1,246

  310

  453

  721

  1,204

  1,007

  6,630

  Other positive outcomes

  163

  224

  192

  445

  107

  159

  262

  423

  321

  2,296

  Reasons not recorded

  218

  253

  216

  949

  143

  185

  469

  582

  462

  3,477

  October 1988

  Starts

  669

  1,036

  958

  2,241

  514

  792

  998

  2,108

  1,535

  10,851

  Total leavers

  695

  987

  899

  2,258

  435

  713

  1,034

  2,025

  1,548

  10,594

  Of which:

  Jobs

  393

  583

  532

  1,032

  247

  387

  509

  1,150

  891

  5,724

  Other positive outcomes

  124

  163

  197

  362

  95

  154

  175

  353

  218

  1,841

  Reasons not recorded

  178

  241

  170

  864

  93

  172

  350

  522

  439

  3,029

  November 1988

  Starts

  794

  1,056

  998

  2,570

  631

  845

  1,084

  2,123

  1,587

  11,688

  Total leavers

  718

  904

  883

  2,264

  488

  700

  1,050

  1970

  1,417

  10,394

  Of which:

  Jobs

  398

  544

  531

  1,053

  259

  382

  570

  1,111

  831

  5,679

  Other positive outcomes

  113

  178

  166

  368

  96

  139

  173

  307

  197

  1,737

  Reasons not recorded

  207

  182

  186

  843

  133

  179

  307

  552

  389

  2,978

  December 1988

  Starts

  476

  689

  620

  1,683

  335

  454

  782

  1,148

  1,022

  7,209

  Total leavers

  489

  770

  707

  1,895

  409

  532

  749

  1,418

  1,254

  8,223

  Of which:

  Jobs

  255

  444

  456

  850

  217

  282

  365

  779

  719

  4,367

  Other positive outcomes

  81

  106

  110

  296

  76

  99

  144

  223

  209

  1,344

  Reasons not recorded

  153

  220

  141

  749

  116

  151

  240

  416

  326

  2,512

  January 1989

  Starts

  902

  1,213

  1,007

  2,550

  703

  851

  1,497

  2,300

  1,407

  12,430

  Total leavers

  646

  849

  835

  2,067

  457

  683

  1,002

  1,650

  1,182

  9,371

  Of which:

  Jobs

  325

  462

  474

  937

  240

  361

  498

  882

  651

  4,830

  Other positive outcomes

  123

  147

  172

  332

  100

  142

  153

  277

  185

  1,631

  Reasons not recorded

  198

  240

  189

  798

  117

  180

  351

  491

  346

  2,910

  618
  Mr. Lee
  From September 1988 to May 1989, 100,440 people started with a job club. During the same period, there were 98,159 leavers, of whom 52,917 left to start work, with a further 15,794 going on to some other positive outcome such as training, education or self-employment. Regional and monthly breakdowns are given in the table.

  Because of the very large number of potential referral points, the employment service does not keep statistics of referrals. All job club members are unemployed and separate records are not kept of the number remaining out of work on ceasing to attend.
  619

  Northern

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  East Midlands and Eastern

  London and South East

  South West

  Wales

  West Midlands

  North West

  Scotland

  Great Britain

  February 1989

  Starts

  939

  1,204

  1,121

  2,875

  705

  835

  1,450

  2,446

  2,072

  13,647

  Total leavers

  754

  999

  893

  2,350

  530

  725

  1,171

  2,025

  1,460

  10,907

  Of which:

  Jobs

  442

  566

  548

  1,156

  296

  382

  637

  1,127

  831

  5,985

  Other positive outcomes

  110

  166

  175

  400

  104

  142

  198

  332

  234

  1,861

  Reasons not recorded

  202

  267

  170

  794

  130

  201

  336

  566

  395

  3,061

  March 1989

  Starts

  873

  1,096

  1,034

  2,703

  660

  680

  1,104

  2,297

  1,957

  12,404

  Total leavers

  927

  1,161

  1,126

  3,057

  711

  807

  1,558

  2,535

  1,920

  13,802

  Of which:

  Jobs

  520

  687

  683

  1,374

  395

  464

  719

  1,349

  1,125

  7,316

  Other positive outcomes

  160

  149

  198

  444

  99

  121

  201

  356

  296

  2,024

  Reasons not recorded

  247

  325

  245

  1,239

  217

  222

  638

  830

  499

  4,462

  April 1989

  Starts

  811

  1,160

  944

  2,417

  586

  663

  982

  2,184

  1,857

  11,604

  Total leavers

  894

  1,112

  863

  2,575

  582

  725

  911

  2,109

  1,701

  11,472

  Of which:

  Jobs

  477

  667

  568

  1,120

  329

  425

  508

  1,158

  1,044

  6,296

  Other positive outcomes

  137

  141

  136

  352

  81

  86

  128

  307

  205

  1,573

  Reasons not recorded

  280

  304

  159

  1,103

  172

  214

  275

  644

  452

  3,603

  May 1989

  Starts

  743

  919

  798

  2,075

  527

  510

  811

  1,731

  1,452

  9,566

  Total leavers

  876

  1,006

  919

  2,276

  580

  597

  961

  1,968

  1,810

  10,993

  Of which:

  Jobs

  460

  621

  568

  1,119

  323

  381

  495

  1,080

  1,043

  6,090

  Other positive outcomes

  116

  128

  108

  333

  66

  97

  164

  250

  225

  1,487

  Reasons not recorded

  300

  257

  243

  824

  191

  119

  302

  638

  542

  3,416

  Creches
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he has any further plans to encourage employers to establish workplace or shared facility creches or similar incentives further to assist the return to employment of women to counter skill shortages; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  My right hon. Friend takes, and will continue to take, every opportunity to encourage employers to help employees combine work and family responsibilities. Workplace nurseries are, however, only one possible way of helping parents with childcare. They can be successful, but it may not always be the most practicable solution. Other possibilities include help with childcare costs in the local home area and rearrangement of working hours and holidays to fit in with school hours and terms. We welcome measures taken by employers including assistance with childcare and the introduction of flexible working hours and family leave. The best way of introducing such measures is through voluntary agreement between employers and employees. Schemes can then be tailored to individual priorities and needs, and available resources.

  Fatal injuries

  Major injuries

  Rate per 100,000 manshifts

  Fatal injuries

  Major injuries

  1984–851

  22

  378

  —

  —

  1985–86

  28

  715

  0·08

  2·15

  1986–872

  15

  952

  0·05

  3·45

  1987–882

  9

  729

  0·04

  3·24

  1988–892 (provisional)

  18

  685

  0·08

  3·35

  1 This period covers the 15 months January 1984 to March 1985.

  2 The introduction of RIDDOR regulations on 1 April 1986 widened the coverage of the "major" injury category.

  620
  My Department also plays a full part in the ministerial group on women's issues, which is currently considering the whole question of childcare. The group recently announced a five-point plan on child care which includes encouragement for the use of school premises after school and in holiday periods; support for the voluntary sector through pump-priming of projects and encouragement of partnerships between the voluntary sector and employers. The initiative will also encourage employers to use the tax reliefs available to them when they help their employees with child care.

  Collieries (Safety)
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the number of accidents at British Coal collieries at which there were either loss of life or serious injuries in each of the last five years and add the ratio of such incidents per 100,000 shifts worked in each year.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The information is not available in the format asked for; the number of fatal injuries and major injuries in British Coal collieries over the last five years are as follows:
  621
  Mr. Lofthouse
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what assessment he has made of concerns about the incidence of underground fires in British Coal collieries; and if he will pursue the matter with Her Majesty's inspector.

  Mr. Nicholls
  My right hon. Friend is concerned about any incident which affects health and safety, but the number of underground fires in British Coal mines fell from 72 in 1987–88 to 52 in 1988–89. Reducing the number of underground fires is a primary objective of the Health and Safety Executive which through the work of the mines and quarries inspectorate, is actively monitoring safety measures taken by British Coal. These include the application of more sophisticated inspections and detection techniques, the raising of standards in the specification, design, installation and maintenance of machinery and equipment and the continuing development of fire-resistant materials.

  Mr. Lofthouse
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) on how many occasions fire or smoke detection devices in British Coal collieries have been put out of use without notice being given to those employed in the colliery or Her Majesty's inspector;

  (2) what information he has on whether underground fire or smoke alarms or similar monitoring equipment have been put out of operation or use by British Coal insofar as smoke or fire detection is concerned.

  Mr. Nicholls
  There is no statutory requirement for the Health and Safety Executive to be given notice of fire or smoke detection devices that have been put out of use and therefore the information requested is not available.

  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what information he has on whether the use of free moving underground vehicles has led British Coal to put out of use fire or smoke detection and warning devices.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The Health and Safety Executive is not aware of any fire detection systems being put out of use by the operation of free-steered vehicles underground.

  Employment Schemes
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how the 50-plus jobstart scheme is to be monitored; what targets he has for numbers participating in the scheme; what is the likely cost of the 50-plus jobstart scheme to his Department; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lee
  The 50-plus jobstart scheme is a variation of the existing jobstart scheme. It aims to help people over 50 to take up part-time work as a means of re-establishing themselves in the labour market.

  Under 50-plus jobstart people over the age of 50 who have been unemployed for more than 12 months may be eligible for an allowance of £20 per week if they take up certain part-time jobs paying not more than £2·57 per hour. The scheme is being piloted in four areas—Lothian and the Borders, Dudley and Sandwell, Leeds and London South. The pilots started on 26 June 1989 and will run for one year. No targets have been set for the number of participants.

  The number of people applying and being accepted for the allowance will be monitored. The pilots are being funded from within the overall cost of the main jobstart programme.
  622
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if the participation of income support claimants in the action credit and 50-plus jobstart schemes is intended to be purely voluntary; whether refusal to participate will affect claimants eligibility for benefits; and what measures his Department is taking to get over-50's to participate in the 50-plus jobstart scheme.

  Mr. Lee
  Participation of all claimants in the action credit scheme and in 50-plus jobstart is voluntary. Refusal to participate will not of itself affect entitlement to benefit. The 50-plus jobstart scheme is being publicised by means of leaflets and posters in unemployment benefit offices and jobcentres in the four pilot areas.

  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are the minimum pay, training and employment conditions which action credit agencies are required to meet in providing part-time jobs for income support claimants; when the statement of the terms and conditions of employment of action credit participants will be available; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Action credit is an employment scheme, with participants paid the rate for the job. It will allow participants to build on their ET training through practical work with an employer.

  Action credit agencies are required to ensure that conditions of employment meet the relevant legislative standards. Each participant will have a personal document outlining their terms and conditions. I welcome the testing of this new initiative and hope that unemployed people in the pilot areas will make full use of it.

  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment why action credit agencies are required to pay employers' national insurance contributions for their employees participating in action credit; whether his Department expects employers to pay national insurance contributions for participants in similar schemes where employees are earning below the lower earnings limit; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Action credit agencies will pay class 1 national insurance contributions only on the lump sum that participants receive when they leave the scheme. Class 1 national insurance contributions are not payable where an employee earns less than the lower earnings level.

  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment why an earnings ceiling of £43 a week has been set for action credit participants; what, for participants working 23 hours a week, would be the hourly payment; how the earnings ceiling relates to the full extent normal rule; and what are his Department's target figures for participation in action credit.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The earnings ceiling of £43 per week has been set to ensure participants are not required to pay national insurance contributions on a weekly basis. Hourly earnings will be paid at the local rate for the job. There is no connection between the earnings ceiling on action credit and the full extent normal rule.

  The scheme can help up to 300 participants in each pilot area, greatly enhancing the existing options for employment training leavers. The purpose of the pilot will be to test the attractiveness of the scheme; thus my right hon. Friend will not be setting numerical targets for these areas.

  Pioneer Concrete UK limited
  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how often Pioneer Concrete UK Limited has been prosecuted by the Health and Safety Executive under health and safety legislation during the last 10 years.

  Mr. Nicholls
  [holding answer 24 July 1989]: Health and Safety Executive records show that it has prosecuted Pioneer Concrete UK Limited three times since 1979.

  Disabled People (Training)
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what percentage of the supplementary grant available to training agents and managers has been apportioned to the higher cost of training disabled people.

  Mr. Lee
  [holding answer 6 July 1989]: The information as requested is not available. The Training Agency, however, does provide special help for people with disabilities. This includes the loan of special equipment which may be needed to help trainees with their training programme, adaptations to premises and equipment, personal reader service for blind trainees and communicator service for deaf trainees.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Mobility Housing
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) how many units of mobility housing have been provided by(a) the Northern Ireland Housing Executive and (b) housing associations in Northern Ireland in each year since 1979;

  (2) how many units of wheelchair housing have been provided by (a) the Northern Ireland Housing Executive and (b) housing associations in Northern Ireland in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Needham
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to a question from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) on 7 June,Official Report, vol. 154, column. 162–63.

  Housing Associations
  Mr. Jim Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he intends to provide additional sums of money to the housing association development programme (Northern Ireland) 1989–90 to cover the approved schemes for the mentally ill and handicapped.

  Mr. Needham
  No. Such schemes are being provided for within the existing budget.

  Mr. Jim Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will estimate how much money will be available under the housing association development programme (Northern Ireland) 1989–90 to fund new projects.

  Mr. Needham
  It is estimated that £7·6 million is available in the 1989–90 year to fund:(a) new starts, that is, schemes which will receive tender approval to commence work on site; (b) other schemes up to an advanced stage of planning but not to commence on site this year.
  624
  Mr. Jim Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will give further assistance to the Northern Ireland Housing Executive and the voluntary housing associations to assist those persons who are homeless.

  Mr. Needham
  The Executive has the statutory responsibility of providing assistance to the homeless. The Executive has not asked for increased in-year funding for the homeless, whose needs for future years will, of course, be carefully considered during the public expenditure survey.

  Mr. Jim Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list in the Official Report the names and addresses of those housing associations which have applied for funding in 1989–90.

  Mr. Needham
  The list is as follows:

  Association and Address

  Abbeyfield Northern Ireland Development Society Limited

  Room 306, Bryson House,

  28 Bedford Street, Belfast BT2 7FE

  Ballynafeigh Housing Association Limited

  70 Kimberley Street,

  Belfast BT7 3DY

  Baptist Union of Ireland Housing Association Limited

  117 Lisburn Road,

  Belfast BT9 7AF

  Belfast Community Housing Association Limited

  131 Ravenhill Road,

  Belfast BT6 8DR

  Belfast Improved Houses Limited

  Russell Court, Claremont Street,

  Belfast BT9 6JX

  Ben Madigan Housing Association Limited

  Russell Court, Claremont Street,

  Belfast BT9 6JX

  Botanic Housing Association Limited

  99 Agincourt Avenue,

  Belfast BT7 1QD

  Broadway Housing Association Limited

  131 Ravenhill Road,

  Belfast BT6 8DR

  The James Butcher Housing Association (NI) Limited

  Murray House, Murray Street,

  Belfast BT1 6DN

  Church of Ireland Housing Association (NI) Limited

  74 Dublin Road,

  Belfast BT2 7HP

  Clonard Housing Association Limited

  54 Clonard Gardens,

  Belfast BT13 2RH

  Connswater Housing Association Limited

  50 Mersey Street,

  Belfast BT4 1EX

  Covenanter Residential Association Limited

  Cameron House, 98 Lisburn Road

  Belfast BT9 6AG

  Craigavon and District Housing Association Limited

  20 Carleton Street,

  Portadown BT62 3EN

  Craigowen Housing Association Limited

  35 New Road,

  Donaghadee BT21 0DR

  625

  Derry Housing Association Limited

  18 Magazine Street,

  Londonderry BT48 6HH

  Donacloney Housing Association Limited

  c/o Northern Ireland Federation of Housing Associations,

  Carlisle Memorial Centre,

  88 Clifton Street,

  Belfast BT13 1AB

  Down and Connor Housing Association Limited

  Saint Lukes Presbytery,

  Twinbrook Road,

  Dunmurry, Co. Antrim

  Dungannon and District Housing Association Limited

  48A Irish Street,

  Dungannon BT70 1DB

  Flax Housing Association Limited

  Brookfield Mill, 333 Crumlin Road,

  Belfast BT14 7EA

  Fold Housing Association

  3–4 Redburn Square,

  Holywood BT18 9HZ

  Gosford Housing Association (Armagh) Limited

  16 Stockingmanshill Road,

  Armagh BT60 1HZ

  Grove Housing Association Limited

  139 York Road,

  Belfast BT15 3GZ

  Habinteg Housing Association (Ulster) Limited

  12 Sullivan Close,

  Holywood BT18 9HL

  Hearth

  181A Stranmillis Road,

  Belfast BT9 5DU

  Latharna Housing Association Limited

  First Floor, 93–97 Main Street,

  Larne BT40 1HJ

  Lisnagarvey Housing Association Limited

  8 Bensons Road,

  Lisburn BT28 3UU

  Malone Housing Association Limited

  The Bursar's Office

  The Queens University of Belfast

  University Road Belfast BT7 1NN

  Masonic Housing Association

  (NI) Limited

  74 Dublin Road

  Belfast BT2 7HP

  McGarel Housing Association Limited

  First Floor, 93–97 Main Street, Lame BT40 1HJ

  Newington Housing Association (1975) Limited

  300 Limestone Road, Belfast BT15 3AR

  Nih Housing Association Limited

  'Hazelbank', 361 Shore Road, Newtownabbey, Co. Antrim BT37 9SA

  Northern Ireland Co-ownership Housing Association Limited

  Murray House, Murray Street, Belfast BT1 6DN

  North Belfast Mission Housing Society Limited

  35A Rathcoole Drive, Newtownabbey BT37 9AQ

  Open Door Housing Association (NI) Limited
  626

  10–14 Commercial Court, Belfast BT1 2NB

  Presbyterian Housing Association (NI) Ltd

  Room 119, Church House, Fisherwick Place, Belfast BT1 6DW

  The Royal British Legion Housing Association (NI) Ltd

  War Memorial Building, Waring Street, Belfast BT1 2EU

  St. Matthew's Housing Association Limited

  58 Harper Street, Belfast BT5 4EN

  Students Housing Association Co-operative Limited

  3–5 Botanic Avenue, Belfast BT7 1JG

  Tennent Street District Housing Association Limited

  229 Tennent Street, Belfast BT13 3GG

  Triangle Women's Housing Association Limited

  7 Girona Avenue, Portrush

  Ulidia Housing Association Limited

  57A Botanic Avenue, Belfast BT7 1JF

  Ulster Homemaker Limited

  C/o Northern Ireland Federation of Housing Associations,

  Carlisle Memorial Centre, 88 Clifton Street, Belfast BT13 1AB

  Willowfield Parish Church Housing Association Limited

  131 Ravenhill Road, Belfast BT6 8DR

  Woodvale and Shankill Housing Association Limited

  58 Rosebank Street, Belfast BT13 3HB

  Mr. Jim Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list in the Official Report those schemes which have been assured of finance from the Housing Association Development Programme (Northern Ireland) 1989–90 together with the sums of money allocated.

  Mr. Needham
  The inclusion of individual schemes in the housing association development programme does not in itself guarantee that the scheme will proceed. This will depend upon compliance with agreed procedures, costs and standards and on the availability of resources. On that basis, no schemes are assured of finance. Nevertheless those schemes which have been included in the programme for possible tender approval during 1989–90, together with the capital "allocations", are as follows:

  Capital allocation 1989–90

  £

  Scheme address

  2–12 Dundela crescent, Belfast

  69,000

  3–17 Ethel Street, Belfast

  181,000

  Glencraig Community, Holywood

  10,000

  Newry road, Kilkeel Mourne Grange 3

  200,000

  Main street, Lisnaskea

  374,000

  Abbey Gardens, Knock, Belfast

  137,000

  1–33 Barrack Hill, Armagh

  273,000

  Millmount House, Banbridge

  218,000

  Mountain Road, Kilkeel

  222,000

  1 Cavehill Road, Belfast

  102,000

  Randalstown Road, Antrim

  86,000

  Croft Phase 2, Bloomfield Road, Bangor

  119,000

  Elizabeth Avenue, Carrickfergus

  61,000

  Kinsale Park, Caw, Londonderry

  382,000

  14 Inverary Avenue, Belfast

  238,000

  Carrick House Annexe, Belfast

  179,000

  1–25 Ambleside Street, 111–113 Silvio Street, Belfast

  127,000

  Tennent Street Phase 5, Belfast

  277,000

  627

  Capital allocation 1989–90

  £

  Ambleside Street, Tennent Street, Sydney Street West, Belfast

  114,000

  Warden Street, Ballymena

  174,000

  CDA 94, Donegall Street, Belfast

  10,000

  14, 18 Hills Avenue, Belfast

  36,000

  Tennent/Orkney Phase 6, Belfast

  74,000

  1 Park Avenue, Belfast

  79,000

  7 Windsor Avenue, Lurgan

  12,000

  Woodview Avenue, Portadown

  64,000

  Gate Lodge Foyle Hospital, Londonderry

  35,000

  18, 43 Curran Road, Larne

  76,000

  2–10 Fountainville Avenue, Belfast

  161,000

  139 Glen Road, Belfast

  316,000

  4, 6, 8 Bryansford Road, Newcastle

  152,000

  49 Somerton Road, Belfast

  22,000

  3, 5 Brookhill Avenue, Belfast

  90,000

  157–159 Falls Road, Belfast

  32,000

  42–45, 161–166 Rathkyle, Antrim

  250,000

  Lyne Lodge Canal Quay, Newry

  94,000

  Bray Street/Rathlin Street, Belfast

  259,000

  Cambrai Street, Belfast

  185,000

  Repairs

  Dundela, Belfast, Flue Lining

  26,000

  Edenderry, Belfast, Flue Lining

  36,000

  Ravenhill, Belfast, Flue Lining

  38,000

  Dundela, Belfast, Re-Roofing

  72,000

  Windsor Park, Belfast

  317,000

  Crosby Flats, Bangor

  344,000

  Ogilvie Street, Ravenhill Avenue, Belfast

  8,000

  In addition, a total of £4·5 million has been "allocated" in respect of a further 115 schemes which associations may take to an advanced stage of design so that they may be considered for inclusion in the next or subsequent financial year.

  Mr. Jim Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, if he will list in the Official Report those schemes which have been submitted for inclusion in the housing association development programme (Northern Ireland) 1989–90 intending to provide accommodation specifically for people who are homeless.

  Mr. Needham
  The following proposals to provide accommodation specifically for the homeless were identified by housing associations as projects which they would like to have had included for tender approval in the 1989–90 development programme:

  Scheme Address

  65 Bridge Street, Newry

  1–5 Curran Road/2 Circular Road, Larne

  239 Newtownards Road, Belfast

  14 Inverary Avenue, Belfast

  32 Edward Street, Portadown

  83–95 Foyle Street, Londonderry

  Carrick House Annexe, Belfast

  14–16 Lodge Road, Coleraine

  Disability
  The Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many children in schools in Northern Ireland are defined as deaf; and what steps are being taken to identify those who may suffer from blindness as well or from another handicap in addition to deafness.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  According to latest information (January 1988) there were 82 deaf pupils of compulsory school age attending grant-aided primary, secondary and 628
  special schools. Of these, 45 suffered from one or more additional physical handicaps. No details are available about children attending grammar schools.

  Under the Education and Libraries (NI) Order 1986 it is a matter for education and library boards to identify and make provision for children with special educational needs.

  The Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many deaf people are resident in mental hospitals in Northern Ireland; how many of these have an additional handicap; what plans have been made for their future in the community; and if he will express these figures as a percentage of the number of residents in mental hospitals.

  Mr. Needham
  This information is not collected centrally. Plans for the future in the community of deaf people resident in mental hospitals are the responsibility of the health and social services boards. In drawing them up, boards take appropriate account of patients' individual needs and circumstances.

  Medical Screening
  The Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about the number of medical screening units in the Province and future demand for screening.

  Mr. Needham
  Screening for hearing and visual defects, speech disorders and other developmental problems is an integral part of the child health surveillance programme. The physical and developmental status of children is assessed on an ongoing basis from infancy to age 14. Where abnormalities are detected children are referred to appropriate specialist services. Adults with suspected handicapping conditions are also referred to specialist services by their family doctor. Existing services have the capacity to deal with present and expected future requirements.

  The Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what post-school provision exists for deaf and multi-handicapped young people in Northern Ireland; and what advice he is giving to area boards on this matter.

  Mr. Needham
  In Northern Ireland, the individual needs of hearing-impaired and multi-handicapped clients are met by the general range of statutory and voluntary services including the provision of home helps, aids and adaptations and day centre and workshop activities.

  Specialist social workers for the deaf provide advice and guidance to hearing-impaired people and their families and act as interpreters where necessary. Three resource centres for the hearing impaired are provided in the Eastern health and social services board area at Beechbank house, Helen Keller house and the Parkmount rehabilitation unit.

  The regional strategy for the period 1987–92 advises boards that the Department of Health and Social Services expects them to effect improvements in services specifically for the deaf and blind, either through the creation of specialist posts, or through in-service training designed to ensure that existing staff, including social workers, are made more aware and capable of meeting the needs of sensorily handicapped people.
  629
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what provision has been made in the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys survey of disability in Northern Ireland for the identification of deaf-blind people and deaf people who may suffer from an additional handicap to their deafness.

  Mr. Needham
  The study of disability now under way in Northern Ireland is modelled closely on that carried out in Great Britain by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys, and the same methods of establishing the nature and extent of disability are being followed. Information is sought on each and every disability that an individual has which interferes with his or her ability to perform daily activities. Thus, people with varying levels of visual loss and/or hearing loss and those who suffer an additional disability to their hearing loss will be included in the survey. Investigations cover those living in private households and also those who live in residential establishments of varying kinds.

  The study is being carried out by the policy planning and research unit of the Department of Finance and Personnel.

  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will meet representatives of organisations representing the deaf to discuss the implications for them of the Disabled Persons (Northern Ireland) Act 1989.

  Mr. Needham
  No request for a meeting to discuss the implications of the Disabled Persons (Northern Ireland) Act 1989 has been received from any organisation representing deaf people.

  Residential Homes
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many residents in(a) Northern Ireland residential and (b) Northern Ireland nursing homes are required to contribute all or part of their personal expenses allowance to fund shortfalls in fees charged to them.

  Mr. Needham
  I regret that the information is not available.

  Elderly People
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment has been made of how many elderly people and their relatives cannot afford to pay for care in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Needham
  None, but income support is available to people in need of care whose resources are below levels prescribed by Parliament.

  Roads
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proposals he has to complete dualling of the Belfast-Larne road; and whether this road has been indentified as a Euro-route.

  Mr. Needham
  The existing single carriageway sections of the Belfast-Lame road are adjudged capable of carrying projected traffic flows for the foreseeable future. Proposals for completion of dualling are therefore considered to be long term. The Department of Environment for Northern Ireland has indentified the route as a Euro-route.

  Housing
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many sub-contractors named by successful main contractors in tender documents submitted to the Northern Ireland Housing Executive were not subsequently used after the main contract was awarded, in each of the last three years.

  Mr. Needham
  I am advised by the chairman of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive that the information requested is not available as contractors are not required to name proposed sub-contractors when submitting tenders for Housing Executive contracts, although some do so.

  Road Safety (Carrickfergus)
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what action he proposes to reduce traffic congestion and improve road safety at Windermere road and Windermere avenue, Carrickfergus, Country Antrim.

  Mr. Needham
  As there is little evidence of traffic congestion or a particular road safety problem at Windermere road and Windermere avenue, no action is proposed at the present time.

  Coal Gas Works, Carrickfergus
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what consideration has been given to the retention of the only complete coal gas works in Ireland at Carrickfergus, or to the retention of this site as a historical tourist attraction and for educational purposes.

  Mr. Needham
  I understand that this site, which is owned by Belfast city council, is to be sold later this year, after it has been detoxified to the normal standard. The Carrickfergus Gasworks Preservation Society, which wishes to develop the site as a gasworks museum, will have the opportunity to make an offer for it.

  Scotland (Transport Links)
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what discussions he has had regarding road, rail and ferry links between Northern Ireland and Scotland.

  Mr. Needham
  Discussions are continuing at ministerial and official levels on proposals for improved facilities at Larne harbour, the upgrading of the rail connection between Belfast and Lame and the possible introduction of a ferry service between Red Bay harbour and Scotland.

  Sewage Disposal (Islandmagee)
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when the marine survey postponed in 1988 into sewage disposal from Ashvale park, Islandmagee, County Antrim, to the sea will be carried out.

  Mr. Needham
  A study, including any necessary marine survey, has been initiated and is expected to be completed by November 1989.

  Benefit Statistics
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many persons in Northern Ireland are currently receiving(a) unemployment benefit and (b) income support.
  631
  Mr. Needham
  The latest available information is as follows:

  Number of recipients

  Unemployment Benefit

  21,584

  Income Support

  1183,235

  1 This includes an estimated 4,000 people who get unemployment benefit and income support.

  Civil Service Statistics
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish a table in the Official Report to show for each grade in the Northern Ireland Civil Service the number and percentages of (a) Roman Catholics, (b) Protestants and (c) others, showing the number and percentages of males and females in each category; and if he will indicate the percentage of each of those groupings of working age in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Cope
  The information requested by the hon. Gentleman is contained within the Second Report of the Equal Opportunities Unit of the Northern Ireland Civil Service. The Second Report was published in December 1987 and shows the make-up of the Northern Ireland Civil Service by sex, religion and disability as at 1 January 1987.

  Copies of the Second Report were placed in the Library on 17 December 1987.

  The following table shows estimated aggregated figures (1985–87) of the religious affiliation of persons of working age in Northern Ireland, derived from the continuous household survey.

  Males

  Females

  All

  per cent.

  per cent.

  per cent.

  Catholic

  37·9

  39·6

  38·9

  Protestant

  57·8

  57·8

  57·8

  Other or not stated

  4·3

  2·6

  3·3

  Bogside Flats (Demolition)
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether the demolition of the Bogside flats in Londonderry was carried out by the main contractors or by sub-contractors.

  Mr. Needham
  I am advised by the chairman of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive that the demolition of the Bogside (Rossville street) flats was carried out by the main contractor.

  MOT Tests
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the length of delay for vehicles awaiting MOT tests in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Needham
  The average waiting time for private car test appointments was approximately six and a half weeks at 14 July 1989.

  Teachers
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish details of the numbers of(a) Roman Catholic and (b) other teachers who have
  632
  graduated in each of the last three years for which records are available, together with information on the level of qualification awarded in each category from Northern Ireland universities and teacher training colleges.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Available information is as follows:

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  Stranmillis College

  BEd (Hons)

  53

  68

  83

  BEd

  89

  77

  51

  PGCE

  51

  65

  67

  St. Mary's College

  BEd (Hons)

  61

  60

  94

  BEd

  85

  75

  65

  PGCE

  46

  58

  61

  Queen's University

  PGCE

  109

  124

  115

  University of Ulster

  PGCE

  22

  23

  25

  BA

  10

  11

  6

  BA (Hons)

  28

  25

  27

  BA/BSc single subject concurrent

  2

  2

  —

  BA/BSc (Hons) single subject concurrent

  45

  33

  53

  BA/BSc (Hons) combined subject

  16

  6

  11

  BSc

  20

  10

  2

  Since St. Mary's is a voluntary Roman Catholic college it is likely that most graduates are Roman Catholic. The other institutions are in the public sector and non-denominational.

  Planning Officers
  Mr. Clifford Forsythe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if, in taking account of the peculiar structure of local government in Northern Ireland, he will require planning officers to follow the practice of councillors in declaring their interests in cases where their duties may constitue a conflict of interest on the part of themselves or their families.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 24 July 1989]: In accordance with their conditions of service all civil servants are required not to put themselves in a position where their duty and private interests conflict and they must not make use of their official position to further those interests. All planning officials, therefore, are expected to take no part in cases where their duties may constitute a conflict of interest on the part of themselves or their families.

  Rent Arrears
  Mr. Clifford Forsythe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland under what powers the Northern Ireland Housing Executive demands deductions for arrears which are being disputed by a tenant.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 24 July 1989]: In cases where tenants do not repay rent arrears voluntarily the Northern Ireland Housing Executive recover arrears by three main methods: by direct payment from benefits under the Social Security Claims and Payments Regulations (NI) 1988; from other money due to the tenant from Government sources under the Payment for

  633
  Debt (Emergency Provisions) Act (NI) 1971; and under the Magistrates Courts (NI) Order 1981. When using the Magistrates Courts (NI) Order the Executive must prove the debt in court. If a tenant disputes the withholding of money under the Social Security Claims and Payment Regulations or the Payment for Debt (Emergency Provisions) Act (NI) he can use the Executive's internal complaints procedure and if he is still not satisfied he can refer his case to the commissioner for complaints.

  Type

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  a. Twins

  298

  305

  306

  263

  304

  272

  281

  322

  287

  b. Triplets

  4

  3

  2

  4

  3

  3

  2

  7

  1

  c. Quadruplets

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  d. Quintuplets

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  e. Sextuplets

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Maternities

  28,542

  27,229

  26,905

  27,188

  27,547

  27,529

  27,989

  27,694

  127,614

  1 Provisional.

  NHS (Regrading)
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about progress in implementing the recent regrading exercise for National Health Service staff.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 24 July 1989]: I assume that the hon. Member is referring to the regrading of medical laboratory scientific officers. The assignment of existing posts to new grades under the medical laboratory scientific officer regrading exercise is a matter for the health and social services boards. In each board this involves a review of each post against the needs of the board. The exercise is at a fairly advanced stage in all the boards and local staff interests are being consulted. However, due to the work involved it has not been possible to assign the new grades before 1 April this year as had been planned.

  Scientific Staff
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what information he has as to the relationship between difficulties experienced in the recruitment and retention of medical physicists, clinical biochemists, micro-biologists and psychologists in Northern Ireland and similar difficulties in Great Britain; and whether he has received any recent representations or information on this.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 24 July 1989]: I have received some representations about pay and conditions of service for these groups of staff. In Northern Ireland there is, as for other staff groups in the health and personal social services, a policy of parity with similar grades of staff employed in the National Health Service. In Great Britain, I understand that the management side of the appropriate Whitley Council has set up a working party to investigate reported problems of recruitment and retention. I shall, of course, be keeping in close touch with developments.

  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps he intends to take to ensure that the commit ment given in "Working for Patients" to maintain a health care service based on high technology includes measures to recruit and retain scientific staff to operate the service.

  Multiple Births
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the number of sets of(a) twins, (b) triplets, (c) quadruplets, (d) quintuplets, and (e) sextuplets, born in Northern Ireland in each year since 1980; and what was the total number of maternities in each of these years.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 24 July 1989]: The information is set out in the table:

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 24 July 1989]: The current commitment within the Health Service to recruit and retain, within available resources, sufficient numbers of staff of the right calibre for the job will continue.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Atlantic Salmon Conservation Trust (Scotland)
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the Inland Revenue has completed its review of the charitable status of the Atlantic Salmon Conservation Trust (Scotland).

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  I regret that I cannot comment on the tax affairs of any particular body.

  Arts and Charities (Sponsorship)
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what tax incentives are available to encourage commercial sponsorships of the arts and charities.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Sponsorship payments which are not of a capital nature are deductible for tax purposes in calculating trading profits if they are made wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the payer's trade. In practice, this means that the sole purpose of the payment must be to provide the payer with a benefit—often in the form of advertising—commensurate with his expenditure.

  There are also special tax reliefs for business donations to charities.

  Life Assurance
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what information he has on the rules for the taxation of investment-linked and other life assurance in(a) Germany and (b) Luxembourg for life offices and policy holders, respectively.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  In both countries life offices pay tax broadly by reference to their trading profits. In Germany policy holders may also pay tax on policy benefits received, depending on the terms of the policy and its duration. So far as I am aware, investment-linked life assurance comparable. to that in the United Kingdom is not usual in either country: I am aware of no special tax provision for it.
  635
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what practical limitations have been or are likely to be imposed by membership of the EEC on the Government's freedom to increase the tax take from the life assurance business, including pension and annuity business.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The practical development of a single internal EC market for life assurance is still at an early stage but in consultation with the industry the Government will be keeping the position under review. The decision this year to reform the existing tax regime for life assurance instead of adopting a more radical option will undoubtedly provide stability for the run-up to 1992. But allowing for freedom of services in the EC was only one of several objectives of the reform. As my right hon. Friend said in his Budget speech, above all the effect of the changes will be to provide a more efficient and equitable tax regime for this most important industry.

  Personal Taxation
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the gross and taxable income of the self-employed in the current financial year as(a) declared for tax and (b) not so declared; and if he will provide comparable figures for 1978–79.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The latest information is for 1986–87. The estimates cover married couples and single people whose main source of income is from self-employment.

  £ billion

  Gross Income

  Taxable Income

  1978–79

  9·1

  4·5

  1986–87

  26·4

  15·4

  By their very nature, estimates of amounts of income not declared for tax are not available.

  Special Debt Relief
  Mr. Andrew MacKay
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how it is proposed to account for the special debt relief to the poorest and most heavily indebted countries agreed at the Toronto summit this year.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The arrangements announced by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development on 25 November 1988 (WA col. 13) following the Toronto agreement have been modified for technical reasons. ECGD will receive the lower amount of interest from the debtor as before. But it is now intended that, instead of ODA reimbursing ECGD for the forgone receipts, ECGD's obligations to the Consolidated Fund will be reduced by the same amount. The published accounts will be noted to make this clear. These changes will be taken into account during the 1989 public expenditure survey. It is expected that the cost of providing special debt relief in this way will count as part of Britain's net official development assistance to developing countries, as reported to the development assistance committee of the OECD.

  Offices (London)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage increase over the nearest equivalent figure for 1976 and 1966 is represented by the total rateable value of offices, including banks in office areas, in London, as shown in section 1 of table 11.1 of Inland Revenue Statistics 1987.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  About 26·5 per cent. for 1 April 1986 compared with 1 April 1976. A comparison with 1966 would not be appropriate because rateable values for that year were based on the 1963 revaluation.

  Personal Taxation
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has information from the family expenditure survey, the survey of personal incomes and from the building societies which enable him to estimate the distribution of mortgage interest relief by marital status as well as by range of total income.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Information on the distribution of mortgage interest relief by marital status and by range of total income is available from projections of the data from the 1986–87 "Survey of Personal Incomes" and the 1986 "Family Expenditure Survey". However, all estimates are provisional and those for marital status are rather tentative because of lack of firm data.

  Latest estimates for 1989–90 based on the assumption that interest rates remain at current levels for the rest of 1989–90 are given in the table. The estimates include mortgages formerly under the option mortgage scheme which are now subsumed within MIRAS.

  Tax units receiving mortgage interest relief by marital status and range of total income 1989–90

  Range of total income

  Number of tax units with mortgage interest relief

  Average value of relief per mortgagor

  Cost of relief

  Thousands

  £

  £ million

  Singles

  Up to £5,000

  300

  430

  130

  £5,001 to £10,000

  810

  630

  510

  £10,001 to £15,000

  660

  670

  440

  £15,001 to £20,000

  400

  810

  330

  £20,001 to £25,000

  190

  850

  160

  £25,001 to £30,000

  80

  1,110

  80

  over £30,000

  100

  1,430

  140

  Total

  2,540

  700

  1,790

  Married couples

  Up to £5,000

  340

  540

  180

  £5,001 to £10,000

  890

  570

  510

  £10,001 to £15,000

  1,600

  650

  1,040

  £15,001 to £20,000

  1,480

  690

  1,020

  £20,001 to £25,000

  1,010

  700

  710

  £25,001 to £30,000

  530

  820

  440

  over £30,000

  910

  1,170

  1,060

  Total

  6,760

  730

  4,960

  Total income

  Up to £5,000

  640

  490

  310

  £5,001 to £10,000

  1,700

  600

  1,020

  £10,001 to £15,000

  2,260

  660

  1,480

  £15,001 to £20,000

  1,880

  720

  1,350

  £20,001 to £25,000

  1,200

  720

  870

  £25,001 to £30,000

  610

  860

  520

  over £30,000

  1,010

  1,200

  1,200

  637

  Range of total income

  Number of tax units with mortgage interest relief

  Average value of relief per mortgagor

  Cost of relief

  Thousands

  £

  £ million

  Total

  9,300

  730

  6,750

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has made estimates of the revenue cost of the introduction of separate taxation; and if he will publish in the Official Report a table showing by range of total income for two-earner married couples the number of wives earning (i) more and (ii) less than the single allowance.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  It is estimated that the revenue cost of the introduction of independent taxation will be approximately £500 million in the first year, 1990–91, and approximately £1·2 billion in 1991–92.

  The number of wives earning more than the single allowance in 1990–91 by range of total income for example is given in the table. The figures are estimates based on a projection of the 1986–87 "Survey of Personal Incomes" and are therefore provisional. I regret that it is not possible to provide reliable estimates of total income for couples where the wife earns for the number of wives earning less than the single allowance.

  Number of wives earning more than single allowance, 1989–90, by range of total income of the married couple

  Range of total income of married couple (lower limit)

  Thousands

  (£)

  1

  110

  5,000

  310

  10,000

  580

  15,000

  990

  20,000

  1,420

  30,000

  450

  40,000

  150

  50,000

  150

  Total

  4,160

  Charitable Donations
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total value of income covenanted to charities by(a) individuals and (b) companies in every year from 1984–85 to 1988–89, inclusive.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Gross amounts covenanted to charities are shown in the table. I regret that a reliable breakdown of these figures between individual and company covenants is not available.

  Gross amounts covenanted to charities

  £ million

  1984–85

  400

  1985–86

  450

  1986–87

  500

  1987–881

  650

  1988–892

  800

  1 Estimated.

  2 Provisional.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the value of income convenanted to 638
  professional arts organizations with charitable status by (a) individuals and (b) companies in every year from 1984–85 to 1988 inclusive.

  Mr.Norman Lamont
  I regret that the information requested is not available.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the value of payroll giving—"give as you earn"—to(a) all charities and (b) professional arts organisations with charitable status in 1987–88 and 1988–89.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  It is estimated that about £1 million was donated to charities in 1987–88 through the payroll giving scheme and over £3 million in 1988–89. No information is available on how much of these amounts were received by professional arts organisations.

  Higher Rate Tax
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the number of persons subject to higher-rate tax in the current year on the basis of separate taxation for husbands and wives.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  On the basis of the latest information available, it is estimated that just under 1·3 million individuals will be liable to income tax at the higher rate when independent taxation starts in 1990–91. This estimate is based on a projection of the 1986–87 "Survey of Personal Incomes" and is therefore provisional.

  Income Tax
  Mr. Lester
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest estimate of the cost of administering income tax.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 19 July 1989]: The total cost of administering income tax for the financial year 1987–88, the last year for which this figure is available, was £931·5 million.

  Married Women (Tax)
  Mr. Clay
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many married women pay income tax on their earnings; and what proportion they make up of all married women in paid work.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 20 July 1989]: It is estimated that in 1989–90 some 3·7 million married women will pay income tax on their earnings. It is believed that this represents approximately half of all married women with some income from employment.

  Mortgage Interest Tax Relief
  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will estimate the revenue cost of mortgage interest tax relief projected for the year 1989–90;

  (2) what was the revenue cost of mortgage interest tax relief for 1986–87, 1987–88 and 1988–89.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 20 July 1989]: The estimated costs of mortgage interest tax relief in the United Kingdom are shown in the table. The cost of

  639
  mortgage interest in 1989–90 is based on the assumption that interest rates remain at current levels for the rest of 1989–90.

  Cost of mortgage tax relief

  £ million

  1986–87

  4,670

  1987–88

  4,800

  1988–891

  5,500

  1989–901

  6,750

  1 provisional.

ENERGY

  British Nuclear Fuels (Safety)
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what discussions he has had with British Nuclear Fuels with respect to plans to make production workers more responsible for safety monitoring; whether he intends to discuss this with the nuclear installations inspectorate; what implications the plan has for the 1986 safety audit carried out by the nuclear installations inspectorate; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Neither my right hon. Friend nor I have had discussions with British Nuclear Fuels plc on this matter. Any such proposal and its implications for the 1986 safety audit would be a matter for discussion between British Nuclear Fuels and the Health and Safety Executive's nuclear installations inspectorate.

  Halliburton Group
  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether, before letting any further contracts to the Halliburton group or any of its subsidiaries, he will make it his policy to instruct his officials to demand prior assurances from the company(a) that full compensation will be paid to any British subject in their employ who is injured while working for them abroad, (b) that no British subject will be dismissed immediately while still in hospital receiving treatment and (c) that Halliburton Manufacturing and Services Ltd., 17 Hanover square, London W 1, will reply to letters written by hon. Members on behalf of constituents dismissed while in its employ.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  No. It would not be appropriate for the Secretary of State to attempt to regulate the management procedures and practices of companies with which the Department contracts.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Correspondence
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many letters were received from, and sent to, hon. Members by his Department in(a) January and (b) the whole of this Session up to 1 July.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The Department of Social Security received 1,333 letters from right hon. and hon. Members and organisations during the month of January and despatched 1,345 replies. This Session 10,314 have been received and 9,474 replies were issued to 1 July.

  Civil Service Dispersal
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what progress is being made in his Department's review, in line with Treasury guidelines, of the potential for the further relocation of Civil Service posts outside London and the south-east; and when he expects the review to be completed.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  We are making excellent progress in relocating "backroom" work from 21 local social security offices in London to the three social security centres in Glasgow, Belfast and Makerfield.

  The first social security centre at Glasgow is due to start work on 14 August.

  As a separate exercise, a team of officials is close to completing a thorough and systematic review of the location of our headquarters work. We expect to receive a report of the team's findings shortly.

  Local Offices (South Yorkshire)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he has any plans to review the areas covered by the boundaries of his Department's offices in Doncaster and Wath-on-Dearne in the county of South Yorkshire, with particular regard to the more rural areas of Doncaster metropolitan borough council.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The local office network in this area is being reviewed later in the year. No specific proposals have yet been made regarding the boundaries of Doncaster and Wath-on-Dearne local offices.

  Invalidity Benefit
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security to what extent charitable work undertaken prior to the period covered by a claim for entitlement to invalidity benefit is used as an indication of a person's ability to work during the period covered by the claim.

  Mr. Scott
  Work, whether charitable or other, carried out prior to a claim for invalidity benefit does not affect entitlement to that benefit. Where a person performs some work during the period of the claim, it is for the independent adjudicating authorities to determine whether such work is consistent with the incapacity for work test, which is one of the qualifying conditions for entitlement.

  Creches
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he has received any recent representations about pilot or permanent workplace creches and similar incentives further to encourage the return to employment of women in his Department; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  We have received no recent representations but officials are in regular touch with staff and their representatives about child care provisions generally. Holiday play schemes have been established in several different parts of the country often in collaboration with other Government Departments and other local employers. Information about local child care facilities is also available to staff. A study is currently under way into the feasibility of providing workplace nurseries.
  641
  These schemes form only part of the provisions to encourage the employment of women. Flexible working patterns including part-time working and job sharing, maternity leave and pay, career break opportunities and other special leave arrangements are all designed to encourage women to return to or remain in work in the Department.

  Sickness Benefit
  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he will list the action taken by his Department to assist Mr. A., reference OVB/STB/EC, Longbenton, 25 January 1989, to obtain sickness benefit in respect of his car accident in Italy on 7 December 1983; what response his Department obtained from the Italian authorities; and what efforts they made to insist upon a reply, before the intervention of the Italian ambassador and the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Responsibility for Mr. A's claim was transferred to the Italian authorities on 8 August 1988, and from that date the matter was outside the control of the Department.

  However, on request from Mr. A, overseas branch wrote to the Italian authorities on 25 January 1989, asking them to write to Mr. A and let him know the position on his claim. In response to a letter from my hon. Friend asking the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to arrange for the intervention of the British consul with the Italian authorities, which later was passed to the Department for reply as a social security matter was involved, overseas branch has written to the liaison officer in Italy to see whether the inquiries instigated by the Italian ambassador at my hon. Friend's request, have produced any results. If overseas branch has not received a reply to this letter within one month, we have said that the request to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office for the consulate in Italy to pursue the matter will be reconsidered.

  Jobstart
  Mr. Nernst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of savings accruing to his Department from reductions in the payment of benefit to participants in the 50-plus jobstart scheme; and if he will make a statement.

  Family support 1978–79 to 1988–89 (£ million)

  1978–79

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  cash/real

  real

  real

  real

  real

  FIS/Family credit

  24

  23

  30

  43

  58

  Maternity grant

  16

  14

  12

  11

  10

  Maternity allowance

  105

  107

  108

  104

  94

  Statutory maternity pay

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Supplmentary benefit/income support1 and housing benefit

  629

  490

  483

  575

  767

  Social fund

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Child benefit

  1,776

  2,389

  2,129

  2,222

  2,252

  One parent benefit

  22

  37

  44

  50

  56

  Child tax allowances

  460

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Additional personal tax allowance (lone parent)

  60

  60

  61

  76

  86

  Total

  3,092

  3,121

  2,867

  3,080

  3,323

  642
  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The initiative is being piloted for a year in four areas. It started on 26 June. An estimate of potential income support savings will be possible once the results of the pilot are available.

  Family Credit
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many applications there have been for family credit in each month since April 1988, and how many awards have been made in each month since April 1988.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The information is as follows:

  Claims

  Awards

  1988

  April

  96,505

  40,213

  May

  41,721

  June

  52,293

  36,145

  July

  46,100

  37,912

  August

  46,376

  40,249

  September

  47,759

  24,158

  October

  56,373

  44,944

  November

  57,850

  46,234

  December

  44,834

  35,797

  1989

  January

  63,638

  42,712

  February

  60,318

  45,180

  March

  68,637

  47,184

  April

  96,752

  43,300

  May

  123,038

  39,187

  June

  107,276

  73,778

  Notes:

  1. The figures are for the four or five weeks ending on the last Friday of the month.

  2. The figures for claims received include those made to renew existing awards and those made more than four weeks before the expiry of an existing award (and therefore invalid).

  Family Support
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will give the level of support for the family net of the consequences of unemployment growth, in total, and by each category of benefit for each year since the first full year after the introduction of child benefit and express the levels of support by each category of benefit in standard prices with the levels of expenditure in the first full year after the introduction of child benefit as the base.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  [holding answer 10 March 1989]: The information requested is set out as follows:
  643

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  real

  real

  real

  real

  real

  FIS/Family credit

  71

  69

  83

  88

  193

  Maternity grant

  10

  9

  7

  0

  0

  Maternity allowance

  90

  87

  86

  25

  12

  Statutory maternity pay

  —

  —

  —

  86

  110

  Supplementary benefit/income support and housing benefit

  1,019

  1,141

  1,257

  1,404

  1,360

  Social fund

  —

  —

  —

  —

  22

  Child benefit

  2,396

  2,374

  2,320

  2,250

  2,064

  One parent benefit

  67

  71

  76

  80

  79

  Child tax allowances

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Additional personal tax allowance (lone parent)

  78

  80

  87

  83

  75

  Total

  3,732

  3,831

  3,917

  4,016

  3,915

  1 Supplementary Allowance, Income Support and Housing Benefit paid to one-parent families and to people looking after elderly persons. Housing Benefit includes rate rebates.

  National Insurance Fund
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he expects to publish his next review of the long-term financial position of the national insurance fund under section 137 of the Social Security Act 1975.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  [holding answer 6 July 1989]: The Government Actuary is responsible for reviewing the operation of the 1975 Social Security Act for each five-year period, and section 137 of the Social Security Act 1975 provides that the Government Actuary shall review the national insurance fund. The Government Actuary advises that he plans to complete his quinquennial report by the end of the year, when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will lay the report before Parliament.

  Child Benefit
  Mr. Bob Clay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much of the overall spending on child benefit goes to families on income-related benefits, broken down by benefit.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  [holding answer 17 July 1989]: The information requested is set out as follows:

  Estimated child benefit expenditure on families in receipt of income-related benefits 1989–90

  Benefit

  Child Benefit

  £ million

  Income Support

  850

  Family Credit1

  300

  Housing Benefit only2 3

  100

  1 Based on the assumptions underlying the Government's Expenditure Plans (Cmnd 615).

  2 Child Benefit expenditure on families receiving Housing Benefit is estimated on the assumption that the rate rebate scheme is operating throughout Great Britain.

  3 In receipt of Housing Benefit but no other income-related benefit. Income Support and Family Credit recipients may also be receiving Housing Benefit.

SCOTLAND

  Scottish Homes
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what further provision he intends to make in order to reduce the length of delays presently experienced by
  644
  purchasers from Scottish Homes; what is the number of legally qualified staff presently engaged in work relating to the sale of domestic residential property; what is the number of legally qualified staff formerly employed by (a) the Housing Corporation and (b) the Scottish Special Housing Association in order to deal with such work; and what arrangements are being made by Scottish Homes in order to reduce the backlog of cases.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Scottish Homes has recently contracted with some 30 private legal firms to assist its own in-house conveyancing staff to increase the throughput of applications in order to clear the large number of cases on hand at present. This arrangement should enable up to 1,000 applications to be processed monthly, and should ensure that in future sales should be completed within six months of application.

  The number of legally qualified staff employed by Scottish Homes on house sale work is nine, with a further four posts awaiting recruitment. This compares with 14 such staff employed by SSHA to do such work. The Housing Corporation had no landlord function and thus had no such staff.

  Teachers
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the number of qualified teachers not employed in the teaching profession in 1979; and what is the current number.

  Mr. Lang
  The information requested is not available.

  Community Charge
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment his Department has made of the costs of regional authorities of(a) ensuring that the registrar of births, marriages and deaths advised the community charge registration officer of the death of an individual registered to pay the poll tax, (b) removing the deceased person's name from the community charge register (c) calculating the amount due by the deceased person and (d) preparing, mailing and pursuing the payment of that amount by the deceased person's next of kin or executor.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Under the provisions of the Community Charge (Notification of Deaths) (Scotland) Regulations (SI 1988 No. 2211) as amended by the Community Charges (Notification of Deaths)
  645
  (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 1989 (SI 1989 No. 735) the district registrar, in respect of a death registered in his district is required within seven days of registration of such death to notify a number of prescribed particulars relating to the deceased to the community charges registration officer of each region or islands area within which the registration district falls. No fee is charged to regional authorities for the provision of this information. Other costs associated with removing a deceased person's entry from the community charges register and with collecting any outstanding amount of unpaid community charge are a matter for the regional or islands council concerned.

  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what record his Department is keeping of the number of complaints received at either the Scottish Office or at individual regional authorities about the levying of community charge on deceased persons.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Very few representations on this issue have been received in the Scottish Office. Information about representations made to regional councils is not held centrally.

  Piper Alpha
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will outline the role performed by his officials in the monitoring of the area above and on the sea-bed surrounding the wreckage of Piper Alpha; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  In the period following the incident on 6 July 1988 to February 1989 the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland, in co-operation with the operators Occidental Petroleum (Caledonia) Ltd., carried out surveys of debris and other samples from the Piper Alpha site for possible polychlorinated byphenyl (PCB) and radioactive contamination. Details of the work carried out

  NCC Advisory Committee for Scotland

  Name

  Occupation

  Employer

  Appointment ends

  A. R. Trotter (Chairman)

  Estate Manager

  Not known

  31 March 1990

  J. M. S. Arnott

  Vice-Chairman Countryside Commission for Scotland, manager (Edinburgh) for BBC Scotland (part-time)

  Not known

  31 March 1990

  J. C. Compton

  Farmer and landowner

  Not known

  31 March 1990

  Professor P. S. Corbet

  Biologist (formerly University of Dundee)

  Not known

  31 March 1990

  A. D. M. Farquharson

  Chartered surveyor, Fanner, forester

  Not known

  31 March 1990

  J. L. Goodfellow

  Past Vice-President National Fanners' Union of Scotland. Retired farmer

  Not known

  31 March 1990

  J. R. Johnstone

  Industrialist Landowner

  Not known

  31 August 1989

  Dr. R. C. Kirkwood

  Reader in Biology

  University of Strathclyde

  31 March 1992

  Professor J. B. L. Matthews

  Director, Dunstaffnage Marine Laboratory

  NERC

  31 March 1992

  Mrs. E. Macdonald

  Crofter

  Not known

  31 March 1992

  Councillor D. J. McPherson

  Vice-Convenor Highland Regional Council

  Not known

  31 March 1992

  Professor I. Parsons

  Professor of Mineralogy

  University of Edinburgh

  31 March 1991

  Professor W. Ritchie

  Professor of Physical Geography

  University of Aberdeen

  31 March 1990

  J. H. Scott

  Farmer and landowner

  Not known

  31 March 1990

  Dr. E. A. Smith

  Director, Development Trust

  University of Aberdeen

  31 March 1992

  Professor T. C. Smout

  Historian

  University of St. Andrews

  31 March 1991

  Miss V. M. Thorn

  Author and consultant on interpretative planning

  Not known

  31 March 1990

  Members of NCC's advisory committee for Scotland are not nominated for appointment. Instead they are appointed by the Nature Conservancy Council with the approval of the Secretary of State for Scotland.

  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), 11 July,Official Report, column
  646
  and of the results of these surveys were given in scientific reports published on 6 June (copies of which have been placed in the Library).

  Further monitoring and surveys are being carried out by the operators in compliance with conditions attached to the approval for the abandonment programme granted by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy under the Petroleum Act 1987. The Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland and Her Majesty's industrial pollution inspectorate were consulted on the monitoring requirements and will advise as appropriate on the results as and when available.

  Monitoring of the area may also be carried out in due course as part of the general monitoring of sea waters around Scotland on behalf of this Department.

  Renaval Fund
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow on 25 April,Official Report, column 489, he is in a position to indicate the response of the European Commission to the applications under the Renaval fund; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  An application for Strathclyde region to be declared eligible under Renaval went forward to the European Commission on 26 May 1989. We still await a response.

  Nature Conservancy Council
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the names of the members of the Nature Conservancy Council's advisory committee for Scotland and give in each case their occupations, their employer, their nominator and the date their term of office is due to expire.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested is as follows:

  436, what measures he proposes to introduce to ensure that scientific advice continues to be made available to the proposed Scottish Nature Conservancy Council.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Government intend that this council's work will be founded on an
  647
  objective science base. Careful consideration is being given to various possible mechanisms for achieving this. Details of the proposals will be announced in due course.

  Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many fines have been recovered each month by means of civil diligence under section 56 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1987 during the years 1988 and 1989.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Section 56 of the 1987 Act applies not to fines but to fixed penalties payable in consequence of a conditional offer by the procurator fiscal. Information about the enforcement of these by means of civil diligence is not yet available as returns from district courts are incomplete.

  Devolution (Europe)
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from the business community about devolution or independence in Europe.

  Mr. Rifkind
  I have not received any such representations recently. I am, however, aware of the findings of a research study on this subject published this month by the Scottish Business Insider magazine. The study demonstrated that there is serious concern among top companies in Scotland at the detrimental effect on the Scottish economy which would be the consequence of constitutional change in Scotland.

  Set-aside
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will estimate how many full-time and part-time jobs have been lost as a consequence of the set-aside scheme for agricultural land in Scotland; and if he will estimate how many of those job losses are attributable to whole farm set-side.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  As indicated in the reply given to the hon. Member on 15 December 1988 at col.622 the possible consequences of the set-aside scheme for farm employment will be included in an evaluation of the scheme in its early years of operation. No results are yet available. I do not expect whole farm set-aside to be a significant factor since in the majority of cases where the whole of the area of eligible land has been set aside, the set-aside area represents less than half the total area of the farm.

  Clydeside Western Buses
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is in a position to make a statement on financial support for the employees of Clydeside Western Buses, in preparing a bid for the purchase of that company.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  We have consistently made it clear that financial assistance will be made available to one management-employee buy-out team per company. The Scottish Transport Group has recommended that, in the case of Western Clydeside, financial assistance to prepare a bid for the purchase of the company should be offered to the management-employee 648
  buy-out team led by Mr. Alan Wilson, managing director of Western Clydeside. The Scottish Transport Group considered that a successful bid was most likely to emerge from the outline proposals put forward by this team; and that these proposals offered the prospect of the most satisfactory shareholding arrangements for employees. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has now approved the Scottish Transport Group's recommendation and the Scottish Transport Group will today be writing to Mr. Wilson confirming this offer.

  The decision to offer assistance to the management-employee buy-out team will not confer any preferential status on this team as bidders. All bids will be considered on their merits with bids involving employee participation receiving preference. This preference will not in any way depend on whether or not financial assistance has been given.

  Environment Protection
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what policies his Department has implemented in the last five years to develop environmental protection measures.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  In 1984–85 the Department brought into effect the main provisions of part II of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 relating to the control of water pollution; these were further strengthened by means of the Water Act 1989. These provisions are the framework for implementing EC legislation on the protection of the water environment (some 30 directives) and other international agreements, such as those arising from the ministerial conferences on the North sea.

  Scottish water authorities, with the encouragement of the Department, have made considerable progress in improving the quality of public water supplies, particularly with regard to lead in drinking water: provisions in the Water Act 1989 will strengthen the existing Scottish legislation on the quality of public and private supplies.

  The Government have increased funding to water and sewerage authorities to improve the water environment. In the last five years, some £500 million has been invested in water and sewerage services. The allocation for 1989–90 has been increased by 14 per cent. over planned provision.

  The Department has supported research in Scotland as part of the Government's major research programme to determine the effects of acidification and in association with the Department of the Environment, has undertaken a major review of the control of air pollution in Great Britain, with a view to legislation.

  The hazardous waste inspectorate, set up in 1983, has given advice and guidance to local authorities on safe and efficient systems of waste management; it has published three comprehensive reports and issues guidance on such matters as landfill gas.

  Scottish Information Office
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will introduce safeguards to protect the integrity and non-party political status of the Scottish Information Office.

  Mr. Rifkind
  The staff of the Scottish Information Office, as civil servants, are well aware of established conventions followed by Ministers in relation to party
  649
  political activity. I see no need to issue new guidance to that which has stood successive Governments in good stead, and to which I fully subscribe.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many letters were received from, and sent to, hon. Members by his Department in(a) January and (b) the whole of this Session up to 1 July.

  Mr. Rifkind
  In January this year some 834 letters were received by my ministerial colleagues and myself from hon. and right hon. Members, and the total for the Session to 1 July is certainly in excess of 8,000. To provide like information on correspondence issuing during the same periods would incur disproportionate costs.

  Consultants
  Mr. Allan Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has come to a decision in relation to his proposal to engage consultants to advise on how the awareness of the Scottish people in relation to the activities of his Department can be improved.

  Mr. Rifkind
  I have now made arrangements with Hall Advertising Limited, Edinburgh who will work in association with specialist staff from Siegel and Gale and Kingsway Rowland for the preparation of a full report which will define a corporate identity strategy for the Scottish Office and describe the corporate visual guidelines for its implementation. Work will begin right away and I expect that it will take four months for the report to be concluded. When I have received and considered the report I will be informing the House of the decisions I have taken.

  Planning Applications
  Mr. Allan Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the future of neighbour notification of planning applications following the deletion of domestic subjects from the valuation roll.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Government are committed to maintaining the neighbour notification arrangements in Scotland, but the present procedure provided for in the Town and Country Planning (General Development) (Scotland) Order 1981 requires to be changed. Developers are currently required to serve a notice on the named owners, occupiers and lessees of neighbouring land as listed in the valuation roll, informing them that a planning application for a proposed development has been submitted, that a copy of the application and plans may be inspected at the address of the planning authority and that they have 14 days to make representations to the authority. These procedures will remain for all but domestic property.

  With the introduction of the community charge entries for domestic property on the valuation roll will no longer be updated. It is therefore necessary to adopt a different approach to identifying those neighbours on whom notification of a planning application must be served. We propose to replace the existing arrangements with a requirement to notify two categories of neighbours. These would be firstly those listed in the parts of the community charges register which a member of the public may inspect
  650
  in respect of the address of the neighbouring property and, secondly, the owner of the neighbouring property. Notification of the owner will be by means of a notice addressed to "the owner" at the address of the neighbouring property. Those receiving the notification would have the same opportunity as at present to make representations to the planning authority about the application. The Scottish Development Department is currently undertaking a complete revision and updating of the General Development Order and the neighbour notification procedure will be altered as part of that revision during next year. In the meantime the valuation roll remains available for consultation.

  The introduction of these changes to the notification procedures will ensure that owners and occupiers of property continue to receive notification of planning applications affecting neighbouring property and that the task of undertaking neighbour notification does not place an undue burden on developers.

  Community Charge
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will reconsider the position of those with severe mental impairment from progressive disease in relationship to payment of the poll tax; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. and learned Friend has made it clear that if a practical way can be found of tackling the problem of determining the point at which a person with a progressive brain disorder should be exempt from the community charge, he will look closely at it.

  Fraud and Corruption (Councillors)
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has as to how many local authority councillors have been prosecuted and convicted for fraud or corruption in each of the past 10 years; and if he will list the authorities on which they served.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the achievements of his Department and his policies in helping small businesses over the last 12 months compared with the previous 12 months; and if he will publish the performance indicators by which his Department monitors those achievements and the statistical results of such monitoring.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 24 July 1989]: Small firms continue to play an important and dynamic role in the regeneration of the Scottish economy. Small firms also continue to benefit from the comprehensive schemes of support that the Government have introduced. In the main, these are delivered through the Scottish Development Agency, the Highlands and Islands Development Board and from the Industry Department for Scotland, where policy responsibility lies. In addition to providing services specific to Scotland, the SDA, HIDB and the Industry Department for Scotland are responsible for the delivery and monitoring in Scotland of United

  651
  Kingdom services on behalf of other Departments, including the Department of Employment and the Department of Trade and Industry. During 1988, there was a net increase of over 3,400 in the number of registered companies in Scotland. Between January 1980 and January 1989 there was a net increase of some 20,000 or over a half in the number of companies registered in Scotland. VAT returns indicate that between 1980 and 1987 the number of new businesses operating in Scotland showed a net increase of 13,400.

  The following describes the services available to small firms in Scotland during the periods 1987–88 and 1988–89 and some of their achievements.

  Regional Assistance

  IDS made offers to small firms in Scotland of regional selective assistance of £4 million in 1987–88 and £12 million in 1988–89. Under the revised regional development grant scheme, approvals to small firms amounted to £48 million in 1987–88 and £70 million in 1988–89. Information on the grant offered to small firms under the original RDG scheme is not available. Under both the investment and innovation elements of the regional enterprise grants scheme, some £2 million was offered to companies in Scotland in 1988–89.

  Better Business Services and Better Technical Services Schemes

  During the periods in question, the BBS scheme was administered by IDS, SDA and the HIDB. The scheme allows small companies to have access to subsidised professional business advice and in 1987–88 some 9,597 offers of assistance were made with an associated value of £2·9 million. In 1988–89 some 6,804 offers of assistance were made with an associated value of £3·1 million. The BTS scheme was available in Strathclyde and part of Tayside region and allowed small companies to have access to subsidised professional advice of a technical nature. In 1987–88, 1,720 offers were made with an associated value of £1 million. Support under the BTS scheme ceased on 31 March 1988.

  Scottish Development Agency

  SDA support for small business includes the provision of financial assistance, premises and a wide range of advisory services, including the small firms service in Scotland and the administration of DTI's consultancy initiatives, under the enterprise initiative. Under the consultancy initiatives, some 1,235 consultancy projects were undertaking during 1988–89. It is estimated that Scotland accounted for 10 per cent. of total GB expenditure on this scheme, compared with a 6·9 per cent. share of eligible firms. During 1987–88 the SDA had contact with 19,125 small companies. Some £2.7 million was invested in 692 small firms creating or safeguarding some 800 jobs. In addition, some 875 small companies received assistance with the costs of attending promotional events. Sixty small companies were provided with technical advice, while 30 received assistance with market research studies. In the year 1988–89, the agency had contact with 19,250 small firms. Some £1·8 million was invested in 92 small firms creating or safeguarding 1,600 jobs. In addition, 925 small companies received assistance with the costs of attending promotional events. Eighty
  652
  small firms were provided with technical advice while 40 companies received assistance with market research studies.

  Highlands and Islands Development Board

  As well as delivering the small firms service in its area, the HIDB undertakes a wide range of activities in support of business, most of which are small, to help them overcome the difficulties of operating in this peripheral and rural part of the United Kingdom. The measures taken include financial support to business, provision of factories and assistance with business advice and training. In 1987–88, the board approved 1,063 offers of financial assistance with an associated value of £14·4 million. This generated private sector investment of some £42·3 million and created or safeguarded 2,700 jobs. For the period 1988–89, the board approved 1,220 offers of financial assistance with an associated value of £25·3 million. This generated private sector support of £44·4 million and created or safeguarded 3,300 jobs. In the period 1987–88, the HIDB completed 6,090 sq m of factory floor space. In this period some 2,920 jobs were housed in HIDB factories. In the period 1988–89, the HIDB completed 12,553 sq m of factory floor space. In this period, some 3,130 jobs were housed in HIDB factories.

  Local Enterprise Trusts

  Local enterprise trusts have proved to be an important catalyst in fostering the enterprise culture in Scotland. The Government have continued to demonstrate their recognition of the valuable role played by the trusts, and the SDA provided financial support of £1·04 million to the 40 enterprise trusts in 1987–88, the latest year for which figures are available—an increase of over 46 per cent. over the previous year. This has triggered a further £3·28 million from the other public and private sector partners. During 1987–88 trusts in Scotland had contact with 25,000 clients from which 3,800 small businesses were formed. Companies assisted by enterprise trusts created some 9,000 new jobs. The SDA bases its financial assistance on its appraisal of each trust's annual management plan which contains details of the previous year's projects and objectives for the oncoming year.

  Deregulation

  The Scottish Office has responded fully to the deregulation initiative. This participation has resulted in an improved awareness within SO Departments of the needs of business and has led to a more systematic approach to assessing the financial and other burdens imposed on business by regulation. Scotland was the first area in the United Kingdom to set up a pilot Government business shop which provides small businesses with a single access point for advice on dealing with Government regulations. It is hoped that, with the co-operation of other participating regulatory Departments, the Government business shop will be permanently established in Glasgow once the pilot period has ended.

  Public Purchasing

  Earlier this year, the SDA, assisted by IDS, held two seminars on MOD procurement. These events attracted over 400 Scottish companies and as a result over 70 companies participated in face-to-face discussions with

  653
  MOD procurement staff. SDA will be embarking on a further series of seminars dealing with public purchasing issues in the near future.

  Employment Training
  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list all private sector companies appointed as training agents or training managers in Scotland for employment training schemes.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 17 July 1989]: The information requested is set out in the list.

  Training Agents

  Central Training

  Employment Training Scotland Limited

  Greater Edinburgh Training Association (GETA)

  Highland Training and Development Limited

  Lanarkshire Training Agency

  QCG Enterprises Limited

  Support Training

  The Training Agency Limited

  Training Managers

  Aberdeen Chamber of Commerce

  Aberdeen Enterprise Trust

  ABTA National Training Board

  ADM Limited

  Addapt Limited

  Agricultural Training Board

  A & M Projects

  AMARC (Training Education and Safety) Limited

  Angus Training Group Limited

  Anne Rodger

  Balloch Trust Enterprises Limited

  Business and Employment Skills Training Limited

  Central Chamber of Commerce

  Comet Group PLC

  Community Industry

  Dumbarton District Training Association

  Dundee Enterprise Trust

  Dundee and Tayside Chamber of Commerce and Industry

  East Kilbride and District Group Training

  Edinburgh Chamber of Commerce and Manufactures

  Edinburgh and District Engineering Training Association (EDETA)

  Employment and Training Sponsors (Scotland) Limited

  Fate

  Galloway Training Organisation

  Garnock Workspace Limited

  Glasgow College Enterprise Limited

  Glasgow Training Group (Motor Trade) Limited

  Grand Metropolitan Community Services Trust

  GRTA Limited

  Hairdressing Training Associates

  Henry Boot Training Limited

  Highland Perthshire Development Company Limited

  Highland Training Limited

  Hotel and Catering Training Board

  JHP Training Limited

  John Laurence (Glasgow) Limited

  Industrial Training Service Limited

  Intec Inverclyde

  Lanarkshire Enterprise Training Consortium

  Lagta Limited Employment Training Unit

  Lloyds British Training Services Limited

  May-Tag Limited

  MDS (Management Services) Limited

  Metcon Training

  Microcom Training Limited

  Mid-Grampian Employment Training

  Midscot Training Services Limited

  MI Technologies Limited

  Moray Firth Group Training Association

  MTC Limited

  Ness Training Consultants

  Newstart

  Offshore Petroleum Industry Training Board (OPITB)

  Omega Training Limited

  654

  Oriel Training Services

  Phoenix Employment Training

  Plastics Processing Industrial Training Board

  Radix Training (Scotland) Limited

  RDL Professional Services Limited

  Reid Consultants Limited

  Road Transport Industry Training Board

  RRW Associates Limited

  Sight and Sound Education Limited

  Simpson and Dalgarno Partnership

  Skillchoice Training (Central) Limited

  Stakis Hotels and Inns Limited

  Stirling Heatsave

  Strathclyde Training Agency

  Suliven Limited

  Sumlock Calculating Services Limited

  Support Training

  Tayside Training Services Limited

  Tayside Road Transport Group Training Association Limited

  Tektra Managing Agency Limited

  Training and Development Edinburgh Limited

  Training Services (Ayrshire) Limited

  Westwood Training Services

  Whiteleys College

  Wimpey Group Services Limited

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give for the years 1966, 1970, 1974, 1975, 1976, 1977, 1978, 1979, 1983, 1987 and the latest available full year(a) the total number of jobs by industrial category in Scotland (b) a breakdown of full-time and part-time employment in each year and (c) for each category including full-time and part-time jobs, the percentage increase or decrease between the last available full year and 1966.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 24 July 1989]: The information is not available in the precise form requested. Table 1 shows employment in 1966 and 1970 separately for men and women analysed by the 1968 standard industrial classification. There is no information available which separately identifies the number of women working part-time on this basis.

  Table 2 shows the number of male, female arid part-time female employees in employment at June 1971 and for each of the years requested up to June 1988, the latest year available, analysed by industrial division of the 1980 standard industrial classification.

  Table 3 shows the percentage increase or decrease in employment between June 1971, the earliest date for which estimates are available on the basis of the 1980 standard industrial classification and June 1988, the latest date for which employment estimates are available, consistent with the series shown.

  Estimates of the number of part-time male employees are not available for the years for which information has been requested.
  655

  Table 1

  Employees in employment at June: Scotland

  '000s

  Industry (standard industrial classification, 1968)

  1966

  1970

  Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing

  Male

  62

  50

  Female

  10

  9

  TOTAL

  73

  59

  Mining and Quarrying

  Male

  54

  38

  Female

  2

  1

  TOTAL

  56

  39

  Manufacturing Industries

  Male

  499

  488

  Female

  226

  221

  TOTAL

  726

  708

  Table 2

  Employees in employment, at June: Scotland

  Thousands

  Industry (1980 standard industrial classification)

  1971

  1974

  1975

  1976

  1977

  1978

  1979

  1 1983

  1 1987

  1 1988

  Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing1 (Division 0)

  Male

  47

  43

  42

  41

  41

  41

  41

  31

  25

  24

  Female

  8

  7

  7

  7

  7

  7

  7

  5

  5

  4

  Part-time female

  3

  3

  3

  3

  3

  3

  3

  2

  2

  2

  Total

  55

  50

  49

  49

  49

  48

  48

  37

  30

  28

  Energy and Water Supply (Division 1)

  Male

  64

  57

  56

  58

  58

  61

  64

  60

  38

  35

  Female

  6

  7

  7

  7

  7

  8

  8

  8

  7

  8

  Part-time female

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  2

  1

  1

  1

  Total

  71

  64

  63

  65

  66

  69

  72

  68

  46

  43

  Metal Manufacturing and Chemicals (Division 2)

  Male

  78

  75

  75

  70

  72

  70

  68

  46

  37

  36

  Female

  13

  13

  14

  13

  14

  15

  14

  9

  9

  10

  Part-time female

  2

  2

  2

  2

  3

  3

  3

  2

  1

  1

  Total

  92

  88

  88

  83

  86

  85

  82

  55

  46

  46

  Metal Goods, Engineering and Vehicles (Division 3)

  Male

  230

  232

  225

  214

  212

  212

  206

  159

  143

  142

  Female

  57

  64

  58

  53

  54

  51

  52

  36

  35

  36

  Part-time female

  5

  9

  8

  7

  8

  7

  6

  5

  6

  7

  Total

  287

  296

  283

  267

  266

  263

  258

  195

  178

  178

  Other Manufacturing (Division 4)

  Male

  157

  156

  144

  141

  142

  139

  140

  104

  90

  87

  Female

  141

  143

  130

  124

  128

  124

  125

  88

  84

  85

  Part-time female

  18

  23

  20

  19

  21

  20

  20

  15

  13

  11

  Total

  298

  299

  274

  265

  270

  263

  265

  193

  173

  172

  Construction (Division 5)

  Male

  140

  149

  152

  149

  142

  139

  143

  122

  128

  134

  Female

  8

  10

  10

  11

  11

  11

  11

  12

  11

  11

  Part-time female

  2

  3

  3

  4

  4

  4

  4

  4

  4

  4

  Total

  148

  159

  162

  160

  153

  150

  155

  134

  139

  145

  Distribution, Hotels and Catering; Repairs (Division 6)

  Male

  143

  146

  146

  147

  151

  154

  160

  157

  158

  163

  Female

  206

  221

  221

  222

  224

  222

  232

  214

  225

  235

  Part-time female

  80

  99

  106

  110

  111

  112

  120

  115

  129

  134

  Total

  349

  368

  367

  369

  374

  376

  392

  371

  384

  399

  Transport and Communication (Division 7)

  Male

  119

  113

  116

  112

  110

  112

  111

  98

  88

  86

  Female

  25

  25

  25

  25

  24

  24

  25

  21

  21

  22

  Part-time female

  4

  5

  5

  5

  5

  5

  5

  4

  4

  4

  Total

  144

  139

  141

  137

  134

  136

  135

  119

  109

  108

  656

  Industry (standard industrial classification, 1968)

  1966

  1970

  Construction

  Male

  177

  164

  Female

  10

  9

  TOTAL

  187

  173

  Gas, Electricity and Water

  Male

  31

  26

  Female

  4

  5

  TOTAL

  35

  31

  Service Industries

  Male

  519

  502

  Female

  525

  547

  TOTAL

  1,044

  1,049

  All Industries and Services

  Male

  1,342

  1,267

  Female

  777

  791

  TOTAL

  2,120

  2,058

  657

  Industry (1980 standard industrial classification)

  1971

  1974

  1975

  1976

  1977

  1978

  1979

  l 1983

  l 1987

  l 1988

  Banking, Insurance and Finance (Division 8)

  Male

  54

  58

  60

  59

  60

  61

  62

  69

  80

  83

  Female

  48

  53

  55

  56

  58

  56

  61

  71

  85

  90

  Part-time female

  8

  10

  11

  12

  12

  12

  13

  18

  20

  20

  Total

  102

  111

  114

  115

  118

  117

  123

  140

  165

  173

  Other Services (Division 9)

  Male

  184

  197

  205

  217

  209

  212

  211

  214

  223

  229

  Female

  274

  313

  331

  343

  346

  349

  362

  373

  400

  407

  Part-time female

  99

  126

  136

  142

  144

  146

  157

  170

  197

  198

  Total

  458

  510

  536

  560

  556

  561

  573

  587

  623

  636

  All Industries1 (Divisions 0–9)

  Male

  1,216

  1,227

  1,219

  1,210

  1,198

  1,200

  1,205

  1,060

  1,010

  1,020

  Female

  787

  857

  858

  861

  873

  867

  897

  839

  882

  908

  Part-time female

  224

  281

  294

  306

  312

  314

  332

  337

  378

  383

  Total

  2,003

  2,084

  2,076

  2,071

  2,071

  2,067

  2,102

  1,899

  1,892

  1,928

  lDue to a change of classification in September 1981 the figures for Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing include non-principal tenant farmers prior to 1981 and exclude these from September 1981. In 1981 there were an estimated 6,000 non-principal tenant farmers in Scotland.

  Table 3

  Employees in Employment, at June: Scotland percentage change between 1971 and 1988

  Male

  Female

  Part-time Female

  Total

  0 Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1 Energy and Water Supply

  -45

  +20

  -28

  -39

  2 Metal Manufacturing and Chemicals

  -53

  -28

  -18

  -50

  3 Metal Goods, Engineering and Vehicles

  -38

  -36

  +33

  -38

  4 Other Manufacturing

  -45

  -39

  -37

  -42

  5 Construction

  -4

  +30

  +84

  -2

  6 Distribution, Hotels and Catering; Repairs

  +14

  +14

  +66

  +14

  7 Transport and Communication

  -27

  -14

  -1

  -25

  8 Banking, Insurance and Finance

  +53

  +88

  +148

  +69

  9 Other Services

  +24

  +49

  +99

  +39

  0–9 All Industries2

  -16

  +15

  +71

  -3

  1 Due to the change in classification from September 1981 which resulted in non-principal tenant farmers being treated as self-employed, it is not possible to calculate the percentage change in employment over this period for Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing.

  2 The percentage change for All Industries between 1971 and 1988 has been estimated after deducting an estimated 6,000 male non-principal tenant farmers in 1971.

HEALTH

  NHS Reform
  Mr. Rathbone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what special allowance he has made in his plans for National Health Service reforms to ensure proper general practitioner services for small town hospitals.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  On 4 May I agreed with the GMSC negotiators that where GPs were providing a necessary service in the public sector, such as being a clinical assistant in a small hospital, they would be required by their terms of service to be available to their practice's patients on a minimum of four, rather than five days a week. This will ensure sufficient flexibility to allow GPs to continue their contracts with local hospitals.

  Mr. David Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how the proposals in the White Paper, "Working for Patients", will affect general practitioners' freedom to refer patients for treatment.

  Mr. Hague
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how general practitioners' ability to refer patients for treatment will be affected by the proposed reform of the National Health Service.
  658
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  When district health authorities place contracts, they will be expected to give effect to the referral patterns which local GPs want. They will need to consult closely with their GPs, therefore, in order to agree a range of contracts which make best use of their resources to secure the best services for their residents. As a result, local GPs will be much more closely involved in planning health care for their patients than at present. GPs will also have their freedom to refer increased, because for the first time they will be able to refer patients for NHS treatment in private hospitals. DHAs will be much better placed to take advantage of GPs' knowledge of their patients' needs.

  GP practice budget holders will of course have their freedom to refer increased because they will be able to negotiate their own preferred pattern of referral with hospitals and units using the taxpayers money at their disposal.

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress is being made on the implementation of the proposals in the White Paper, "Working for Patients".

  Mr. Mellor
  We are pleased to be able to say that good progress is being made on the implementation of our proposals for the Health Service. Consultation is taking place with a great many interested parties, including those
  659
  representing medical opinion, and we are working with NHS managers to ensure smooth implementation. Progress includes:
  receipt of 178 expressions of interest in self-governance from hospitals and other NHS services;
  publication of an initial guide on self-governing hospitals which has provided much more information about how self governing hospitals will operate;
  the establishment of the new NHS management executive and the NHS policy board;
  a major initiative to improve the quality of service is now under way;
  publication of a further working paper on the capital charging system;
  the first 56 hospitals are now in the process of installing new information systems;
  shortlisting for 90 FPC general manager posts is virtually complete and a number of appointments have already been made.
  medical audit systems are being developed at a cost of £2 million this year; and
  bids for the 100 extra consultant posts promised in the White Paper are due at the end of July.

  Mr. Stevens
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how education and training will be affected by the proposals in the White Paper, "Working for Patients".

  Mr. Carrington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the implications of the White Paper, "Working for Patients", for education and training.

  Mr. Mellor
  Since the White Paper "Working for Patients" was published, a number of working papers have been issued and these contain some further detail about training and education. The working paper, "Self-Governing Hospitals—An Initial Guide", advises that a consultation paper on training and education will be issued shortly, which will deal fully with these important issues.

  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received directly from members of the public about the reforms of the National Health Service.

  Mr. Mellor
  We have received more than 5,000 representations directly from members of the public in respect of our proposals for the Health Service.

  Nurses
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the number of nurses in the National Health Service at present; and what it was in 1979.

  Mr. Mellor
  Provisional figures show that at 30 September 1988 there were 404,000 whole-time equivalent nursing and midwifery staff (including agency staff) in the National Health Service in England. The comparable figure for September 1979 is 358,000 whole-time equivalents.

  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the progress of appeals by nurses with regard to regradings.

  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the progress of appeals by nurses with regard to regradings.

  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the progress of appeals by nurses with regard to regradings.
  660
  Mr. Freeman
  I refer the hon. Members to my reply to the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) earlier today.

  General Practitioners (Contract)
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent representations he has received about the new contract for general practitioners.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a further statement on the proposed contract for general practitioners.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I met Mr. Michael Wilson and his negotiating team from the General Medical Services Committee yesterday.

  The Government are proceeding with the preparation of the necessary amendments to regulations and to the GPs' statement of fees and allowances. Subject to Parliament's approval, the reforms to the GPs' contract will be introduced on 1 April 1990.

  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will next be meeting the chairman of the British Medical Association to discuss progress on negotiations over the general practitioners' contract.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will next be meeting the chairman of the British Medical Association to discuss progress on negotiations over the general practitioners' contract.

  Mr. John Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will next be meeting the chairman of the British Medical Association to discuss progress on negotiations over the general practitioners' contract.

  Mr. Caborn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will next be meeting the chairman of the British Medical Association to discuss progress on negotiations over the general practitioners' contract.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I have no plans at present to meet the chairman of the British Medical Association on this subject, but I met the chairman of the General Medical Services Committee and his negotiating team on 24 July.

  Mr. Irvine
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how the new general practitioners' contract will affect health promotion clinics and regular check-ups.

  Mr. Mellor
  The new contract will for the first time introduce a fee for GPs providing health promotion clinics. It will also require GPs to offer health check-ups to patients newly registering with them, and patients who have not seen their GP for three years.

  Mr. Janman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how the new general practitioners' contract will affect the performance of minor surgery by general practitioners.

  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health to what extent general practitioners will be able to carry out minor surgery under the terms of the new general practitioners' contract.

  Mr. Mellor
  The new contract will for the first time introduce a fee for suitably qualified GPs who provide
  661
  minor surgery services to patients. This will encourage the provision of minor surgery by GPs and relieve the pressure on out-patient departments.

  Mr. Conway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the implications in the new general practitioners' contract for the assessment of the health care of young children.

  Mr. Mellor
  The new contract will for the first time introduce a fee for GPs who provide child health surveillance services to children on their lists, according to programmes agreed by the district health authority. There will also be new incentives to encourage GPs to help achieve high levels of coverage for childhood immunisations. District health authorities will continue to be responsible for monitoring health care services for young children, and GPs will be required to keep them fully informed of the services they provide. DHAs will work in close co-operation with family practitioner committees.

  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the implications of the new general practitioners' contract for immunisation and screening policies.

  Mr. Mellor
  By introducing new payments linked to the achievement of specified levels of coverage for childhood immunisation and cervical cytology, the new contract will offer GPs a powerful incentive to help raise coverage among their patients.

  Mr. Curry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how health care in deprived areas will be affected by the new general practitioners' contract.

  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what will be the implications of the new general practitioners' contract for services in deprived areas.

  Mr. Mellor
  The new contract will help improve services in deprived areas. Changes to their remuneration system will encourage GPs to practise in areas of deprivation by recognising the special circumstances involved. In future family practitioner committees will be able to target funds for premises improvements and practice team expansion to improve services in these areas. The greater emphasis in the new contract on preventive care will mean that patients in deprived areas will benefit as GPs seek to improve the levels of protection against childhood diseases and cancer of the cervix.

  Mr. John Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the implications of the new general practitioners' contract for health care for elderly patients.

  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how the new general practitioners' contract will affect health care for elderly patients.

  Mr. Mellor
  The new contract will lead to improved services to elderly people. As a result of changes to their terms of service and remuneration system GPs will have a powerful incentive to strive to provide them with the best possible care. There will be a significantly increased capitation free for patients over the age of 75, and in return for this GPs will he expected to offer annually a thorough health assessment, including a home visit if the patient wishes.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how the new general practitioners' contract will affect preventive health care.
  662
  Dr. Goodson-Wickes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give details of how the new general practitioners' contract will affect preventive health care.

  Mr. Mellor
  The new contract forms an important part of our policy of encouraging health promotion and the prevention of ill-health. General practitioners' terms of service will make clear their role in these areas, and there will be new payments encouraging the provision of health promotion clinics, check-ups for newly registered patients and the achievement of high levels of coverage for cervical cancer screening and childhood immunisations.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the implications of the new general practitioners' contract for night visits by doctors.

  Mr. Mellor
  The hours during which a night visit fee may be claimed will be extended and a higher fee introduced for GPs who make their own visits or who arrange visits in a small rota of no more than 10 doctors. This will reward those doctors who ensure continuity of care to their patients during out-of-hours periods.

  Hospices
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much was provided by the Government in 1988–89 in grant to Help the Hospices.

  Mr. Mellor
  The Department made a grant of £400,000 on 9 March 1989 to Help the Hospices for distribution to local projects in short-term financial difficulty.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the cost and nature of the support given by his Department to the hospice movement.

  Mr. Mellor
  During 1988–89 the Government made an additional £1·3 million available to health authorities to distribute as a contribution to the costs incurred by voluntary hospices due to the nurses' pay award. It also made a grant of £400,000 to Help the Hospices for distribution to local projects in short-term financial difficulty. In addition, the Government provided separate funding for the AIDS hospices at the Mildmay hospital and London Lighthouse, £256,000 and £208,000 respectively. The bulk of NHS support for hospices comes from local health authorities, which are best placed to judge how the contribution of voluntary bodies can be integrated with the other services for which they are responsible.

  Smoking
  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent representations he has received about smoking.

  Mr. Freeman
  I receive a number of representations on this important subject, from a range of interested bodies.

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will publish the results of the 1988 Office of Population Censuses and Surveys survey of teenage smoking; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  The results of this survey were published yesterday in an Office of Population Censuses and Surveys report entitled "Smoking among secondary school children in England in 1988" [ISBN 0 11 691267 7]. Copies have been placed in the Library.
  663
  The results of the survey show that the decline in teenage smoking revealed by the 1986 survey has been confirmed, and there is evidence of a further decline in 1988. The prevalence of regular smoking among teenagers aged 11–15 is estimated at 7 per cent. for boys and 9 per cent. for girls. This is well below the level of 13 per cent. for both boys and girls seen in 1984. The results of this survey will be of great value in helping to determine the precise strategy to be used in the new teenage smoking campaign announced by the Prime Minister in January. This should encourage health workers, teachers and parents to continue their worthwhile efforts to persuade young people not to take up this dangerous habit.

  Eye Tests
  Mr. Robert Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on monitoring of the take-up of eye tests.

  Mr. Allen Adams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on monitoring of the take up of eye tests.

  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on monitoring of the take-up of eye tests.

  Mr. Allen McKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the monitoring of the take-up of eye tests.

  Mr. Mellor
  We intend to carry out a survey into the number of private sight tests later this year when the market has had time to become more stable.

  NHS (Scientists)
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what urgent measures he is taking in order to solve the problems of recruitment and retention of scientists in the National Health Service.

  Mr. Mellor
  We understand that the management side of the Scientific and Professional Staffs Council has set up a working party to investigate the recruitment and retention of scientists in the NHS and is currently considering its findings.

  Hospital Doctors
  Mr. David Martin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made on initiatives to reduce junior hospital doctors' hours.

  Mr. Kirkhope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on initiatives to reduce the hours worked by junior hospital doctors.

  Mr. Brandon-Bravo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps have been taken to reduce the hours worked by junior hospital doctors.

  Mr. Mellor
  The Government are committed to reducing further the onerous hours of some junior hospital doctors. There are two current initiatives. That launched in June 1988 aims to minimise the number of doctors with average weekly hours of duty in excess of 84. Interim reports from health authorities in January showed 664
  progress had been made but more needed to be done. The second initiative was launched earlier this month and involves studies to see whether the Government's long-term aim of 72 hours duty a week can be achieved within existing constraints. Final reports on both initiatives are due in October.

  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the number of hospital doctors in the National Health Service now; and what it was in 1979.

  Mr. Mellor
  The information is in the table:

  Figures, for England only, as at 30 September

  1979

  1987

  Hospital medical staff

  41,736

  46,394

  No-fault Compensation
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his Department's policy on the introduction of a no-fault compensation system for high-risk medical practitioners.

  Mr. Mellor
  The Department has no plans to introduce any kind of no-fault compensation scheme for medical practitioners. We consider that the basis for seeking compensation for injuries alleged to have been suffered as a result of medical negligence should continue to be through litigation in the courts.

  British Medical Association
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he last met the British Medical Association; and what subjects were discussed.

  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he will make a statement on his latest discussions with the British Medical Association regarding the White Paper, "Working for Patients."

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I last met the British Medical Association on 15 June when we talked about the Government's proposals for the Health Service. Although the BMA expressed opposition to some of the proposals, they continued to support a number of our planned reforms including medical audit, the principle of money following the patient, the extension of resource management and the greater involvement of doctors in management. Both sides expressed their unconditional support to the underlying principles of the Health Service.

  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he is now able to give an assessment of the current relations between his Department and the doctors within the British Medical Association membership.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  Although I very much regret the hostile and unconstructive stance that the BMA as an association has taken towards our plans for the Health Service, I know that there is strong support for the principles on which our reforms for the Health Service are based and for many of our individual proposals among doctors in the hospital service and in general practice.

  Hospitals (Self-governing Status)
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how public opinion is to be tested in Bradford over proposals for local hospitals to become self-governing trusts; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance he is issuing to health authority on arrangements for public consultation where groups have expressed an interest in pursuing the opting out of individual hospitals.

  Mr. Mellor
  I refer the hon. Members to the reply that my right hon. and learned Friend gave to the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) earlier today.

  Hospital Patients (Discharge)
  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to ensure that health authorities adopt the hospital discharge practices outlined in circular HC (89)5, "Discharge of Patients from Hospital".

  Mr. Freeman
  Circular HC(89)5 states that, in the light of the guidance held in the circular, district and special health authorities should report on action taken to their regional health authority or, in the case of special health authorities, to the Department by 31 March 1990.

  Hospitals (West Midlands)
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he has had any discussions with Sir James Ackers about his plans to redevelop the hospital system in the west midlands.

  Mr Mellor
  Yes, recent discussions have covered hospital services in Birmingham, for which the region has made proposals for reorganisation which are currently the subject of preliminary local consultation.

  Wheelchairs (Leicestershire)
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the provision of wheelchairs by the Leicestershire health authority.

  Mr. Mellor
  Provision of wheelchairs is a matter for the district health authority concerned and the hon. Member may care to contact the chairman of Leicestershire health authority for the information that he seeks.

  Midwives (Grading)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the number of settlements in the midwives' regrading dispute; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  We do not collect this information centrally.

  Doctors (Northern Region)
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he last met doctors in the northern region; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I was in Newcastle on 3 and 4 July for meetings to discuss the NHS White Paper "Working for Patients" and I met doctors on both occasions.

  Patients (Bury)
  Mr. Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients are being treated per year in the Bury district health authority; and how many were treated in 1979.

  Mr. Freeman
  The information requested is given in the table.

  Patients treated, NHS hospitals, Bury district health authority, 1979 and 1987–88

  1979

  1987–88

  Percentage increase

  In-patient cases treated

  17,768

  23,130

  30·2

  Day cases

  1,621

  2,421

  49·4

  New out-patients

  22,474

  24,589

  9·4

  Total out-patient attendances

  99,889

  109,596

  9·7

  Source: Returns: SH3 (1979 data), SH3a, KH09 and KH18.

  General Practitioners (Lists)
  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State far Health what is the latest figure he has as to the average size of a general practitioner's list.

  Mr. Mellor
  The average list size in England for unrestricted principals at 1 October 1987 was 2,020, at 1 October 1978 it was 2,312. The provisional figure for 1 October 1988 is 1,999.

  Performance Indicators
  Mr. Neale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Heali.h what conclusions he draws from work on analysing performance indicators.

  Mr. Mellor
  The booklet "Comparing Health Authorities" published by the Department in April 1988, copies of which are in the Library, gave examples of some of the conclusions drawn from work on analysing performance indicators. These include:Cost per case for acute in-patient care: Even when standardised for specialty mix and the costs of teaching hospitals and London, this Indicator in 1986–87 showed that costs in some districts are more than 15 per cent. higher or lower than might be expected.
  Length of stay: The Indicator for average length of stay in general surgery in 1986–87, standardised for age, sex and clinical condition, showed figures in some district s over 40 per cent. more than the national figure and in others more than 30 per cent. less. There are similar variations for other specialties.
  Throughput: Throughput for general surgery in 1986–87 standardised for age, sex and diagnosis was in some districts over 40 per cent. higher than the national average and in others over 30 per cent. lower than the national average. There are similar variations in other specialties.

  These show marked scope for improvements in performance by significant parts of the service.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made on establishing performance indicators.

  Mr. Day
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on progress in establishing performance indicators.

  Mr. Mellor
  Sets of performance indicators have now been published by the Department for 1983–84, 1984–85. 1985–86 and 1986–87. Indicators have been increasingly
  667
  important in review cycles establishing a key role in addressing variations in performance. Last year districts were asked to carry out an analysis of the four-year trend in their indicators and to report to their authority members. This underlined the role of indicators in the monitoring and management of services at the local level. Research completed in 1987 showed widespread acceptance and use of the indicators by all levels of Health Service management.

  General Practitioners (Pay)
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the level of general practitioners' remuneration now; and what it was in 1979.

  Mr. Mellor
  The intended average net remuneration for general practitioners in 1989–90 is £31,105. For 1979–80 it was £12,830. These figures exclude GPs' reimburseable practice expenses.

  Meat Tenderisers
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he plans any new studies on the effects on human health of eating meat treated with tenderisers.

  Mr. Freeman
  No new Government-funded studies on the effects on human health of eating meat treated with tenderisers are planned. I am not aware of any other studies in progress elsewhere.

  Abortion
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he has any plans to revise the financial regulation on private abortion clinics and their referring agencies.

  Mr. Freemman
  No.

  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many conceptions in 1986, 1987 and 1988(a) led to maternities, (b) were terminated under the terms of the Abortion Act 1967 among residents of England and Wales aged 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 years, 22 to 24 years, 25 to 29 years, 30 to 34 years, 35 to 39 years and 40 years and over; and what percentage (a) represents of (b).

  Mr. Freeman
  Some conceptions occurring in 1988 would lead to maternities in 1989 and this information is not yet available. Data for 1986 and provisional data for 1987 are as follows. All pregnancies of women usually resident in England and Wales which led to a maternity or termination by abortion under the 1967 Act are included (and those which led to a spontaneous abortion are excluded).

  Number of conceptions

  Age of woman at conception

  Leading to maternities

  Terminated by abortion1

  Maternities per 100 abortions

  1986

  All ages

  671,259

  147,658

  455

  Under 11

  2

  0

  70

  11

  1

  0

  12

  10

  14

  13

  107

  158

  14

  809

  1,171

  69

  15

  3,293

  3,629

  91

  668

  Number of conceptions

  Age of woman at conception

  Leading to maternities

  Terminated by abortion1

  Maternities per 100 abortions

  16

  8,933

  6,492

  138

  17

  16,101

  8,675

  186

  18

  22,456

  9,721

  231

  19

  27,419

  9,786

  280

  20

  32,348

  10,028

  323

  21

  37,767

  9,882

  382

  22–24

  138,241

  24,865

  556

  25–29

  225,557

  28,242

  799

  30–34

  115,352

  17,672

  653

  35–39

  37,503

  12,763

  294

  40 and over

  5,360

  4,560

  118

  1987

  All ages

  689,452

  160,948

  428

  Under 11

  1

  1

  72

  11

  2

  2

  12

  16

  13

  13

  126

  185

  14

  736

  1,163

  63

  15

  3,304

  3,586

  92

  16

  9,415

  7,097

  133

  17

  15,915

  8,894

  179

  18

  23,114

  10,534

  219

  19

  27,911

  11,137

  251

  20

  32,808

  10,904

  301

  21

  38,046

  10,778

  353

  22–24

  140,590

  28,750

  489

  25–29

  233,178

  31,468

  741

  30–34

  120,131

  18,910

  635

  35–39

  38,186

  12,601

  303

  40 and over

  5,973

  4,925

  121

  1 Legal terminations under 1967 Abortion Act.

  Note: 1987 data are provisional.

  Prescriptions
  Mr. McCrindle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what form recent representations on the proposals regarding prescriptions in the National Health Service White Paper have taken.

  Mr. Mellor
  We have received a large number of representations in respect of the NHS White Paper plans for indicative drug budgets. These have come from a wide range of members of the community including GPs, community health councils, pharmaceutical companies, bodies representing patients suffering from chronic illness and members of the public. In response we have been able to provide unequivocal reassurances that indicative drug budgets will enable patients to receive all the drugs they require, that there will be no disincentive to GPs to accept patients requiring expensive courses of drug treatment and that there will be no change to the range or quality of appliances available to patients nor to the existing arrangements for certain categories of patients to receive free prescriptions.

  Waiting lists
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients are currently on hospital waiting lists; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  The latest available figures are for 30"Hospital In-patient Waiting Lists—England", a copy of which is in the Library.
  669
  Mr. Roger King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the percentage reduction in the number of patients waiting longer than 12 months for an operation in the South Birmingham health authority area in the last year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Mellor
  Between September 1987 and September 1988 there was a 48 per cent. reduction in the number of patients waiting more than a year for treatment in the surgical specialties in the South Birmingham health authority.

  Mental Patients
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about his Department's plans for provision of help to mental hospital patients.

  Mr. Freeman
  I refer the hon. Member to the statement that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health made to the House on community care on 12 July 1989, and to the written answer that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. Goodlad) on 13 July at columns 620–25.

  NHS Staff (Information Skills)
  Dr. Twinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress is being made in training National Health Service staff in information skills.

  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans there are for training National Health Service staff in information skills.

  Mr. Mellor
  On 28 June the NHS management executive and the NHS training authority launched a strategy for training Health Service staff in information management and technology. As part of this launch, we announced a programme of 20 centrally funded projects worth £4½ million to develop training courses and material in support of health authorities' implementation of the strategy.

  The importance of training cannot be overemphasised. The NHS is becoming increasingly dependent upon accurate and timely information for the effective and efficient management of health services, both in the acute sector and in the community. This will inevitably mean larger numbers of more powerful computer-based information systems. The people who design and run the systems, those who put the data in and those who interpret and use the information they provide must all be trained if they are to do their jobs properly. The strategy will provide a very useful framework within which Health Authorities can make the arrangements that best suit their local needs.

  General Practitioners
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many general practitioners were under contract to the National Health Service in 1979; how much this cost; and what were the comparable figures in 1988.

  Mr. Sumberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the number of general practitioners now; and what it was in 1979.

  Mr. Mellor
  The figures are as follows:
  670

  Year on 31 October

  1979

  1987

  1 1988

  Number of unrestricted principals2

  21,357

  24,992

  25,322

  Cost of general medical services3 (£ million)

  468

  125

  1,402

  1Provisional.

  2Doctors in contract with FPCs in England to provide unrestricted services.

  3Cost of the general medical services in England, excluding the cost of drugs and appliances prescribed by GPs and the administrative costs, for years 1979–80, 1987–88 and (provisional) 1988–89

  Centre for Applied Microbiological Research
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he plans to review the future of the centre for applied microbiological research.

  Mr. Freeman
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) on 19 July at columns 202–3.

  Cook-chill Meals
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proposals he has to monitor the effects of nutrient depletion on long-stay hospital patients whose diet comprises cook-chill meals.

  Mr. Freeman
  An expert group which recently reviewed the cook-chill guidelines concluded that, provided the guidelines are followed, food produced by the cook-chill method is as nutritious as food produced by conventional catering. Regional and district health authorities are responsible for monitoring hospital catering services.

  Child Care
  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received on the implications of the Children Bill[Lords] for child care.

  Mr. Mellor
  The Bill has been generally welcomed. Many detailed points have been considered during the Bill's progress in Parliament.

  Consultants
  Mr. Colin Shepherd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many hospital doctors are currently qualified to become consultants.

  Mr. Mellor
  Appointment to consultant posts is made on the advice of advisory appointments committees. Appointments are normally made from the senior registrar grade. In 1987 there were 3,215 senior registrars in the hospital service in England, of whom 500 had been in the grade for four years or more.

  Ancillary Services
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he last met representatives of the Health Service trade unions to discuss the privatisation of ancillary services.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Government's policy is for NHS ancillary services to be subject to competitive tendering—not privatisation. Competitive tendering was among a
  671
  number of topics discussed when my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State met the TUC health services committee on 1 March 1989.

  Trent RHA (Resources)
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he is satisfied that the resources available to the Trent regional health authority are sufficient to meet the needs of areas like that served by the Rotherham health authority.

  Mr. Freeman
  This year Trent regional health authority received a real terms increase in funding of 2·9 per cent.—higher than the national average increase of 2·7 per cent. The region subsequently received additional moneys to help meet the cost of the review body awards (£9·6 million) and NHS review implementation (£2·5 million). Allocation of funds to individual district health authorities is a matter for the regional health authority.

  Phoenix House Trust
  Mr. Michael Martin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what public funds have been given to the Phoenix House Trust in each of the years from 1986–88.

  Mr. Freeman
  The provision and funding of direct client services for drug misusers is the responsibility of the local statutory authorities and the Government have also provided them with special earmarked funds for drug services. However, under the central funding initiative set up by the Department in 1983 to pump-prime community-based services for drug misusers, Phoenix House received grants totalling over £1·1 million. Each grant was for a period of three years. In each of the years referred to by the hon. Member Phoenix House received the following amounts in support of its local residential rehabilitation facilities:—

  £

  1985–86

  135,055

  1986–87

  404,276

  1987–88

  309,234

  1988–89

  59,000

  I understand that Phoenix House has also received support from Home Office funds.

  Artificial Limbs
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the cash limit for the disablement services centre for 1989–90; what number of artificial limbs this was estimated to cover; how many have been produced since the beginning of the financial year to the latest available date; what contingency plans exist for continued production in the event of demand for these limbs outstripping expected quotas; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  The cash limit for the Disablement Services Authority for 1989–90 is £94·231 million. The authority is required to keep its total spending, of which expenditure on artificial limbs is a part, within this figure. Questions about the detail of its spending should be addressed to the authority.

  Single European Act
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his assessment of the implications of the Single European Act in 1992 on the health care provided in Britain.

  Mr. Mellor
  The Single European Act (SEA) commits the European Community to the aim of progressively establishing a single market by the end of 1992. The provision of heal th care is not directly affected by the SEA and remains a domestic matter. There are however a number of proposals concerned with the free movement of goods, services and people throughout the Community, which may have an indirect effect on health. The main areas affected by European Community legislation and legislative processes are pharmaceuticals, medical equipment, tobacco products and the mutual recognition of professional qualifications.

  Cyclotron Machines
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he has requested an evaluation of the performance of the cyclotron machine at Clatterbridge hospital, the Wirral; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  The treatment provided by this facility is being evaluated by the Medical Research Council, which will keep the Department informed of progress as appropriate.

  Toxocariasis
  Sir David Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his latest estimate of the number of people in England and Wales infected by dog-related toxocariasis; and how serious he estimates the threat of this disease to be to human beings.

  Mr. Freeman
  The provisional number of laboratory reports in 1988 from England, Wales and (all) Ireland to the Public Health Laboratory Service's communicable disease surveillance centre is 54. The seriousness of toxocariasis varies from mild pulmonary symptoms and fever to permanent loss of vision.

  Erith Hospital
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received concerning Erith hospital.

  Mr. Freeman
  Since the previous reply to my hon. Friend on 3 November 1988 at column 753, one letter has been received from him, two from another hon. Member, and one from a member of the public.

  Community Services (Mentally Handicapped)
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidelines his Department has given to regional and district health authorities about risk-taking policies becoming part of the format for developing community services for people with a mental handicap.

  Mr. Freeman
  None. However, in respect of general provision for those with a mental handicap, "Needs and Responses" published in June 1989 draws attention to the need for all agencies participating in the provision of care for those with special needs to have jointly agreed guidelines on risk taking. A copy is in the Library.

  Radiotherapy (Delays)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many National Health Service patients have been identified to have died because of delays in receiving radiotherapy doses due to(a) shortages of hospital physicists and (b) other causes.

  Mr. Freeman
  I am not aware of evidence of deaths attributable to these causes. If the hon. Member has a particular cause for concern, perhaps he will write to me.

  Hospital Physicists
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many hospital physicists there are; what are their pay scales; and what duties they perform.

  Mr. Mellor
  At 30 September 1987 there were 790 (whole-time equivalents) physicists employed in the NHS in England; the role of the medical physicist is very varied and the specific duties will depend on an individual's contract with his/her employing authority; the salary scales are as follows:

  Pay scales as at 1 April 1988

  1988–89

  £

  Probationer—lower qualification

  7,378

  7,949

  8,255

  8,548

  8,866

  9,158

  9,452

  9,770

  Probationer—higher qualification

  8,255

  8,548

  8,866

  9,158

  9,452

  9,770

  10,063

  10,369

  Basic

  8,548

  8,866

  9,158

  9,452

  9,770

  10,063

  10,568

  11,073

  Senior

  11,778

  12,163

  12,814

  13,440

  14,091

  14,742

  15,394

  Principal

  15,180

  15,899

  16,630

  17,347

  18,078

  18,810

  19,527

  20,258

  674

  1988–89

  £

  20,989

  Top grade

  21,136

  21,893

  23,090

  24,193

  25,297

  Top grade—with greater responsibility

  23,914

  24,672

  25,869

  26,971

  28,088

  Negotiations on a pay increase from 1 April 1989 are still continuing and an interim offer of 5 per cent. has been made.

  Medicines Commission
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to receive the annual report of the Medicines Commission for 1988.

  Mr. Mellor
  I have received the report and copies have today been laid before both Houses of Parliament in accordance with the requirements of section 5(2) of the Medicines Act 1968.

  Bound volumes will shortly be placed in the Libraries containing the 1988 reports of the Medicines Commission, the Committee on Safety of Medicines, the Veterinary Products Committee, the British Pharmacopoeia Commission, the Commitee on the Review of Medicines and the Committee on Dental and Surgical Materials. The bound volumes include a record of the personal and non-personal interests in the pharmaceutical industry of members of these advisory bodies, with the exception of the Veterinary Products Committee for whom only personal interests are recorded.

  I am glad to pay tribute to the valuable work done in the public interest by the distinguished members of the Medicines Act advisory bodies.

  Care in the Community
  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what consideration has been given to the provision of housing alterations and adaptations for elderly and mentally disabled people being discharged into the community from long-stay hospitals; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  Elderly and mentally disabled people are eligible for assistance for house alterations under the provisions of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970, and are also eligible for help under the home improvement grant schemes run by local authorities. We would expect health authorities and local authorities to liaise as necessary over any adaptation needed for an eligible patient who is to be discharged.

  Resource Management Initiative
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish his Department's evaluation or the resource management initiative in hospitals.
  675
  Mr. Freeman
  The Department intends to evaluate the resource management initiative in October 1989.

  Health Service Commissioner
  Mr. Roger King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to receive the annual report of the Health Service Commissioner for 1988–89.

  Mr. Mellor
  The Health Service Commissioner has, as in previous years, made a report on the performance of his functions in England, Scotland and Wales. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales presented the report to the House on Thursday 13 July. It was published on 13 July (House of Commons Paper No. 457) and copies are available from the Vote Office.

  Midwives
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health by what percentage the number of midwives working in the National Health Service has increased over the last 10 years; and by what percentage midwives' pay rates have increased since last year.

  Mr. Mellor
  There has been a 28 per cent. increase in the number of midwives working in the NHS in England in the 10 years up to September 1987. Midwives' pay rates have increased on average by over 28 per cent. since March last year.

  Foetal Material (Research)
  Mr. Sumberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he is now in a position to publish the report of the committee set up last year to review the report of the advisory group on the use of foetal material and foetuses for research; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  Together with my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales I am arranging for the report of the committee to review the guidance on the use of foetal material and foetuses for research (Cm. 762) to be published today. A copy has been placed in the Library. We are most grateful to the Rev. Dr. John Polkinghorne, FRS and his committee for producing their report on this complex and sensitive matter in just over a year.

  The Government accept the Committee's main recommendations which are that:
  The use in research of foetuses showing signs of life is no longer in general to be permitted (the Peel code permitted this in certain circumstances);
  The mother's consent to the use of foetal tissue for research of therapy is required;
  The mother's consent for such purposes should not be sought until she has given her consent to the termination of pregnancy. She should not be informed of the specific use which may be made of foetal tissue, lest this may influence her decision to have her pregnancy terminated;
  The Government should begin negotiations with the Medical Research Council and relevant professional bodies with a view to setting up an intermediary body which would receive tissue for research or therapy from centres willing to provide it. Those wishing to undertake research or therapy involving foetal tissue would obtain it from this intermediary. The committee's recommendation is founded on the principle of keeping the practice of abortion separate from the use to which any tissue might be put.
  676
  The principal change proposed by the committee is a substantial revision of the guidance on the use of foetuses for research in the Peel report published in 1972 in the light of subsequent developments including the use of foetal tissue in transplants involving patients suffering from Parkinson's disease. Letters are being sent to all health authorities in Great Britain commending the use of the revised code in the NHS and to all proprietors of private sector facilities approved under section 2 of the Abortion Act 1967.

  The Government will actively pursue the other recommendations in the report and in particular will shortly begin discussions with the Medical Research Council and the relevant professional bodies with a view to setting up the intermediary body which the committee recommends should become the sole agency in this country from which those wishing to carry out research or treatment involving the use of foetal tissue should obtain it. The committee recommended that its report should be kept under regular review with the professional bodies concerned. I will arrange for this to be done on a five-yearly basis.

  Special Hospitals Service Authority
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if, pursuant to the reply to the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs) on 3 July,Official Report, column 48, he is now able to provide details of the membership of the new Special Hospitals Service Authority.

  Mr. Freeman
  With the agreement of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department, we have decided that the authority's membership should reflect the Government's proposals for health authority membership in the White Paper, "Working for Patients". Accordingly, there will be five non-executive members, including the chairman, and four executive members—the chief executive, medical and nursing advisers and a finance director.

  I am pleased to announce that Dr. Donald Dick, a consultant psychiatrist, a vice-president of the Royal College of Psychiatrists, and former director of the Health Advisory Service, and Mr. James Collier, a business consultant and former deputy secretary in my Department, have accepted my invitation to serve as members of the authority. The names of the two remaining non-executive members will be announced shortly, following further consultation with my right hon. Friend.

  The executive members are to be appointed following open competition for the posts in question. The first of these appointments has now been made: Mr. Charles Kaye, currently district general manager, Basingstoke and North Hampshire health authority, will be joining the authority as its chief executive. Arrangements for the selection of the authority's other senior managers have been put in hand, and the outcome will be announced in due course.

  I am also pleased to announce that, as a result of a selection process based on open competition, Dr. Diana Dickens has been appointed general manager, Rampton hospital and Mr. Alan Franey, general manager at Broadmoor hospital. The selection process for the appointment of general manager, Moss Side and Park Lane hospitals, is continuing and, until its completion, interim arrangements are being made for management of those hospitals.

  Infectious Disease Reporting
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the operation of the system of infectious disease reporting set up under the Local Government Act 1974.

  Mr. Freeman
  The statutory basis for the system of infectious disease reporting in England and Wales is now contained in the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984 and the Public Health (Infectious Diseases) Regulations 1988.

  Medical practitioners are required to notify cases of certain infectious disease to local authority proper officers who are required to pass data on to other bodies including district health authorities and the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys. Serious outbreaks of disease and individual cases of particular diseases must also be reported to the chief medical officer. In practice surveillance of infectious disease in the population draws upon various sources of data apart from these notifications, for example school sickness records, general practitioner reports, laboratory reports, hospital data, death registration and local surveys.

  We announced last July that we accepted the general principles advanced by the chief medical officer's report on "Public Health in England" and that we would be taking a number of steps to carry forward its recommendations. To this end the Department has set up a review of the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984. We will be issuing a consultation paper later this year.

DEFENCE

  Radiation
  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent advice he has received from the National Radiological Protection Board with respect to recommendations for further studies on mortality and cancer incidents among British participants in United Kingdom atmospheric nuclear weapons tests and experimental programmes.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  On 28 January 1988 the NRPB, in collaboration with the Imperial Cancer Research Fund, published its epidemiological report on mortality and cancer incidence amongst British participants in the United Kingdom atmospheric nuclear weapons test programme. The report included data up to the first of January 1984. Since that time NRPB has continued to accumulate data on mortality and cancer incidence amongst both participants and the control group. The NRPB has now advised that, in order to provide a reliable assessment of the further accumulated data for the period 1 January 1984 to 1 January 1989, it will be necessary to conduct a full-scale validation and analysis exercise. Following this advice, we have decided to set in hand a further study as proposed by the NRPB and ICRF, which are the independent experts on these matters.

  On the advice of the NRPB and ICRF, the methodology will be the same as that adopted for the original study. They hope to be in a position to report on this further study by the end of 1991, though this timetable is subject to any unforeseen difficulties they may encounter in the validation and analysis of the data.
  678
  The NRPB's recommendation and the decision to proceed with this further study are not based on any new and worrying evidence, but rather on a wish to be able to give a definitive statement on whether the overall picture has changed as a result of the further five years follow-up. The MOD and other Government Departments and agencies will, to the extent that it is available, provide all the information sought by the NRPB and ICRF in support of this further study.

  EC (Defence Advisory Team)
  Sir Dudley Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what briefing and assistance he is giving the defence advisory team set up by Mr. Delors, the European Commissioner.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  We are not aware of the existence of such a team.

  Air-launched Missiles
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will outline options that are under consideration by the Government with regard to the procurement of an air-launched missile to replace the existing free-fall nuclear bombs.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I have nothing to add to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) on 17 July at column 71.

  Warheads
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what reduction in types of warhead and their numbers is envisaged by the statement made in paragraph 9 on page 12 of the Statement on the Defence Estimates, Cm. 675–1.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Any changes to the number of weapons mentioned in the Statement on the Defence Estimates will depend on modernisation decisions which have yet to be taken.

  HERO Unsafe Weapons
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many weapons systems classified HERO unsafe in the possession of the United States armed forces are stored, transported or deployed in the United Kingdom or its territorial waters.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I understand that there are no such systems present in the United Kingdom or its territorial waters.

  EMR Emitters
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what account is taken of the locations of large EMR emitters such as radio, telephone and television transmitters, when the storage, transportation or deployment of weapons is involved.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  My Department maintains a computer data base of all high intensity radio transmitting areas in the United Kingdom. This information is taken into account in all decisions involving the storage, transportation, or deployment of weapons.

  United States Forces (Payments)
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the estimated total amounts of official payments by the United States forces in the United Kingdom to British firms and agencies other than central Government plus private expenditure by United States personnel in the United Kingdom, for each financial year since 1979–80; and if he will make a statement on trends in these figures in this period.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The estimated expenditure by the United States forces on purchases made directly from the private sector, including personal expenditure, is as follows:

  £ million

  1979–80

  185

  1980–81

  213

  1981–82

  289

  1982–83

  317

  1983–84

  441

  1984–85

  422

  1985–86

  499

  1986–87

  557

  1987–88

  589

  1988–89

  564

  Defence Estimates
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will state the reasons for the increases in project cost and the extension of the period of peak expenditure for the type 23 frigates, set out in the major equipment projects tables in the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1989" and the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1988";

  (2) what are the reasons for the increase in project cost for the GWS26 Mod 1 vertical launch Sea Wolf missile system, set out in the major equipment projects tables in the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1989" and the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1988".

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The Statement on the Defence Estimates tables show the cost and peak expenditure periods of projects on order or in clear prospect at the time the information was compiled. The Statement on the Defence Estimates 1989 therefore takes into account a larger number of type 23 frigates and VLSW missile systems than that in the Statement on the Defence Estimates 1988.

  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the reasons for the increase in expenditure between 1988–89 and 1989–90 in the category "Extramural research: Overseas", set out in table 3.3 of the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1989" volume two.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The difference between the 1988–89 and 1989–90 Estimates in the overseas category of extramural research in table 3.3 of the Statement on the Defence Estimates 1989, volume (Cm 675-II) arises principally from the payment through Defence Votes of the United Kingdom's contribution to the European trans-sonic wind tunnel (ETW) which has now entered the construction phase.

  Low Flying
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list all alterations made to low flying avoidance areas and transit areas since August 1988, giving in each case the date of the alteration and the reason for the alteration.

  Mr. Neubert
  No. It is not our practice to publish detailed information on the United Kingdom low flying system. The system is, however, kept under continuous review and minor changes are made frequently, to improve the operation of the system and to take account of new developments.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the percentage increase in 1988 in the airspace over land in the United Kingdom which is available for military low flying.

  Mr. Neubert
  I regret that the information requested by the hon. Member is not available.

  Frigate Project
  Mr. Speed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the up-to-date progress of the NATO frigate project; and how much money his Department has spent on this so far.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The contract for project definition was signed in January and is expected to take two years to complete.

  The next milestone is a review of progress by all eight NATO nations during this autumn, when the United Kingdom will also consider the alignment between the programmes for the ship and its major weapons systems.

  My Department's expenditure to June 1989 amounts to approximately £4·5 million.

  Creches
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he has received any recent representations about pilot or permanent workplace creches and similar incentives further to encourage the return to employment of women in his Department; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  We are planning to establish in 1990 a nursery for the children of staff working in central London. We are also considering what might be done to provide child care in other locations throughout the United Kingdom.

  Other policies designed to encourage the return to employment of women working in the MOD are:
  More flexible working patterns at all levels (for example part-time work and job sharing).
  combining working in the home and in the office.
  the granting of up to 5 years maternity leave.
  "Keeping in Touch" schemes, involving periods of casual work, for staff on temporary absence from the Department.
  the use of unpaid leave to allow for care of children during school holidays.

  Aldermaston (Flooding)
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the recent flooding of the atomic weapons research establishment at
  681
  Aldermaston; whether underground bunkers and the underground railway were flooded; and to what extent research programmes were interrupted or adversely affected.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Heavy local rainfall on 6 July 1989 caused minor flooding in some buildings at the atomic weapons establishment, Aldermaston. Research programmes were not significantly interrupted or adversely affected.

  Flight Simulators
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many flight simulators are available to the Royal Air Force; when they entered service; and which aircraft they simulate.

  Mr. Neubert
  A total of 43 simulators are available to the RAF as follows:

  Aircraft type

  Numbers

  Entered service

  Air Combat

  1

  1986

  Buccaneer

  2

  pre-1975

  Chinook

  1

  Time hired on a commercial system

  Harrier GR3

  2

  pre-1975

  Harrier GR5

  1

  Time hired from Spanish airforce

  Hawk

  3

  1977

  Hawk

  2

  1978

  Hercules

  1

  1983

  Hercules

  1

  1984

  Hercules

  1

  1985

  Jaguar

  3

  pre-1975

  Jet Provost

  4

  pre-1975

  Jetstream

  1

  1977

  Nimrod

  3

  pre-1975

  Phantom

  3

  pre-1975

  Puma

  1

  Time hired on commercial simulator

  Tornado F3

  4

  1988

  Tornado GR1

  1

  1982

  Tornado GR1

  2

  1983

  Tornado GR1

  1

  1984

  Tornado GR1

  1

  1985

  Tristar—500

  1

  Time hired on commercial simulator

  VC10 C1

  1

  1987

  VC10 K1

  1

  1987

  Victor

  1

  pre-1975

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence(1) what of his policy towards the use of flight simulators by the aircrew of the Royal Air Force; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what studies his Department has carried out to determine the extent to which low flying training may be sustained by the use of flight simulators

  Mr. Neubert
  Simulation is an important element in training military pilots, particularly in procedures,682
  instrument flying and cockpit familiarisation. The extent to which low flying training might be substituted by the use of simulators is kept under review but simulators currently in service with the Royal Air Force do not reproduce the necessary environment with sufficient fidelity to provide an adequate substitute for low level tactical flying training.

  Armour Piercing Weapons
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of Stale for Defence what agreements his Department has entered into with the United States Government to develop jointly a hand-held armour piercing weapon; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  None. There has, however, been a discussion between officials on the possible benefits of a exchange of data.

  Laser Systems
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether his Department intends to place orders for multiple integrated laser engagement systems for use by the Army; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  We are looking into the requirement and suitable procurement arrangements for this type of training equipment for the British Army. We expect that the decision on whether to proceed will be made before the end of the year.

  Lodging Allowances
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will publish in the Official Report a table showing for each rank of serving officer in the armed forces between the rank equivalent to an army captain and a major-general, inclusive, the lodging etc. allowances payable to those having to rent accommodation in London while serving in the Ministry of Defence.

  Mr. Neubert
  Personnel for whom no public accommodation is available, and who are therefore required to rent accommodation, are paid lodging allowance as follows:

  £ per day

  Rank

  Rate A

  Rate B

  Rate C

  Captain or equivalent

  20·11

  14·33

  18·81

  Major and Lieutenant Colonel or equivalents

  22·54

  16·76

  21·24

  Colonel and above, or equivalents

  25·62

  19·84

  24·32

  Notes:

  1. A rates of lodging allowance are payable to personnel who would be eligible for free food and accommodation if they were occupying service single accommodation. As virtually all personnel are required to pay a food charge, rate A is mainly used as the basis for calculating rates B and C.

  2. B rates are payable to personnel who, if they were occupying public single accommodation, would be required to pay food and accommodation charges.

  3. C rates are payable to those married unaccompanied personnel who, if they were occupying public single accommodation, would be required to pay the married unaccompanied rate of food charge but would be eligible for free accommodation.

  Environmental Pollution
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the environmental effects of the production, use, storage and ultimate disposal of nuclear fuels for the United Kingdom's naval forces.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 13 July 1989]: The environmental effects of the production, use, storage and ultimate disposal of nuclear fuels for the United Kingdom's naval forces are negligible. Radioactive discharges to the environment that lie within United Kingdom jurisdiction, whether made by contractors associated with the programme or by the Royal Navy itself, comply with authorisations from, or agreements with, the Department of the Environment or the Scottish Development Department. These authorisations and agreements are set so that discharges within the limits they permit have no detrimental effect on any human beings. Radioactive discharges made by nuclear submarines on the high seas are governed by naval regulations that have the same effect.

  Joint Tactical Information Distribution
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what study he has made of the cost of providing joint tactical information distribution system terminals for(a) the Tornado air defence variant aircraft, (b) Invincible class aircraft carriers and (c) Type-42 destroyers.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer Monday 17 July 1989]: Studies of the cost of integrating JTIDS into the Tornado ADV have been undertaken and work is now proceeding concurrently with the full development phase of the JTIDS project.

  Project definition studies on the RN variant of JTIDS for the CVSA and type 42 classes are currently being undertaken in industry. Estimates of the costs of the system will be submitted upon completion of the PD phase.

ENVIRONMENT

  Housing Action Trust (Southwark)
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what is his policy on the eviction of squatters in the event of the proposed housing action trust being created on the Gloucester grove or North Peckham estates in Southwark;

  (2) whether there will be any limitations on the time the proposed housing action trust in Southwark could continue to exist.

  Mr. Trippier
  [holding answer 21 July 1989]: As I told the hon. Member in my replies to her on Thursday 20 July, one of the primary statutory objects of a housing action trust would be to secure the proper and effective management and use of the housing for which it was responsible. It would be for a trust to decide how to deal with problems of unlawful occupation of property by squatters.

  Craven Cottage Football Ground
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he received from Hammersmith and Fulham council the compulsory purchase order and 684
  supporting evidence relating to Craven Cottage football ground; and when he intends to hold the inquiry to consider the council's compulsory purchase order.

  Mr. Chope
  The compulsory purchase order was received from Hammersmith and Fulham council on 30 May. An inquiry is being arranged.

  Carbon Dioxide Emissions
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he accepts the claims made by the Association for the Conservation of Energy about United Kingdom emissions of carbon dioxide; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Estimates of United Kingdom emissions of carbon dioxide since 1977 were published in the "Digest of Environmental Protection Statistics", No. 11, in February this year. They do not support the figures quoted by the Association for the Conservation of Energy (ACE). United Kingdom emissions were only 1 per cent. higher in 1987 compared with 1986. This is still 10 per cent. lower than in 1979. An initial estimate of the emissions for 1973 shows that they were about 14 per cent. higher than at present, not 20 per cent. lower as claimed.

  Local Polls
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, what provisions permit local authorities to conduct local ballots, polls or referenda on issues of local concern; and under what conditions.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  There are specific provisions for parish polls in England and Wales on questions arising at parish meetings, where 10 electors (or one third of the electors for the parish, if that is less) so demand.

  The provisions are in paragraphs 18, 21 and 22 of schedule 12 to the Local Government Act 1972 and the Parish Community Meetings (Polls) Rules 1987 (SI1987, No. 1).

  For other local authorities, there are no specific provisions.

  Debate (Information)
  Mr. Gow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment on which date he drew to the attention of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry the information which had been given to the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment by the hon. Members for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Wardle) and for Eastbourne during a debate in the House on 26 May,Official Report, columns 1291 and 1292; and what further action has been taken.

  Mr. Moynihan
  I wrote to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs at the Department of Trade and Industry on 7 June drawing his attention to the information provided by the hon. Members during the debate on 26 May. It is for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, who has responsibility for such matters, to decide what action to take on the basis of this information.

  Sewage Discharges
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list in the Official Report, those sewage treatment works in the North West water authority which have failed to meet their discharge consents during the last 12-month period for which figures are available.

  Mr. Howard
  In 1988 90 per cent. of sewage treatment works in the North West water authority area complied with the terms of their discharge consents. Those which did not are as follows:

  Adlington

  Appleby

  Ashley

  Ayside

  Barrow in Furness (Palace N)

  Beston

  Beetham

  Betley

  Bolton

  Brigham

  Chorley No.1

  Crooklands

  Delamere

  Dunkinfield

  Eaglesfield

  Failsworth

  Fazakcrley

  Gamblesby

  Glenridding

  Hesketh Bank

  High Leigh

  Hillhouse

  Horton-in-Ribblesdale

  Hyde

  Irlam

  Kendal

  Langwathby

  Nether Eover

  Ormskirk

  Pardshaw

  Prescot

  Ravenstonedale

  Rowrah Skelmersdale

  Strines

  Talkin

  Thornton Hough

  Utkinton (Quarry Bank)

  Wardle

  Weeton

  Wigan

  Winder gill

  Worsley

  The North West water authority has in hand a major capital expenditure programme designed to bring substandard sewage treatment works into compliance with their discharge consents by March 1992, wherever practicable.

  Emergency Work
  Mr. Allen McKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what guidance he gives as to what constitutes emergency work under the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980.

  Mr. Gummer
  There are no provisions relating to emergency work in the 1980 Act.

  Polluters
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment on what date members of the public were given the right to prosecute polluters.
  686
  Mr. Howard
  Members of the public were given the right to prosecute polluters of rivers by sections 31 and 32 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974, which were brought into force by the present Government on 31 January 1985. This right is contained in the Water Act 1989.

  Unoccupied Property Rating
  Mr. Heddle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will publish in the Official Report a list of all types of hereditament which will be exempt from unoccupied property rating after 1 April 1990; and when he anticipates making regulations to bring these exemptions into effect;

  (2) what proposals he has to exempt occupiers of empty industrial premises from payment of the national non-domestic rate after April 1990.

  Mr. Gummer
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment intends to consult shortly on draft regulations, to be made in final form in the autumn, to replicate from 1 April 1990 the exemption from unoccupied property rating of those hereditaments which are currently exempt from such rates under paragraph 2(a) to (d) of schedule 1 to the General Rate Act 1967, the Rating (Exemption of Unoccupied Industrial and Storage Hereditaments) Regulations 1985 (SI No. 258) and the Rating (Exemption of Unoccupied Property) Regulations 1967 (SI No. 954).

  Housing
  Mr. Heddle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish in the Official Report, the market value of (a) all privately owned housing stock and (b) all publicly owned housing stock in England and Wales at the latest available date, indicating the amount it would be necessary to charge each householder to finance local government expenditure at current levels on the assumption that rate support grant levels remain static, should capital value taxation be introduced.

  Mr. Gummer
  My right hon. Friend the former Secretary of State for the Environment placed in the Library on 19 July a table showing the capital value rate which could have applied in each local authority area in 1989–90 if introduced in conjunction with a local income tax. These are based on an assumed domestic rateable value in England of £1,200 billion.

  "Digest of Environmental Protection and Water Statistics"
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many copies of the "Digest of Environmental Protection and Water Statistics" have been(a) distributed and (b) sold in each year since 1979, and what efforts are made by his Department to ensure copies are placed in public, school and college libraries.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The latest estimates of the number of copies of the "Digest of Environmental Protection and Water Statistics" distributed and sold since 1978, when the digest was first published, are as follows:

  Issue number

  Year

  Distributed

  Sold

  1

  1978

  1,732

  1,332

  2

  1979

  1,196

  746

  3

  1980

  1,082

  682

  687

  Issue number

  Year

  Distributed

  Sold

  4

  1981

  818

  568

  5

  1982

  863

  613

  6

  1983

  879

  629

  7

  1984

  843

  543

  8

  1985

  1,011

  596

  9

  1986

  1,233

  833

  10

  1987

  1,096

  716

  11

  1988

  1,235

  1835

  1 Final sales likely to reach 1,000 and a reprint may be required.

  There are over 250 regular purchasers of the digest, some of which are school and college libraries. The digest is listed in the Department of the Environment's annual list of publications, which is sent to all local authorities, and HMSO's sectional list No. 5, Department of the Environment. It is advertised in Social Trends and steps are being taken to publicise the volume in professional librarian journals.

  "Solving the Greenhouse Dilemma"
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has received a copy of the report entitled "Solving the Greenhouse Dilemma", published by the Association for the Conservation of Energy on 2 July; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We were interested to receive the report as a contribution to the current wide-ranging debate on the greenhouse effect.

  We, together with other Government Departments, will be considering this report as well as other proposals, as part of the intergovernmental panel on climate change.

  "Inside the Poison Trade"
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will seek to obtain a copy of the video tape and transcript of the UNEP sponsored programme, entitled "Inside the Poison Trade" on hazardous and toxic waste disposal, for the departmental library.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We have no plans to do so.

  Local Finance (Waltham Forest)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will tabulate in relation to the London borough of Waltham Forest how much revenue would be raised from the individuals resident in the borough assuming(a) a system of capital value rates plus local income tax paid in proportions of 80–20, (b) the existing system of rates and (c) the community charge; and how much Government grant would be given in each case.

  Mr. Gummer
  The amount raised in any area with a system of capital value rates plus local income tax would depend on the tax rates set. It is possible to calculate tax rates which would apply in each area from a comparison of grant-related expenditure and actual spending. The implication of these tax rates for specimen individuals, with defined incomes and property values, can then be assessed. I have published figures on this basis which are consistent with the illustrative 1989–90 community charge and with current levels of domestic rates.

  I cannot estimate how much would be raised from the residents in any one local authority area if a system of
  688
  capital value rates combined with local income tax were in force. This is because data are not available for each local authority area for either the capital value of domestic properties or the taxable income of residents.

  Based on the illustrative 1989–90 community charge levels placed in the Library on 19 July, the amount raised from the full community charge in Waltham Forest could have been up to £56 million. But part of this amount would have been met by the Exchequer through community charge benefit payments. The figure comparable with the present system of domestic rates is £51 million.

  In 1989–90 illustrative community charges assume a standard spending grant of £78 million for Waltham Forest residents. In 1989–90 rate support grant payable to Waltham Forest amounted to £83 million. In addition, Waltham Forest residents presently benefit from grant paid to the Receiver for the Metropolitan police district and the London Fire and Civil Defence Authority.

  With both the current system and the community charge the Government also provide additional amounts to the poorest in each area in the form of rebates to reduce their payments to the local authority. Specific grants are also paid to fund certain areas of local authority spending and other Government grants are paid from a variety of programmes.

  Gipsy Sites
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) how many meetings his Department has convened of representatives of local authorities from Yorkshire to discuss strategy for gipsy site provision on a regional or sub-regional basis in each of the last five years; if he will list the participating local authorities; and when the next such meeting is scheduled to take place;

  (2) if he will make it his policy to ensure that officials of his Department visit the permanent gipsy sites within the city of Bradford metropolitan district council before he takes any decision on any application Bradford council may submit for designation of such sites.

  Mr. Trippier
  Officials have meetings with representatives of county and district councils in Yorkshire jointly and individually as required to discuss gipsy site provision. Meetings drawing together representatives from local authorities throughout the country are also held regularly to discuss gipsy issues.

  Officers from the Department have visited the City of Bradford metropolitan district council's gipsy site at Mary street and plane to see the one in Esholt in the near future.

  Town and Country Planning
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he is proposing to introduce legislation to consolidate the statutes relating to town and country planning before he introduces legislation to abolish structure plans.

  Mr. Chope
  I understand that the Law Commission does not now expect to finish preparing the consolidation of the planning Acts in time for introduction during the current parliamentary Session. I cannot anticipate when legislation relating to development plans might be introduced, but we are bearing in mind the interaction of these legislative proposals with each other.

  Community Charge, Lambeth
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will estimate the likely level of poll tax in Lambeth from 1 April 1990 on the assumption that patterns of expenditure in the current year by Lambeth and the Inner London education authority do not change.

  Mr. Gummer
  The Government have no plans to introduce a poll tax.

  To estimate a 1990–91 community charge on the assumptions suggested by the hon. Member would be misleading, because there will be changes in local government responsibilities which will alter expenditure patterns. Based on current responsibilities, the illustrative full community charge in Lambeth for 1989–90 is £543.

  Rating Reform
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is yet able to indicate the projected average poll tax for England based on 1989–90 local expenditure figures; and which local authorities would be above or below that figure.

  Mr. John Gummer
  The Government have no plans to introduce a poll tax.

  Figures placed in the Library on 19 July show the illustrative community charge in each English local authority based on 1989–90 rate levels. The average is £274.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will estimate the likely level of poll tax in(a) Burnley, (b) Pendle, (c) Rossendale, and (d) Hyndburn as from 1 April on the assumption that current patterns of expenditure are maintained within those boroughs and by Lancashire county council.

  Mr. Gummer
  The Government have no plans to introduce a poll tax.

  I have made no estimate of the likely level of community charge in any area. Illustrative 1989–90 community charge levels were placed in the Library on 19 July.

  Planning
  Mr. Heddle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to introduce legislation to strengthen the present provisions in the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 for planning enforcement in line with the recommendations contained in the Carnwath report.

  Mr. Howard
  I refer my hon. Friend to my reply on 24 May to the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond)Official Report, volume 153, column 942.

  Property Services Agency
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his holding answer of 26 June, when he intends to provide a substantive answer to the hon. Member for East Kilbride about the refurbishment and redevelopment of empty property held by the Property Services Agency.

  Mr. Chope
  I have replied to the hon. Member today.

  Boundary Commission
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects the Boundary Commission to complete its review of the London borough boundaries.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Local Government Boundary Commission must complete its reviews by 31 March 1992. Apart from that date, the rate of progress is a matter for the commission.

  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects the Boundary Commission to publish recommendations regarding the boundary of the London borough of Bexley.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  It is its statutory duty to complete the review by 31 March 1992. The rate of progress is a matter for the commission. I understand that the commission is considering separately the boundaries between the London borough of Bexley and the boroughs of Dartford, Bromley and Greenwich. They published draft proposals on the boundary with Dartford on 11 July 1988, and one small further draft proposal on 10 July 1989; they published draft proposals on the boundary with Bromley on 29 May 1989. They intend to hold a local meeting in connection with the boundary with Greenwich (at Thamesmead) in the autumn, which may result in draft proposals.

  London Boroughs (Staff)
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has concerning the increase or decrease in staff employed by each of the London boroughs since May 1986; if he will publish any such information in the Official Report in tabular form; and if he will make an estimate of the contribution the increased payroll in the London borough of Hillingdon makes to overspending per adult.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The total numbers of full and part-time staff employed by each London borough are collected quarterly and published in table H of the joint staffing watch (until recently the joint manpower watch) press notice available in the Library of the House. No estimate is available of the contribution of Hillingdon's increased payroll to overspend per adult.

  Regent's Park
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many deck chairs are available in Regent's park; how much they cost to hire and what were the equivalent figures in and for each year since 1979–80.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  There are approximately one hundred deckchairs in Regent's park. The cost per half-day session is 35p. Figures for the number of deckchairs in previous years are not available because the number of chairs provided is left to the discretion of the contractor. Hiring costs in previous years were as follows:

  Year

  pence

  1979

  20

  1982

  25

  1984

  30

  1986

  35

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what consideration he has given to the
  691
  financial and other status of Zoo Operations Ltd. in considering London Zoo's proposals for changes in Regent's park.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Zoological Society of London's current proposals for changes follow a full review of the society's finances and zoo operations carried out in 1987–88 by consultants employed jointly by the Government and the society. The Government's conclusions on that review were announced on 11 May last year. We shall await the Zoological Society of London's detailed proposals for the further 10 acres. Zoo Operations Limited is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Zoological Society of London.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is Her Majesty's Government's policy concerning the renewal of leases of private demesnes in the centre of Regent's park and the addition of such land to the park for the benefit of the public; when this policy was determined; and what was the policy which it replaced.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Private properties leased in Regent's park are owned by the Crown Estate and, apart from Regent's college, are not generally open to the public. Two areas of Regent's park—the zoological gardens and the golf and tennis school which are both open to the public on payment of a fee—are occupied on lease from the Department of the Environment. This division of responsibility is based on the provisions of the Crown Lands Act 1936 and the Crown Estate Act 1961.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what restrictions he has suggested to London Zoo concerning the location of any land that it takes over under the Crown Estate Act 1961.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Crown Estate Act 1961 gives the Secretary of State power to grant up to 10 acres of neighbouring land. We await the Zoological Society of London's detailed proposals. Any new boundaries will have to be carefully landscaped by the society to minimise the impact on the park.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to ensure that London Zoo's rights in Regent's park under the Crown Estate Act 1961 are not assigned to any other body.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The current lease precludes the Zoological Society of London from underletting any part of its premises in Regent's park except for temporary use by a society or organisation with purposes similar to the society's. The new lease will include a similar restriction.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether any lessees of land in Regent's park besides London Zoo have made proposals to him to charge for access to any part within the outer canal.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The only other holder of a lease in Regent's park from my Department is the golf and tennis school which already charges for the use of its facilities. Companies also hold licences to operate and charge for recreational and refreshment facilities. Other organisations and individuals occupy property on lease from the Crown Estate.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether(a) the Crown Estate and (b) the
  692
  occupants of St. John's lodge, Regent's Park lane, proposed taking in any part of the park other than that required to change the public access to the public gardens behind the lodge.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Crown Estate made an informal inquiry to my Department in relation to the reinstatement of the original gardens of St. John's lodge as set out by John Nash. The Crown Estate was told that a formal request would not be looked on favourably and this has been accepted.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether the land at Gloucester slips car park is included in the 10 acres of land in Regent's park of which the London Zoo may claim use under the Crown Estate Act 1961.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  No.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment who is currently responsible for deck chairs in Regent's park.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The contract for the deck chair service is currently operated by J. H. Kesslers Limited.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether his agreement to the London Zoo taking over the Gloucester slips car park in Regent's park was by lease; and on what date any agreement was signed.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Zoological Society of London took over management of the Gloucester slips coach and car park under licence and not by lease on 1 April 1989. The terms of the licence will be finalised shortly.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Clelland
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the assumed contributions to local expenditure for each authority from(a) Government funds and (b) business rates in the tables contained in the document "1989–90 Illustrative Capital Value Rates and Local Income Tax" published on 19 July.

  Mr. Gummer
  The illustrative capital value rates and local income tax figures published on 19 July assume that Government funds and business rates are distributed to achieve full equalisation of tax rates. This means that in every area the same tax rates would apply if all local authorities were spending at the level needed to provide a standard level of services. The level of grant entitlement would vary if expenditure were at a different level in order to ensure that each £1 per head of additional spending in any area would lead to exactly the same change in tax rates. Areas with high average house values and high average taxable incomes would receive less grant with higher spending, while areas with low taxable resources would receive more grant with higher spending.

  Costs
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the cost of answering the question from the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Knight) 19 July,Official Report, columns 215–6.
  693
  Mr. Clelland
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the total cost of producing and distributing the document published by his Department on 19 July entitled "1989–90 Illustrative Capital Value Rates and Local Income Tax."

  Mr. Gummer
  I refer the hon. Members to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott) on 24 July 1989.

  Creches
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has received any recent representations about pilot or permanent workplace creches and similar incentives futher to encourage the return to employment of women in his Department; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  My Department is considering possible initiatives providing child care for its staff which they, and their union representatives, have supported.

  Local Authority Finance
  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how, in the new local government finance system, he intends that the relevant population of each charging authority in England should be calculated for the purposes of determining revenue support grant and non-domestic rate entitlement and for dividing precepts among charging authorities.

  Mr. Gummer
  I told the Consultative Council for Local Government Finance on 12 July that following representations from the local authority associations we now intend that the relevant population should be calculated from data supplied from community charge registers. We intend to take powers in the Local Government and Housing Bill to facilitate this. These data will, we believe, provide the most appropriate record of the adult population in an area liable to pay the community charge. We shall make provision for those occasions when the necessary information is not provided by a local authority. We also intend to make provision to enable the Secretary of State to substitute an alternative figure where there is doubt that the figure derived from the register is a realistic estimate of an area's adult population. For this purpose we propose that an alternative be adopted where the register figure differs from the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys' estimate of the area's adult population by more than a defined percentage.

  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the results of consultation on the harmonisation of the decapitalisation rate used for rating assessment in Great Britain that he announced on 7 March.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales and I have considered carefully the responses received to our proposal to set the decapitalisation rate for property valued by reference to the cost of construction somewhere in the range of 6 per cent. to 7 per cent. Respondents recognised that a common decapitalisation rate throughout Great Britain will assist in the harmonisation of rating. However, they generally argued that a figure as high as 7 per cent. overstated the 694
  relationship between the decapitalisation rate and the 1988 cost of borrowing to finance construction. We have therefore decided to set the rate at 6 per cent. for most property, with a lower rate of 4 per cent. applying to educational property—schools, universities, polytechnics and to colleges of further and higher education provided by local authorities and non-profit making bodies; this rate will also apply to hospitals and certain other health establishments. The necessary regulations will be made later this year.

  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is giving further consideration to the rates to be applied to sports grounds, amateur sports clubs and to church property valued on the contractors basis in Scotland.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what guidance he provides(a) to parents about the eligibility of their children aged 18 or 19 years or over, who are required to remain in secondary education, to pay poll tax and (b) to young people, who leave secondary education after their 18th or 19th birthdays and are granted places as students at institutions of higher or further education, about their liability to pay a full personal poll tax between leaving school and entering university or college; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  [holding answer 20 July 1989]: No one has any liability to pay a poll tax as no such tax exists or is planned. Guidance on individuals' community charge liability is contained in the Department's free booklet "You and the Community Charge" and the associated series of free leaflets including that entitled, "Students".

  Nature Conservancy Council
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many full-time staff are employed by the Nature Conservancy Council in(a) England, (b) Wales and (c) Scotland; how many contract staff are employed in each country; and how many staff are employed by the Nature Conservancy Council pursuing (i) Great Britain or (ii) international functions.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [holding answer 24 July 1989]: Details of the numbers of staff employed by the NCC and their location within the organisation at 1 July 1989 are as follows:

  Location

  Permanent staff

  Contract staff

  England HQ and regions

  281

  189

  Wales HQ and regions

  88

  44

  Scotland HQ and regions

  160

  87

  Great Britain HQ1

  258

  132

  International branch

  5

  —

  1 Except International branch.

  Directorate of Rural Affairs
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the number and gradings of his officers who are currently working in the directorate of rural affairs; and whether he proposes any increases following the changes announced to the Nature Conservancy Council and Countryside Commission.
  695
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [holding answer 20 July 1989]: There are currently 99 staff working in the Department's directorate of rural affairs. The grades of these staff are as follows:

  Number

  Grade 3

  1·0

  Grade 5

  3·0

  Grade 6

  2·0

  Grade 7

  11·5

  SEO/SPTO

  9·0

  HEO

  16·0

  EO

  18·0

  AO

  26·0

  AA

  12·5

  99·0

  These figures include one additional SEO who has already been allocated to assist in work concerned with reorganising the conservation agencies. Further adjustments will be made if necessary.

  Funeral Services
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if, in the light of comments in paragraph 417 of the 1988–89 report by the Local Government Ombudsman, he has any plans to ban unfair trading practices in respect of funeral services by certain local councils.

  Mr. Gummer
  [holding answer 20 July 1989]: Behaviour such as that of Wear Valley district council, both in maladministration by discriminating between local traders and in refusing to implement the local ombudsman's recommendations for compensation, is unacceptable. However, on the information available, what appears to have occurred is an abuse of the council's power to provide information rather than any unfair trading practice.

  Landfill Gas Sites
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the top 20 landfill gas sites in England and Wales by acreage.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [holding answer 21 July 1989]: Information concerning the acreage of landfill sites is not held centrally.

  Caravan Sites Act 1968
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the operation of the Caravan Sites Act 1968.

  Mr. Trippier
  [holding answer 21 July 1989]: My right hon. Friend the former Secretary of State for the Environment announced on 6 February 1987 that a review of the Act had been completed and that there was to be no amendment of the present law. We are concerned to assist and encourage authorities to fulfil their duties under the Act as quickly as possible.

  Residuary Bodies
  Mr. Terry Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what procedures exist to facilitate public scrutiny of the accounts of residuary bodies.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [holding answer 21 July 1989]: Section 79 of the Local Government Act 1985 requires residuary bodies to make their accounts available for public inspection.

  Departmental Properties
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list those empty properties which are rented, leased or owned by the Property Services Agency and which are being considered for refurbishment or redevelopment to allow reoccupation by a Government Department and the probable date of reoccupation.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 26 June 1989]: The list is as follows:

  Schedule of empty properties rented, leased or owned by the PSA undergoing or being considered for refurbishment or redevelopment to allow re-occupation by a Government

  Department

  Property

  Godwin House, George Street, Huntingdon

  Chaucer House, Upper Marlborough Road, St. Albans

  Caledonian House, 39/61 St. Albans Road, Watford

  87 Burlington Road, New Malden, Surrey

  St. Mary's Gate, Chesterfield

  22 and 29 The Springs, Wakefield

  Sheriff Court House, Castle Street, Aberdeen

  Norfolk House, East Kilbride

  Hut Number 3, Chaucer Barracks, Canterbury

  Shire Hall, Shuttern, Taunton

  Clarence Street, Swindon

  Telford House, Park Gardens, Yeovil

  Portcullis House, Lagland Street, Poole

  Reading Courts, The Forbury, Reading

  The agency aims to bring vacant space back into re-occupation as soon as possible.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Sheffield.
Lord Harding of Petherton Lord Harding of Petherton—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

Palace of Westminster: Furniture
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy Lady Saltoun of Abernethy asked Her Majesty's Government:
What furniture and fittings surplus to the requirements of this House are in storage at public expense.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Hesketh): My Lords, there is very little furniture and fittings from the Palace of Westminster in storage. As a matter of policy the Parliamentary Works Office retains only the furniture made to Pugin designs, modern office furniture in good condition and fittings which can be reused.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. Can he say what happened to the previous carpet from this Chamber, to the furniture from the Peers' Guest Room and to the beautiful flowered loo from the new ladies next door to the Prince's Chamber, on which the plug seems to have been pulled? Many noble Lords would have been glad to pay a market price for some of those items.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am under the impression that the carpets are reused. If there is deterioration the better part is kept and used, for example, to put round a corner or in some suitable place. I believe, though I am not sure, that in regard to the Victorian loos, some parts were kept for reuse. Certainly the remaining lavatories seem to be working well and are in good condition.

London Zoo: Proposed Extension
2.44 p.m.
Lord Kilmarnock Lord Kilmarnock asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they propose to take to allay public concern over the proposed extension of London Zoo into other areas of Regent's Park.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the Government announced last year that, subject to agreement on detailed terms, we proposed to grant the Zoological Society of London a new 60-year lease for its Regents Park site including an extra 10 acres of land from the park as provided under the Crown Estate Act
1300
1961. The lease will restrict the use of such land to activities which further the objectives of the society—a learned institution whose many distinguished members include Members of this House. The society has not yet sent us detailed proposals, but I know that it is currently discussing its ideas with interested parties. Any development proposals will, of course, be subject to the normal planning procedures.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. However, is this not an excellent time, with a change at the top in his department, for us to pause and to take stock of a project which London may live to regret? Does not the noble Lord agree that the whole concept of a Victorian zoo with bored and under-exercised animals on view in cages is outmoded? If the larger animals are moved to Whipsnade there will be plenty of room for the excellent project of a children's zoo.
If the project is a theme park, which I believe has been talked about, is that not a crazy proposal for the centre of the capital, with all the congestion and parking problems that it will produce? Have the Metropolitan Police been consulted about that?
Finally, will the Government say that they will not proceed with the project until the new Secretary of State has had a proper opportunity to assess all these factors, to say nothing of the determined opposition of all the local amenity groups and the thousands of clubs and groups who use the park for sporting purposes—
Noble Lords: Too long!
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, will the noble Lord take those factors into account?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, planning proposals are, of course, a matter for Westminster City Council in the first place.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Oh dear!
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, with regard to the noble Lord's suggestion that there will be a theme park, I remind the House that the society has many distinguished members. Its council has no fewer than seven Fellows of the Royal Society. I doubt very much that they would be engaged in a theme park when, as I pointed out earlier, this is a learned and greatly loved institution.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I declare an interest in that I am the treasurer of the society and also chairman of the operating company. Is my noble friend aware that the society, which is a learned one, has had a presence in Regent's Park for 160 years, that it desires nothing so much as to live at peace with its neighbours and that it asks that its proposals should be judged when they are known and not in the light of rumour?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Peyton. I am well aware of his important and cherished position with the society.

1301
He is absolutely correct to say that the society has not yet sent us detailed proposals. Of course, we should wait to see them.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I appreciate very much the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Peyton. Will the Minister bear in mind that unless changes to the perimeter of London Zoo are achieved by consensus they will not be worth having? Important as the zoo undoubtedly is, the price for improvement should not be a diminishing of the open space of Regent's Park—an open space for the people of London.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, it is important that I should remind the noble Lord that the extra land was provided under the Crown Estate Act 1961.
Lord Zuckerman: My Lords, may I remind the Minister that when the Crown Estate Bill was going through Parliament in 1961 I was secretary of the society? The then Minister of Works, the noble Lord, Lord Molson, who was our main landlord and a Member of your Lordships' House—I do not know whether he is in his place—agreed to insert a provision for 10 additional acres on the understanding that those acres would help beautify the whole park. There was no intention, and I do not suspect my successors on the council of having any intention, to do other than ensure that the amenities of Regent's Park would be improved if the Government or the planning authorities decided to go ahead with the 10-acre extension.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am grateful for that intervention. The noble Lord has pointed out entirely correctly the understanding that we in the department also have with regard to the maintenance of the sensitive landscape of the park.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, as I understand it, no one is proposing to move the zoo from Regent's Park. While it is presided over with great distinction by the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, would not the Government agree that in principle at least the more animals that can be kept in the country and out of London the better? Although Regent's Park is greatly enjoyed by human beings, it is not so clear that all animals greatly enjoy it. Therefore, should not caution be taken in extending the zoo, though no one is suggesting that it should be abolished?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, as I understand it Whipsnade and Regent's Park Zoo are intended today to complement each other. However, I am sure the noble Lord will understand that, though I represent the Department of the Environment, I am no zoologist and am not entirely qualified to answer the second part of his question.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, is it not the case that if the distinguished work of the Zoological Society of London is to be allowed to continue to have the resources to be able to achieve its objectives, it is essential that the zoo should be brought into the modern world and so attract the larger number of
1302
visitors whose revenues would provide the resources which the society needs? Unless there is a process of modernisation the zoo will continue to be in considerable difficulties.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the present facilities are cramped. The report commissioned by the Government and the society recommended a new programme of development at Regent's Park to maintain the zoo's pre-eminent role in the promotion of the understanding of animals and in the conservation of animal species. Extra acres will help the zoo to plan changes sensibly.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, we understand that the noble Lord is no zoologist and therefore could not answer the second part of the important question of the noble Lord, Lord Grimond. However, his duty is to ensure that he takes advice on this matter and is therefore able to answer a question put by the noble Lord. Will he be good enough to look into this and find out precisely what is the answer to the noble Lord's question?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, in my answer which preceded the noble Lord's question, I pointed out that the report commissioned by the Government and the society recommended the new programme of development at Regent's Park to maintain the zoo's pre-eminent position in the promotion of the understanding of animals and conservation of animal species. In answer to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, I was not proposing to go beyond that recommendation.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, is it not clear, following the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, which one respects, that we are in a state of considerable confusion? Some people think that there will be a theme park; others think there will not. May we ask for wider consultation? After all, this is not any old planning permission. This is a major development in a Royal park. May we have the whole thing out in the open?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the society intends to take part in full consultation. Any development proposals will be subject to the normal planning procedures.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, we have already taken 10 minutes on this Question and are about to breach the very principle which we decided yesterday to adopt.

Agricultural Research: Funding
2.47 p.m.
Lord Carter Lord Carter asked Her Majesty's Government:
What cuts in agricultural and food research they have decided upon as the result of reviews to determine the "near market" research which is suitable for industry funding, and what further decisions remain to be announced.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Trumpington): My Lords, my right honourable friend the then Minister announced on 21st March the proposal to close in 1989–90 the experimental horticulture stations at Brogdale, Luddington and Rosewarne and the experimental husbandry farm at Liscombe. It was announced on 10th July that Liscombe EHF will not close in 1989–90, given the excellent response from the local farmers. However, Luddington and Rosewarne will be closed by 30th November. A decision on Brogdale will be announced later this year. Further decisions will be announced as soon as possible.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Is she aware that the current proposals, leaving aside those that are still to be announced, mean that 14 agricultural research establishments are to close, a further six are threatened with closure and substantial reductions in funding are planned for eight more? In the light of all this can she tell the House exactly what her right hounourable friend the Prime Minister meant when she told the Royal Society last year:
"A nation which does not value its trained intelligence is doomed"?
What did the Minister herself mean when she told the House on 4th November 1987 that,
"there is no specific plan to reduce the number of staff engaged in R&D or advisory work".—[Official Report. 4/11/87; col. 1072.]
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the closures announced do not represent the full economies needed to meet the reduction in government funding of near market research by 1991–92 proposed in the Autumn Statement, which was presented by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Decisions to be taken in the future will depend upon the level of industry funding.
The statement, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, which I made in 1987, was made in good faith at the time. Following our consultation with industry, we have had to look again at our facilities to take into account the extent to which industry is prepared to replace public funding for near market research. I am well aware of the feelings of staff who are involved with R&D. I am also aware of the importance of a sound scientific base for the research that the Government and industry will be paying for.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, can the noble Baroness tell us what criterion her advisers take into account in recommending that research be designated near market? Is the criterion purely financial, or are there other considerations? If there are, can she say what they are? Further, can she say whether part of those considerations relate to the possibility that the market will in fact accept financial responsibility for these institutions? I ask that because the record so far of market acceptance constitutes, I am sure she will agree, a pretty dismal response to the Government's initiative.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, a rigid definition of near market research is not appropriate;
1304
what is broadly meant is work which offers the prospect of commercial exploitation or application within a short enough time-scale to justify investment by industry. We are now reaching the stage where we are receiving a more definitive picture of the pick-up by industry of that research.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, does the Minister not agree that we need national funding for the pure research? It cannot all be attributed to near market research. Does she also not agree that the result of the pure research in agriculture has been of great benefit to this country and to the world at large?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I agree with the essence of the noble Lord's question. The Government remain committed to supporting the science base and to providing a platform for future exploitation by industry. Current public expenditure on agricultural and food R&D is over £200 million.
Lord Peston: My Lords, does the noble Baroness recall that on Friday last she appeared to say that expenditure on agricultural research and development was not investment? Has she had a chance to reflect upon the view which she seemed to state at that time? Further, does she now recognise that expenditure on agricultural research and development is investment and that any cuts therein would be extremely damaging to the future of our agricultural sector?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I maintain exactly what I said before. I think that the noble Lord is being rather naughty. I say that because at the time the Question referred entirely to farm machinery and not at all to R&D.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, with respect to the noble Baroness, does she not recall that the Question referred to "agricultural investment"? Those were the precise words used in the Question.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, in that case it was investment of plant and machinery.
Lord Carter: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the low morale in the agricultural R&D sector is exceeded only by its bewilderment regarding the future intentions of the Government? Can she therefore assure the House that following the 20 per cent. cut in research funding between 1985 and 1987, and the further substantial cuts which have been discussed this afternoon, the Government at some stage will issue a definitive statement, draw a line and leave this sector to plan in peace the reduced role which is left to it?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, we shall try to give industry as much notice as possible of any future closures.

Armed Forces: Re-engagement and Morale
2.54 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie Lord Mackie of Benshie asked Her Majesty's Government:
What proposals they have to reduce the harm being done to morale and re-engagement by the alteration in service allowances.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, I am not sure that I accept the assumption behind the noble Lord's Question. Levels of re-engagement and PVR rates are affected by a number of factors, not least the availability of employment opportunities in civilian life. We shall continue to evaluate the new allowances in the future and to make adjustments where appropriate.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I thank the Minister for answering my Question. As I understand that he has now been transferred to other spheres, I should like to thank him for giving very detailed and very good Answers in the past in his defence capacity.
However, having said those nice words, perhaps I may ask the Minister whether he is aware that several factors are affecting both re-engagement and morale: the reduction in the number of leave travel warrants, and that especially applies to single people; the change in the allowance for education; the travel to duty from home allowance, which is to be reduced to zero over the next few years; and of course the lack of provision for a North/South posting—a difficulty in common with industry because of the difference in house prices. If this does not show up in the figures, have the Government asked commanding officers about the matter? They will know more about the trends than the figures show. Does he not agree that it is serious when service personnel are apt to consider a rise in pay which is accompanied by a fall in allowances as a bit of a swindle?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the allowances package to which the noble Lord referred, which was announced by my right honourable friend in May of last year, was, as they say, Exchequer neutral; that is to say, while some of the allowances were reduced, others were increased. Moreover, although there was some apprehension at the reduction of some of the allowances, as the noble Lord rightly said, there was considerable jubilation at the increase of others.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that a happy and contented army is an efficient army and that the reverse also applies?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, my noble friend is quite correct; a contented army is certainly a much better army. We think that this allowances package has made a number of important improvements which I hope will become apparent to the Armed Forces in the fullness of time. Of course salaries are a different matter. We shall in the near future be receiving the next report of the Armed Forces Pay Review Body.
Lord Irving of Dartford: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that he himself acknowledged in the Estimates debate that there was dissatisfaction about this package deal? We acknowledge that that may not be the only element in the problem. However, in view of the fact that we are already an average of 40 men short in every non-Gurkha battalion and that we cannot get personnel from elsewhere—about which he said we should not be complacent—at what point in the decline will the noble Lord accept that something ought to be done?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the noble Lord asked me an entirely hypothetical question. The current shortfall—I accept that there is one—is between 1 and 2 per cent. Historically that is not an alarming figure, but I agree that it is one that we should keep under careful review and try to put right if we can. However, we have not yet reached the alarming proportions suggested by some people.
I accept that some of the measures contained in the recent allowances package caused some apprehension; it was inevitable that they would. However, some of the increases have made the package, as I said, neutral on balance. Therefore, while there will be some losses, there are also some gains. I hope that that fact will be recognised.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, is the Minister aware that in the Royal Air Force, which of course is a very highly technical service, the problem is particularly severe? Is he also aware that employment opportunities for skilled men are available in industry? Further, will he look into the factors in that respect and also at the trends through consultation with commanding officers?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, perhaps I may apologise to the noble Lord for not thanking him for his kind words when I answered his first supplementary question. I happily do so now.
The noble Lord is quite right, the RAF is particularly dependent upon very highly skilled personnel. That is especially so in Germany, supporting the front line squadrons that we have there. It is a matter of particular concern, and we shall have to see that it does not reach alarming proportions. Again, as the noble Lord rightly says, men with particular skills, for example computer skills, are much in demand in outside industry, and it is difficult for the Armed Forces to compete directly on pay in such circumstances.

Pesticides (Fees and Enforcement) Bill
3. p.m.
Read a third time, and passed.

Representation of the People Bill
Read a third time, and passed.

Dangerous Dogs Bill
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the Order of Commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the Order of Commitment be discharged.—(Lord Houghton of Sowerby.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Then, Standing Order No. 44 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution of 18th July), Bill read a third time, and passed.

Human Organ Transplants Bill
3.2 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Lord Trafford): My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the Order of Commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the Order of Commitment be discharged.—(Lord Trafford.)
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, we cannot let this moment go without congratulating the noble Lord on his accession to the Front Bench. I hope that he has the same freedom of expression that he has had from the Back Benches. But we wish him well in his new role.
Lord Trafford: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for those kind remarks. I hope that his kindness continues for many months, and even longer.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, perhaps I may associate these Benches with the comment made by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff. I warmly welcome the noble Lord, Lord Trafford. I cannot guarantee that the kindness will last for ever. It depends upon his performance. We have our hopes.
Lord Trafford: My Lords, by leave of the House, I thank the noble Lord. I hope that in his case also the honeymoon period will be prolonged.
On Question, Motion agreeed to; Order of Commitment discharged accordingly.
Then, Standing Order No. 44 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution of 18th July), Bill read a third time.
Lord Trafford: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Trafford.)
Lord Kennet: My Lords, I shall not detain the House for more than a few seconds. First, I add the
1308
good wishes of the Social Democratic Party to what has been said to the noble Lord, Lord Trafford.
The question has arisen in debate outside the House of the role of influence, alongside money, as being a possible impropriety in organ transplants between living people. A case has arisen in which a senior person in a religious organisation has received an organ from a member of his flock. While of course there is no earthly reason to suppose that in that case anything wrong has taken place, I commend it to the Government as something that they should keep an eye open to.
The Bill provides that there should be regulations which will be administered by the authority. Purchasing organs is automatically wrong but everything else is left to the authority under regulations. Will the Government see to it that when they come to present regulations to Parliament under the affirmative procedure they will contain something about influence and what it is. It could be that in any religious organisation the less educated members of the flock might feel that they were getting a good deal of mileage from God by giving a kidney to the leader. Such things are imaginable.
Secondly, and related to that point, can the noble Lord say anything about how the authority is to be constituted? Will it be composed not just of the sort of people who now govern the health service as such but also of skilled medical and health care persons and people who are skilled in picking their way through the ethical jungles of improper influence?
The Lord Bishop of Sheffield: My Lords, I am familiar with the circumstances of which the noble Lord speaks. I regret the suggestion he makes that there must have been something improper in an archbishop receiving an organ transplant of the sort about which we are speaking. I am assured that it is entirely untrue. It was a gracious offer generously received. Any suggestion that undue influence took place is not true.
Lord Kennet: Perhaps I may intervene for a moment.
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Kennet: With the leave of the House.
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Kennet: My Lords, may I have the leave of the House?
Noble Lords: No!
Lord Denham: Order. My Lords, the noble Lord must use the phrase, "before the right reverend Prelate sits down". This is not a debate. The noble Lord has already spoken. Unless he has a very short interjection, he must not come in again.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, before the right reverend Prelate sits down, perhaps I may point out that I did not mention an archbishop. I did not mention a Church. I did not mention a religion. I said that in

1309
the case that I had in mind there was no reason to believe that anything improper had happened.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, on a different point in connection with the Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Trafford, whom I also congratulate on his new position on the Front Bench, will recall that when he was sitting on the Back Benches last week we had an exchange about the legal status of the donor card. During the debate, I was given two contrary answers as to whether the donor card has any legal enforceability or whether it is possible for relatives to interfere with the wishes expressed by the individual on the donor card.
I hope that when we come back and when the Government consider the Bill they will find out from the Law Officers what the legal situation is and report it to the House. If necessary, I shall put down a Question. It is an important point. As the noble Lord knows, it is a point that I raised on Second Reading last week.
Lord Trafford: My Lords, I am of course aware of the case mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Kennet. I should prefer not to comment upon it. It happened before the Bill. I hope that I can satisfy him on two points about which he asked. The first was about the authority that will be set up. It will be the Unrelated Live Transplants Regulatory Authority, which will comprise of about a dozen people. There will be a medical chairman and a majority of health care and medical pesonnel on it. At the same time there will be lay members who will be able to provide the influence and opinion of lay people in an area which has considerable moral as well as medical overtones. I hope that that will satisfy the noble Lord on the point.
On the question of regulations and influence, I am sure that the noble Lord will appreciate that influence in the sense in which he used it is not the easiest term to define. I shall, however, undertake that when the regulations are drawn up and before they are put before Parliament, trying to make them satisfactory from the point of view not only of the passing of money but also of the use of undue influence in this rather delicate area is something on which we can try to come closer to the suggestion raised by the noble Lord. I hope that satisfies the noble Lord.
On the final question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, I apologise for nearly forgetting that he made the comment. It concerned the ownership of the person's body when he dies. This depends on where people die and on the Human Tissue Act. If they die in hospital, the health authority temporarily has control of the body. At the same time, under the Human Tissue Act, it is also true that if a living person signs in the presence of two witnesses that he wishes to dispose in this case of his kidneys, for example, through the use of a donor card, that is legal. I accept from the noble Lord that this is a somewhat grey area on which I am sure the medical profession would like further clarification. So I think that the noble Lord has raised a quite significant point and we shall certainly look at it.
On Question, Bill passed.

Electricity Bill
3.11 p.m.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Sanderson of Bowden): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendments and reasons be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons amendments and reasons be now considered.—(Lord Sanderson of Bowden.)
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel rose to move,
That the debate be adjourned to allow further time to reconsider the Bill following the Government's Statement of 24th July on Magnox nuclear power stations.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Yesterday's Statement marked a significant change in policy by the Government. This afternoon I do not wish to engage in any party political combat. The Bill has reached its final stages now; but I wish to explain to the House in measured terms why I believe that it would be right for the Government to ponder during the Recess on the measures that they announced yesterday and the consequences of those measures.
After all, we now have a new Secretary of State for Energy. We have no Minister in the House because the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, has apparently resigned. So the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson of Bowden, is responding for the Government on the matter. We heard yesterday of this radical change in policy. In introducing my Motion, I wish to explain to your Lordships why I feel genuinely and seriously that there should be a time for reflection and pause before this Bill is sent to Her Majesty for Royal Assent.
First perhaps I may discuss the impact of the measures on the structure of the electricity supply industry as it will emerge. In England and Wales we shall almost certainly now have three generating companies as opposed to two generating companies. Two of those will be privately owned if privatisation goes ahead, namely: National Power and Power Gen. One will be publicly owned and I shall call that publicly owned company Magnox plc, for the purposes of the discussion. In Scotland there will be four generating companies. There will be the privatised South of Scotland Electricity Board. There will be the privatised North of Scotland Hydro Board. There will be the joint venture between the two which will own the AGRs in Scotland. There will be a Scottish Magnox plc which will own Hunterston A, which is a Magnox nuclear power station. So there will be four generating companies in Scotland.
What does this mean in terms of the residuary bodies? Your Lordships might suppose that it is all quite simple, that taking the Magnox. stations out of privatisation will mean that they rest with the CEGB or the South of Scotland Electricity Board which is the owner of Hunterston A. There is no provision in the Bill for the survival of these residuary bodies. Indeed, there is provision in the Bill for these bodies to be wound up. So it seems to me that although this question was not answered successfully from the

1311
Government Front Bench yesterday, there have to be two companies which are party to the transfer scheme, both by the Scottish boards and by the CEGB, and the companies would have to own the Magnox stations which are being taken out of the privatisation procedure.
Given that, what then is the impact on the operating of the electricity supply industry? We have discussed at great length—and some of your Lordships might think at inordinate length —the question of the grid and the cost versus the price merit order. I do not wish to go back on those arguments. Nevertheless, it will be quite clear, so far as I can see, that Magnox plc in England and Wales and the one Magnox plc in Scotland, its assets having been written off, will be able to sell into the grid at marginal cost. So the Magnox stations will automatically form the base load for the grid that the nuclear power stations, taken in their totality, form at the moment.
If that is the case, what happens to all the contracts about which we have been hearing so much from the Government? We have heard that the public electricity suppliers will make contracts with individual power stations. There will be a clear determination of capacity by means of contract.
Clearly, if there is to be a Magnox plc in England and Wales and there is to be one Scottish Magnox, everybody will ask for electricity on the marginal cost basis from those Magnox stations. So how will all that work? Is Magnox plc going to charge a mark-up on some sort of discounted cash flow basis in order to recover the costs of decommissioning which the former Secretary of State announced would be borne by the taxpayer rather than the consumer? How will all that work?
The third problem is management. I wish to refer your Lordships to the areas where the present Magnox stations and AGRs operate side by side. That is the case for instance at Sizewell. Sizewell A is a Magnox station; Sizewell B is an AGR or about to be a PWR. Dungeness A is a Magnox station; Dungeness B is an AGR station which, of course, does not work, but I leave that aside. Hinkley Point A is a Magnox; Hinkley Point B is an AGR; and Hinkley Point C, if it is allowed, will be a PWR. Wylfa in Anglesey has a Magnox and will have a PWR.
Let me take Hinkley Point as an example. In case your Lordships have not visited the site, Hinkley Point is contained within a perimeter. There is a Magnox station, there is an AGR station and there will be, if the inquiry permits it, a PWR station side by side. In addition, there is a transmission point within the site perimeter which will be owned by the grid. Imagine the management problems involved in making the Magnox station responsible to one line of management and the AGR station and the PWR station, if it comes, responsible to another line of management. The site manager will decide to shift Mr. So-and-So from here to there and will decide that something different will have to be done because the management responsibility will be quite different.
I now move on to the financial problem. This morning I telephoned a number of people in the City of London to find out what reaction they had to the Government's announcement of yesterday. The universal view that I have received is that it does not change the City's estimate of what the electricity supply industry is worth. In the view of the City, it was worth £13 billion before yesterday and it is worth £13 billion today. As I have said before, I must emphasise that that figure is in contrast to a net asset value of the electricity supply industry of £37 billion. Let us leave that point aside for the moment. The City gives that estimate because it recognises that AGRs (advanced gas cooled reactors) will be in the same position in a few years' time as the Magnox reactors are now. After all, Hunterston B, which is the AGR next door to Hunterston A, which is the Magnox station, is due to be decommissioned in the year 2007. In market terms that is not very far away.
People in the City are saying that in three or four years' time these great nuclear power companies that we are all going to buy in some form or another will have to make provisions of a massive nature in order to start the decommissioning programme of the AGRs. In very net terms and very broad terms we are told on reliable evidence that to decommission a Magnox costs £500 million. We are told by the City that the sale of the electricity supply industry would raise £13 billion. If one multiplies the simple half a billion by the number of Magnoxes that will be in the hands of the taxpayer, and writes off the proceeds against £13 billion—it is a very simple calculation but it is worth doing—one arrives at approximately £7 billion. That is the figure that will come in to the Treasury for all the effort that your Lordships have expended over time on this Bill and for all the disruption that we know will take place in the industry. I hope that the Government will consider that point.
Finally, there is the problem of safety. In the amendments from the Commons that we have before us there is a deviation—I hope I may put it like that—from the amendments passed in your Lordships' House on the question of safety. I shall take Hinkley Point as an example again. Let us consider that we now have three stations. We have the Magnox, the AGR and the PWR, each of which is under different ownership. The safety provisions at Hinkley Point in the event of a civil emergency would have to be run at the end of the day by the people who own the stations in conjunction with the authorities in the region, rather than as an ensemble, which is the case at the moment.
I believe that this is a time for reflection. As I did on Second Reading, I appeal to noble Lords opposite to think about this problem. The Government have changed tack. They may be right or they may be wrong. We always assumed that they would have to change tack. I believe that in order to sell National Power they will have to change tack even further. However, I shall not pursue that point at the moment.
Yesterday there was a change of tack. I believe that noble Lords opposite would say that that is fine but that we should at least have a period of reflection

1313
to think about how all this is going to work out in practice before barging ahead with the Bill and submitting it to Her Majesty for Royal Assent. We are, after all, dealing with nuclear power stations; we are not dealing with tiddly-winks. Nuclear power stations are vital, dangerous and important assets. I believe that noble Lords opposite should join with me in inviting the Government to postpone this discussion until the autumn, by which time we hope that they will have worked out their policy rather more thoroughly than they have to date.
Moved, That the debate be adjourned to allow further time to reconsider the Bill, following the Government's Statement of 24th July on Magnox nuclear power stations. —(Lord Williams of Elvel.)
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, the original Question was that the Commons' amendments and reasons be now considered, since when it has been moved by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, that the debate be adjourned for the reasons set out on the Order Paper. The Question I now therefore have to put is that the Motion for the adjournment of the debate be agreed to.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, I rise to support the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, with a feeling of great sadness which I believe will be echoed on all Benches in your Lordships' House. I refer to the ordeal which the noble Baroness was put through yesterday afternoon. In effect she was asked to negotiate a U-turn on behalf of a right honourable friend in another place, who skipped it, being translated to transport. It was quite wrong to subject her to that.
I remind your Lordships that at a very early stage in Committee on the Bill the noble Lords, Lord Williams of Elvel, Lord Ezra, Lord Peyton—I am glad to see them in their places—and I proposed an amendment which was rejected by the Government. Yesterday the noble Baroness was asked to eat her words. That is absolutely wrong. I think she has been treated very badly. Although she is not in her place today, I hope she will read my remarks in Hansard tomorrow.
I entirely endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Williams, has said. We have been told that there were calculations and miscalculations. They should be published so that they can be studied by Members of your Lordships' House and by honourable Members in another place. Practically speaking, what they propose is about two-thirds of what I proposed in my 'amendment, which could have been passed and none of this need have occurred.
We find that these calculations and miscalculations—I am referring to what I remember of the speech of the noble Baroness yesterday—have come to light only in the past couple of months or so. This is disgraceful. The CEGB publishes annual accounts. British Nuclear Fuels Limited publishes annual accounts and works at a profit. We are told that reprocessing spent fuel is too expensive, but why do the Japanese send spent fuel to this country for reprocessing at a profit to BNFL? If BNFL can
1314
make a profit on it and the Japanese can make economic electricity out of it, why cannot the CEGB?
Only those who, like myself, have been close to the in-fighting between the CEGB, the Treasury and the authorities in the City have any idea of what has been going on. The disposal of spent fuel, for instance by cold storage or dry storage as it is called, is merely putting the burden of reprocessing on to our grandchildren. That should not be done; it should be paid for out of current costs. I want to see the figures, the calculations and the miscalculations so that, as the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, has said, we can study them at leisure and then find out whether the Government have made a pig's breakfast of the Bill.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords. I have never concealed my dislike of the Bill. I very much share the feelings expressed by the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, about the amendment which he moved at Committee stage and which I, among others, supported. It seems surprising, even though welcome, that the Government should have listened to those arguments, which have gained nothing in cogency since, and proved wholly deaf to them then yet they have now given way on two-thirds of the point. I do not want to dwell on the subject, but reflecting upon it from this side of your Lordships' House I get no pleasure from it.
At the same time I question whether your Lordships would be wise to accept the Motion moved by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, in that I do not see what could possibly be gained by it. We should be holding on to the Bill—not the whole body of the Bill so that the whole issue could be aired, but we should be holding on to it by the tip of its tail. That would not put us in any privileged or influential position. Therefore I find myself unable to support the Motion, though I believe that the noble Lord was perfectly right and justified to air the points, and he has done so with great eloquence.
If there was one factor which might have persuaded me, out of pig-headedness and irritation, to vote for the Motion it was the words used by my right honourable friend who was the Secretary of State until yesterday when he referred to one of your Lordships' amendments as a dog's breakfast amendment. That comment could be made very easily about many amendments that are moved in your Lordships' House and in another place. I understood that it has always been the case that governments, taking note of the principle, are free to redraft amendments in a more acceptable form. However, when that kind of epithet is used by a Minister who is himself responsible for a Bill which shows him to be no mere dabbler in canine nutrition himself but in fact to be providing meals for a twelvemonth for a whole host of doggies, I find myself slightly upset. The amendment which was moved and which had very widespread support in your Lordships' House was not an unreasonable one. In my view it is still rather better than what my right honourable friend that former Secretary of State has put in its place.

1315
Despite that I feel for the reasons that I have given that it would be wrong —really wrong to accept the Motion. As I have said, I do not like the Bill at all. However, to prolong further the uncertainty as to what will happen eventually to the Bill until we get back here in October would gain nobody anything at all. I cannot see that it would gain anybody anything on party political grounds. From the point of view of the industry, the sooner it is free of the legislative argument and free to get on with a job which I believe to be quite impossible or to involve extremes of difficulty, the better the interests of the nation as a whole will be served. Uncertainty, which would be the fruit of the noble Lord's Motion, is the factor most to be feared at this stage.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, was quite right to raise the issue at this stage, late though it be. Those of us who heard the Statement yesterday on the Magnox stations were amazed to say the least. That this major change had been made at such a late stage passes beyond reasonable belief and understanding.
Two points came out of the short discussion that we had after the Statement was read out by the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper (whose absence we regret). The first was to wonder how this had happened at the last minute. It was my noble friend Lady Seear who raised that point, and I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, also raised it. Secondly, noble Lords asked, as I did, if the Magnox stations are to be taken out of the privatisation, why not the whole of the nuclear arrangement? As the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, has so clearly stated, this is an integrated operation. The Magnox plants, the AGRs and the PWRs when they come into operation will all operate cheek by jowl. They will all have the same infrastructure. They will have the same general personnel. To have two companies in ownership of parts of an integrated operation would be very difficult.
I hope very much that when the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson, replies he will cover all the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, in order to explain to us how this extraordinary rearrangement will work in practice.
Lord Renton: My Lords, what we really have to decide on this Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Williams, is whether we should proceed this afternoon with the consideration of the Commons answers to our many amendments. We submitted hundreds of amendments for another place to consider and they have made very few changes in them. However, the principal point is that the Statement made yesterday about the Magnox stations does not affect the issues that are before us this afternoon on those Commons answers.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for allowing me to intervene. If he would look at the Commons amendments on nuclear safety, which I mentioned particularly—
Lord Renton: Which numbers?
Lord Williams of Elvel: The Commons amendment to Clause 92 and our new clause in Lords Amendment No. 9. The noble Lord will see that those relate directly to nuclear safety. That is one of the points—possibly the major point—that I raised in my speech.
A noble Lord: My Lords—
Lord Renton: My Lords, I gave way to the noble Lord and I shall now try to answer the point that he raised. He referred to an amendment with which the Commons disagreed. The reason they give for disagreement is that:
"the aim of this amendment is adequately secured by existing legislation".
Nothing in the Magnox Statement yesterday alters that proposition.
There are two other factors, among others, which ought to govern our decision on this Motion to adjourn. I shall stick to those which are of closest relevance. The first is, as was said in the course of the Statement yesterday in both Houses, that the Statement does not require any amendment of the Bill. I am glad to see the noble Lord nodding his head in agreement.
The other point is whether the Statement alters the financial arrangements which are proposed by the Government and which are envisaged already to some extent in the Bill in Schedule 12. There again there is no reason for adjournment. It was stated yesterday in the course of the Statement that in the autumn the Government will lay a draft order increasing—very considerably, I agree—the amount which will need to be paid now that the full facts about the failure in the past of the accounting procedures on the Magnox stations have come to light. That will be the opportunity for the noble Lord to develop, deploy and put before your Lordships the financial considerations which the Government themselves will have to attempt to justify to each House of Parliament when that draft order comes before us. So, strictly speaking, there is no case whatever for the adjournment, as my noble friend Lord Peyton has already made clear, although he is opposed to the Bill.
I must confess that I am in favour of the Bill. I do not accept that there has been a U-turn. The difference is a difference of degree, although quite a considerable one. It was contemplated from the start of the development of nuclear energy in this country that accounting would be a difficult matter, fraught with uncertainties. That has become increasingly the case as the difficulty of disposing of the Magnox fuel has been experienced along with the uncertain length of life of the Magnox stations and now the enormous—let us face up to it, it is enormous—cost of decommissioning them.
The noble Lord said that he would not make a party point. He made a good Third Reading speech which interested me very much. I shall make a point in favour of the Government.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Renton: My Lords, it is another point in favour of the Government. Whether it is a party point is a matter of opinion. The point that I shall make is this: thank goodness we have a Government who are candid and honest enough—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Renton: My Lords, when facts have been brought to light, the Government have come to both Houses of Parliament as soon as they could, having required the accountants concerned in the industry to go more deeply into matters. As a result we are now faced with the Statement that we were given yesterday. The Government deserve to be commended on the way in which they have handled the matter. It is far better that we should get on with the implementation of the Bill and not have an adjournment of consideration of the Commons' responses which would delay Royal Assent.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, does he agree that, with his undoubted gift for paradox, he should commend the Government even more on their extraordinary financial and business competence?
Lord Renton: My Lords, with great respect to the noble Lord, the problem that has arisen is an old problem which relates to the past. Strictly speaking, from the outset—and all governments of the last 30 years are to blame for not having insisted upon it—the future cost of disposing of the fuel and of decommissioning the power stations should have been borne to a much greater extent by consumers from time to time. That was not done. And that is where the trouble lies. All parties that have been in power are to blame for that.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down perhaps he will answer one question. We hear of miscalculations in the last two months. How many more miscalculations may come to light in the next two months?
Lord Renton: My Lords, I cannot answer that question.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, I endorse what has been said in favour of the Motion by the noble Lords, Lord Williams of Elvel and Lord Ezra, and by the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, from the Cross Benches. So far, the discussion has been mostly about whether it is a good or bad thing to retain the Magnox stations in public ownership. I should like to emphasise the other side of the equation.
Here we have a Bill which has completed its progress through Parliament. It is a Bill of immense length—150 pages. It has been most fully discussed in both Houses. At the very last moment, we find that this is not a Bill to put into effect the sale of the entire generating capacity of this country—or virtually the entire generating capacity—to the private sector, but to put on sale to the private sector only the greater part of the generating capacity of this country.
1318
It is not a flotation for which a just and fair price of £13 billion is any longer expected. It is another flotation from which the liabilities of the Magnox stations have been removed to the tune of £4·5 billion. The assets of all the other stations have been left. It is a change which could not possibly be described by anyone in his right mind as a minor adjustment.
We in this House were told and the House of Commons was told yesterday that the change does not necessitate any alteration to the Bill. I base my support for the resolution of the noble Lord, Lord Williams, on the fact that it is simply not right for a government to assert that and for the Bill to pass into law within 24 hours. The right course must be to give us time to read all the 150 pages once more to see whether in our opinion—because it is the opinion of each individual among us which makes the law —this is still the right Bill to achieve the purpose, as changed.
The fact that we on this side of the House did not agree with the original purpose is neither here nor there. A Bill was adopted by a majority to achieve that purpose. The purpose is now changed by 40 per cent. of the total value to the tune of £4·5 billion. The purpose is now changed and we are told that the Bill does not need to be changed. What is against giving us time to read and make up our own minds as is customary in democratic assemblies?
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, yesterday's announcement came like a bolt from the blue. The House was shocked by the announcement, bearing in mind that the opportunity had been given some time before that announcement for the Government to give a proper reply to amendments that were moved from this side of the House by the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, which would have sought to put the nuclear matter right. But no such arguments were then adduced. Yesterday we were faced with the proposition that, because of the huge costs associated with the Magnox power stations which were apparently not known before, they should be excluded from the sale. We must consider whether that information has been available over a long period of time and has been concealed from Parliament and the public. That must be the case because, over a long period of time, arguments have been adduced in favour of nuclear power which show that the Magnox stations were viable and, in relation to the cost of electricity produced, were competitive by comparison with coal-fired stations. It now appears that that was never so.
If that is the case, how are we to know that the figures that have been produced over a long period in relation to the AGRs are not equally false? Over the past few years those figures have been produced to Parliament, the Select Committee on Energy and the public to convince the House, the other place and the public that the pressurised water reactor is a superior reactor to the advanced gas cooled reactor.
How are we to know whether the information given is correct? Indeed, how are we to know whether any information given about nuclear power is correct? That is a very good reason why there should be a further period of time to enable the Government

1319
and other sources to try to get at the truth about the costs not only of Magnox (because there may be further mistakes about that) but also of the AGR stations.
The noble Lord, Lord Renton, sought to reassure the House that if we did not have this delay it would not matter because there would be an order and when that order came forward we should be able to discuss it. The implication was that we should be able to do something about it. But, as noble Lords know, orders are not amendable. Therefore, if we wish to make any amendment to an order that has been brought forward from the other place, we shall be specifically precluded from proposing such a move.
Lord Renton: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will permit me to intervene. The order, as was mentioned yesterday, will be subject to affirmative resolution of each House.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, it may very well be that the order will be an affirmative order. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Renton, knows, whether it is an affirmative or a negative order, it is unamendable. No order is amendable. Therefore, this House will not be able to have any influence at all. It is in the tradition of this House and convention of this House that we cannot amend. Nor indeed can the other place. Nor do we vote against amendments brought forward and agreed by the other place. That is the convention of this House. At least, so I have always been told. I have wished to vote against orders only to be told by my Front Bench that it is against the convention of the House. I always obeyed it. I cannot imagine that we should suddenly break the convention of decades and reverse the position in this instance.
Those are reasons which, in my view, give support to the amendment of my noble friend Lord Williams. I hope that the House will give itself and the Government a break by supporting it.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I wish to oppose the Motion. It was most interesting to hear it so beautifully introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Williams. However, I remain totally unconvinced that there is any justice in the proposal to adjourn this debate for further consideration.
There was very thorough debate of the Bill during its passage through the House. The statement about the Magnox power stations is a red herring. The fact that the matter has been brought to Parliament so promptly means that there has been no attempt to conceal it from us. I am glad to speak immediately after the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart. He made clear his belief that there was something sinister about the fact that it had only appeared at the last moment. I do not go along with that at all.
Within the industry people have known that there was an expense associated with Magnox stations. However, until this stage, when one is developing separate accounting systems in each section and examining specific parts of the industry, it is quite possible that the exact amount has not been known.
1320
The noble Lord, Lord Stoddard, made the point that we have been deceived into thinking that nuclear power is inexpensive and said that costs have been hidden from us. I do not accept that view either, because up to the present nuclear power has been comparatively inexpensive. It is the decommissioning costs that are the very heavy costs, and they are for the future.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, perhaps the noble Baroness will allow me to intervene. The point that I was making was that over a very long period of time various authorities, including the Select Committee on Energy of the other place, of which I was a member, repeatedly asked for correct information. Reference was repeatedly made to decommissioning costs. Despite that we were repeatedly told that the Magnox power stations, and indeed the AGRs at a later stage, were very competitive with coal.
That is my point. Now it has been proved that the laymen on the committee were right all the way along and that the CEGB was wrong.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I am interested in that remark of the noble Lord. I believe that he is overlooking the fact that the industry has been one whole huge industry. It has not been sectionalised in the way that he suggests so that people would have known the exact costs. I do not think that the costs have clearly been known until this stage. However, as indicated already, this would not affect the Bill. No change is required in the Bill. That is a highly relevant point.
As your Lordships know, I serve on the London Electricity Board. I have told the House before that I shall soon be out of a job and therefore spending more time in this Chamber worrying noble Lords. I shall have more spare time. At least I know that I am there until the time of the changeover. Let us consider, however, the employees of the electricity industry. They have been working very hard and have taken great trouble to prepare papers, accounts and documents, and to institute procedures. So many things are happening which affect those who are working in the electricity industry at all levels.
As my noble friend Lord Peyton said, to create a degree of uncertainty by setting this Bill aside and looking at it again will make people wonder where their future lies. That would be very negative, in fact destructive. It would be quite unfair to those who work within the industry.
The spadework has been done. The Bill should proceed without this kind of delay which, no matter what words are attached to it from the other side—
Baroness Seear: My Lords, the people in the industry are the people who produced the wrong figures, are they not?
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I shall not comment on that point, I do not know who produced the figures—whether they came from the department or the industry. The noble Lord, Lord Williams, referred to the management problem and commented upon how complicated a structure

1321
would emerge. Certainly it will be complicated; it is complicated enough in the present state of the industry. I believe that the industry is quite capable of coping with the changes.
It was most alarmist to bring up the safety issue. The standards of safety, I believe, are very high. We all hope and pray that never again, anywhere in the world, will there be another disaster such as Chernobyl. I believe that in this country we are taking every reasonable safety precaution. That element was introduced into the noble Lord's speech, I believe, in order to give an alarmist touch.
The noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, thought that it would not be fair to my noble friend Lady Hooper should this matter not be looked into carefully. He expressed sympathy with the difficult time that she had had yesterday afternoon. I too should like to pay tribute to my noble friend. The greatest tribute to her would be to pass the Bill. She has worked very hard, has answered all questions, in fact has dealt impeccably with the matter. This kind of delaying tactic shows no appreciation of the work that she has done, I speak with every courtesy to the noble Earl who suggested that course.
I believe that when all points are considered it will be realised that there is no reason whatever to delay the Bill and that the Motion on the Order Paper today is simply a straightforward delaying tactic. There will be many items to be sorted out. I believe that it can be done after the Bill receives Royal Assent. I do not support the adjournment Motion. I oppose it and ask the House to do so.
4 p.m.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, with regard to the last remark of the noble Baroness, it was not those on this side of the House who removed the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, from the Front Bench.
Perhaps I may ask for clarification on a matter in regard to this draft order and its approval. In repeating the Statement from the Commons yesterday, the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, said at col. 1149 of Hansard:
"This order will be subject to affirmative resolution and will give the House a full opportunity to debate our detailed proposals".
I presume that that is the matter to which the noble Lord, Lord Renton, referred a few moments ago.
However, we have to bear in mind that it was a repeat of a Statement that had been made in the Commons. I refer noble Lords to Schedule 12, paragraph 4 (2), of the Bill, which states:
"No order shall be made under this paragraph unless a draft of the order has been approved by a resolution of the House of Commons".
We have no ability to deal with that order. It will not come before your Lordships' House.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, that point was raised yesterday. The noble Baroness said that there will also be an opportunity to debate the matter in this House later.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, I have three remarks to make and I can make them in three minutes. First, many of us would consider that the Bill had been rushed through and had been ill considered. The fact that at this eleventh hour the Government find that it will cost more to decommission the Magnox reactors is hardly surprising. We never knew what it was going to cost. It is ridiculous to make this a major new idea of splitting up the responsibilities and creating what is in effect a new company just because of this discrepancy.
For ages we have been saying that it is absolute folly not to have a separate, govern ment-controlled company to take the nuclear reactors. There are many reasons for that. The nuclear stations are not popular. Yet this Government, in my own personal opinion, rightly consider that we should go on with a major nuclear capability.
I support the resolution because the Government ought to think again. They ought to think more widely than just of the difficulty that they have with the Magnox reactors. It is ridiculous to continue talking about that as a major problem when they ought to think about the separate, company for nuclear reactors.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, having interrupted the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, I beg the leave of the House to say a few words more. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, made a series of very cogent points. I frankly agreed with them. But when it comes to deciding whether we should further delay the Bill—delay the dog's breakfast further—I do not go along with that, because, as my noble friend Lord Peyton pointed out, it merely means further uncertainty for an anguished industry.
There are two lessons to be learnt here. I hope that the new Secretary of State will go through this afternoon's Hansard with very great care and take seriously what is said in this House. For years we have tried to warn the Government first, that energy policy is not to be trivialised, and, secondly, that this Bill was a bad Bill, ill thought out, following a White Paper that was ill thought out, and at points almost unintelligible. We had unintelligible defences of points during Committee and at other stages of the Bill. We were not well treated.
So this is a prime opportunity to underline for the incoming Secretary of State why we wish him the best of British luck. He will certainly need it. Will he please consider our views and take on board this very simple point? The Bill looks as if it may be coming apart at the seams. I am not saying that it has, but it may be. It needs very careful examination. I do not believe that any good purpose is served at this stage by trying to delay it further.
I found the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Williams, very serious and very real, especially with regard to the muddle about management where nuclear safety issues may arise. It is a subject that we debated considerably in the House. Had we had a Division early enough in the afternoon we would indeed have won our amendment. I beg the Secretary

1323
of State in another place to take very seriously indeed what has been said this afternoon.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I must take issue with the noble Lord, Lord Renton, when he says that the Government are to be congratulated and denies that there has been a U-turn. I am sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, is not on the Front Bench. I wish her every happiness in undertaking whatever may succeed her task here.
However, yesterday she told us that it was only within the last two months that these figures had appeared. If the noble Lord, Lord Renton, is congratulating the Government, what is he congratulating them on? Is it on their competence? It would appear that even before this Bill was drafted no proper audit of the costs in the nuclear side of the industry had been calculated. Is that a matter for congratulation to the Government?
I remind the House—and I wish that I could remind the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper—that during the Report stage of this Bill I asked her the specific question: were the Government taking into account all the costs involved, including the costs of decommissioning, when they gave their figures for the different sectors of the nuclear industry? I listed a number of costs, including decommissioning. The answer was, yes.
If the answer was yes just a few weeks ago, and only yesterday were the Government able to say that they had been wrong, I suggest that the real charge against the Government on this as on so many other matters is that they will not listen. They have been told time without number, not only from this side of the House but from all sides during the progress of this Bill, that the cost of nuclear energy—whether it be through the Magnox, the AGRs or the PWRs—was far higher than they were making out.
Lastly, in supporting my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel nobody has yet answered the most important question that he raised: the effect on safety in the nuclear industry of the Statement that was made yesterday. If we are to have three different types of nuclear reactor under different management and there is an accident—and nobody in this House will say that there cannot be an accident—the provision for meeting the risks of that accident will be divided by three. That means they they will be multiplied many times over. That is the essential point that people in this country are considering. They are beginning to oppose the Government on their nuclear energy policy. That issue raised by my noble friend is far more important than all the financial considerations. It is more important to the people of this country. It is more important to the people in Sizewell, Wylfa and Hinkley.
Yesterday, late in the progress of this Bill, the Government said that they were changing the whole thrust of the nuclear aspect of the Bill. We have been debating this Bill on an inaccurate prospectus. We have been debating it on the supposition that the words in the Bill and the speeches of the Ministers were going to be carried through. That situation has now changed. Parliament should postpone its consideration of the Bill. The Government have a
1324
responsiblity to give Parliament more than a last-minute change in policy. They should take this Bill back for the next two months and come back, having costed—accurately this time—the real cost of all forms of nuclear energy and the real dangers of splitting up the nuclear installations.
Every part of this House supported the amendments that were carried. The Government were then warned that what they said yesterday was likely to happen. Therefore, the least that the Government can do is to take this back for the next two months and come back to this House with an accurate, honest and fair forecast of what they intend to do in the new circumstances which they have been forced to admit are an essential part of their new policy. It is time that the Government recognised that they were wrong. They should come back in the autumn and give us the opportunity of debating reality instead of the fantasy under which we have so far been debating.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, we have had a very long debate and I make no apology for the fact that I at least have listened very closely to what everyone has said. I should like to start by running over some of the points made in the Statement yesterday because this is an important debate, as most noble Lords who have spoken have admitted.
Our preparations for privatisation have made clear that the cost of reprocessing and waste treatment of spent Magnox fuel will be a great deal higher than that which has been charged in electricity prices and shown in the accounts of the generators. Most of those costs relate to past generation. Future customers will be bearing the full cost of the electricity that they consume. It would not be right to burden them also with costs arising from the past.
The energies of the companies should be directed towards ensuring that their existing stations are run efficiently and at lowest cost. To allow them to focus on the future, the Government have decided that the assets and liabilities relating to the Magnox stations should remain under government control.
The advanced gas-cooled reactor stations will be assigned to National Power and the Scottish Nuclear Company and will be privatised. National Power will continue to construct Sizewell B. Subject to obtaining the necessary planning approvals and consents, and satisfactory contractual arrangements, it intends to construct and operate three more PWRs.
As the noble Lord, Lord Renton, and other noble Lords have said, no changes to the Bill are necessary. The Government are most concerned that nothing is done to jeopardise the future of the employees concerned and will therefore discuss the implementation of the proposals with all the parties concerned, including the trade unions. The Government will ensure that the necessary resources are available to maintain the present high standards of safety and environmental protection.
On the basis of the presently planned life, the last Magnox station will have closed by the year 2002. Thereafter, commercial nuclear power generation

1325
will be wholly in the private sector, where it should be in our view and where it will flourish.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, suggested that the Government should look again at their decision to privatise nuclear power. The Government have done what the noble Lord suggested to a point. Privatisation has brought new figures to light and we have moved rapidly—and I mean rapidly—to deal with the issue. A decision has been taken not to pass on the problems of the past to customers in the future. I do not know why the noble Lord is not applauding the Government for at least taking this step.
It is exactly because we have come back to the House so promptly to explain the problems as they emerged, and how we intend to deal with them, that today we do not have detailed proposals in every area. It would have been quite wrong for the Government to rush to produce detailed proposals before the trade unions had been fully consulted about the consequences of this decision. Around 4,500 people—not a small number of people in the context of jobs in this country—currently work at the Magnox stations. It would have been irresponsible of the Government to make decisions which could affect their pension rights, their ability to benefit from the flotations and their career prospects. The Labour Opposition may laugh, but, quite honestly, we on this side of the House believe that employees have rights. The Government are determined to ensure that nothing is done to jeopardise those rights and they do not intend to be railroaded into making premature decisions which might prevent that.
The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, intervened to ask about a debate. I should like to answer the noble Lord now, as my noble friend Lord Lauderdale mentioned. I confirm that the House will have an opportunity to debate the detailed arrangements of our proposals, and that a date will be agreed through the usual channels.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, an opportunity to debate is one thing, but will the proposals be laid before the House in a form requiring the approval of the House before they come into effect?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, the noble Lord may recall that money affairs are dealt with in another place. I have promised, as my noble friend Lady Hooper has promised, that a debate will be held in this House at a suitable moment, arranged through the usual channels.
I should like to repeat that it was only as a result of the intense scrutiny which privatisation has required that these figures have come to light at all. They have always been there and would probably have remained hidden had it not been for the Government's proposals. I cannot accept that the Government have in any way tried to deceive the House. These higher costs have only come to light over the last couple of months. Some time was required for them to be analysed and for decisions based on them to be taken. I assure noble Lords that this has been done with the greatest possible promptness.
1326
Having made that decision, although it required no amendments to the Bill, the Government thought it right to announce the decision to Parliament. They did not have to do so; They could have kept the decision secret until the autumn. However, the Government decided that this issue must not be fudged. What is more, the announcement was not made in an underhand way; it was made by formal Statement to both Houses of Parliament. The Opposition was warned of this fact in advance.
I totally reject the claim that the Government have tried to hide this issue in any way. We have been exemplary in revealing the problem at the earliest possible stage and fully disclosing our proposals to both Houses. I also reject any suggestion that the Bill needs to be withdrawn. We believe that the Bill is a good one and that it will achieve the results which is was intended to achieve. The decision to keep Magnox stations in the public sector will make privatisation more successful.
In reply to the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, about the City, perhaps I may say that the noble Lord may like to note that our advice is that this policy significantly improves the potential value of the privatisation of national power.
The Bill is designed to achieve the complete reorganisation of an industry and the introduction of competition, wherever possible, before privatisation. This Bill has therefore been the parliamentary foundation on which a vast number of people in the industry have devoted a great deal of time and effort to reorganise their industry and bring in the forces of the market. They realise the benefits which privatisation will bring to customers, to employees and to the nation and they have been working to achieve those benefits. We would not wish to put this at risk. It is essential for our overall timetable for carrying out the reorganisation an d privatisation of the industry that we obtain Royal Assent to the Electricity Bill by Thursday, and we must therefore agree a sensible allocation of time for the remaining consideration of your Lordships' amendments.
The Electricity Bill has already been examined in great detail by this House. Nobody knows better than the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, that 57 hours, spread over a total of 12 days, have been devoted to it. I reject the charge of the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, that this Bill has been rushed through. It is therefore simply incredible to say that the Bill has not been fully examined. Indeed, the Government have listened carefully and sympathetically to very many reasonable amendments put forward from all sides of the Chamber. At least 24 amendments have been accepted by the Government.
The approach we have proposed for the Magnox stations will ensure that the costs of the past be dealt with and the future of nuclear power safeguarded in the private sector. As was made clear yesterday, a large amount of work now needs to be done for the new successor company to be in place in time. But we are still confident that privatisation can be completed in the lifetime of this Parliament. However, this can only be achieved if there is no

1327
further delay to the Bill. I must repeat, our proposals for Magnox are fully consistent with the Bill as it stands. They require no amendment or further resolutions. We made clear yesterday what we intend; and there was a debate on those proposals. There can therefore be absolutely no justification whatsoever for any further delay.
Moreover, the Government have said that we shall return to Parliament to lay an order in the autumn to increase the interim £1,000 million limit on grants to £2,500 million. Parliament will therefore have a further opportunity to debate the Government's proposals in full at a later stage. I have already said to the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, what we intend should happen in this House. The noble Lords, Lord Williams of Elvel, Lord Hatch, and my noble friend Lord Renton particularly mentioned nuclear safety. It is a subject that is extremely important in any industry at any time, particularly in the nuclear field. The nuclear safety amendments are not relevant.
Our case is that ownership is not relevant to the nuclear safety regime. That deals with the safe generation of the stations whoever owns them. This measure will not lead to any reduction in the high standards of safety to which the Magnox stations currently operate. Only last week these standards were praised by an independent team of experts from the International Atomic Energy Agency who conducted a three-week detailed review of operational safety at Oldbury power station.
We shall be discussing details of the new arrangements with the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate to ensure that it is completely satisfied with what is proposed. We shall also ensure that the new company has access to the resources which are needed to meet its obligations under the licence. The noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, should note that my noble friend Lady Hooper made clear in her statement on safety that the new proposed arrangements will have to satisfy the Independent Installations Inspectorate. We shall return to that matter at a later stage this afternoon.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, asked me about split sites. The Bill has been designed to deal with this problem. This House passed amendments to deal with leased assets on such sites. He also asked about AGRs and whether they will be in the same position in a few years' time. The performance of the AGRs has improved markedly. This can be expected to continue. We have no reason to doubt that. We believe that they have a long and successful future ahead of them. The higher costs are almost all as the result of Magnox spent fuel. PWR fuel and AGR fuel, if dry stored, does not need to be reprocessed.
The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, asked whether the purpose of the Bill is changed. The answer to that is no. The Long Title states,
"to provide for the vesting of the property, rights and liabilities of the Electricity Boards … in companies nominated by the Secretary of State".
The Bill enables the Secretary of State to dispose of these companies: it does not require him so to do. The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, asked me whether Magnox plc will sell cheap and subsidised
1328
power. I presume he meant electricity. The answer is no. It will sell power at a cost related to price as previously envisaged. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, said that the Government have claimed that nuclear power is cheaper. I do not know whether the noble Lord was here on every single occasion, though I know he was present a great deal of the time. The Government have never claimed during the passage of this Bill that nuclear power is cheaper that fossil fuel.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I believe that when the Minister studies Hansard he will find that I said that the CEGB—not the Government—has tried to convince us that nuclear energy is cheaper.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord. I shall look at Hansard. If what he has said is the case, then I apologise to him. I thought he had said that it was the Government who had so stated. The non-fossil obligation and levy were created specifically because nuclear energy is more expensive. The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, said that there was no provision for residuary bodies to continue. That is not relevant. The assets of the existing bodies will be transferred to successor companies. The residuary bodies are simply there to tidy up anything that cannot be dealt with in the schemes.
This has been a long and I hope detailed answer to the very relevant questions that have been asked. If an adjournment is approved, it will stop the Bill in its tracks. I feel that this is quite an extraordinary development at this stage and therefore I urge your Lordships to reject the Motion.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I should like him to answer one question. Will these arcane accountancy procedures that have been hidden and held under wraps for so long be published in due course?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, all information relating to the figures of companies has to be considered and evaluated. That is what the Government have done. What we shall now seek to do in the course of the debates that will take place both in your Lordships' House and in another place is to try to ensure that the whole relevant financial situation is duly considered and acted on.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am most grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. At the outset of winding up I wish to express my own personal appreciation of the work that the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, did from the Government Front Bench during the course of our discussions on the Bill. I am sorry that she is not in her place today. I should have offered my appreciation when I moved the Motion. I am most grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, for drawing my attention to the role that was played by the noble Baroness. I certainly wish her well.
In The Merchant of Venice Portia says to Bassanio,
"I pray you, tarry":

1329
The passage continues: "Beshrew your eyes". That may be perhaps rather indelicate in the light of the current situation. I believe it was the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, who raised the central issue of this debate; namely, whether an adjournment would be beneficial to the industry and the nation. I wish to comment on the points that various noble Lords have made on that issue.
During the course of our debates both in Committee and on Report we have consistently been told by Government spokesmen that the Bill should be taken in conjuction with the draft licences and arguably the draft contracts. On Report the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, said that we could not possibly continue to debate a certain point because the document on how the grid will operate was not available. It is fundamental to the consideration of the Bill that we should have the subsidiary documents. I accept that they are not parliamentary documents—they may be in the Library or elsewhere—but they are fundamental to the consideration of the Bill.
The fact that I am asking for an adjournment so that these matters can be properly resolved does not necessarily mean that I am asking for the Bill to be modified. As the noble Lords, Lord Sanderson and Lord Renton, rightly pointed out, the Bill does not need to be modified in order to accomplish the Government's present design. Nevertheless, the licences and the contracts must be modified. I take issue with the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson, because I believe that the way in which the grid operates must be modified.
He made an interesting point in saying that the Magnox stations will continue to feed electricity into the grid on a cost-plus basis. That is exactly what they do at the moment—it is marginal cost. Does the noble Lord wish to intervene?
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. As he was good enough to mention my name, I should like to ask him a question. In the present circumstances, with the time being as it is, how does he expect anyone to benefit from delaying the Bill? It would mean the postponement for two or three months of any effective action. Whether or not one likes the Bill, injecting such damaging uncertainty can serve no one's good. I ask the noble Lord to address himself to that point.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am addressing myself to that point. I believe that the Government must consider the consequential arrangements which result from their Statement of yesterday. I believe that the whole contractual situation must be revised when there is a publicly-owned Magnox plc. I believe that the licences must be revised when there is a publicly-owned Magnox plc. I believe that the grid must begin to operate in a slightly different manner because there will be a publicly-owned company which will feed electricity into the grid at marginal cost.
1330
All those matters affect the arrangements which we have discussed during the 57 hours that the Bill has been before your Lordships' House. There will be no flotation in August; there will be no flotation in September. I am saying that in October we can come back and the new Minister responsible can consider the matters, and present the House with the new subsidiary document.
As regards the subject of nuclear safety, the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, thought that I was introducing either a red herring, a pig's breakfast or a dog's breakfast—I am not sure because I cannot read my notes. Perhaps other noble Lords were introducing one or another. I firmly share the view held by my noble friend Lord Hatch of Lusby that one cannot joke about nuclear safety or take the matter other than wholly seriously.
When we separate the Magnox stations from the AGRs, I believe that there is a question mark about how in safety terms it will be managed. I cannot say to the noble Baroness that it is a real problem. I can say that there is what I believe to be a real problem; but we shall know only when there is a major incident. I prefer that there should not be a major incident so I should like to warn the Government in advance that I believe that there is a difficulty—
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to intervene as he has mentioned my name. Why does he believe that the present high safety standards will not be maintained and that the Government and the Department of Energy will not ensure that they are maintained, whoever are the owners of the Magnox stations?
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I refer the noble Baroness to the arrangements that have been made at Hinkley Point. I do not want to go into great detail because I have already done so. The arrangements involve co-operation between the management of the site and the services outside; the local authority, ambulance services, police and so forth. If there is an incident, one person is responsible; that is the site manager. However, if there is a Magnox and AGR station side-by-side under different management and ownership there will be two managers. Where there are two managers I believe that there is liable to be confusion. I hope that that answers the noble Baroness.
The noble Lord, Lord Sanderson, repeated the arguments which were put forward yesterday in the Statement. He said that in 2002 the last Magnox station will be decommissioned. I say that in 2007 the first AGR station will be decommissioned. Therefore, five years later all the problems that are associated with the Magnox decommissioning will be associated with the AGR decommissioning. So what have the Government solved?
The noble Lord said that we should not pay for the problems of the past. But of course AGRs are a problem of the past. Some of them may be built in the future, but Dungeness B is a problem of the past because we know that it does not work. 'That problem of the past will be loaded on to National Power. If the THORP installation at BNFL does not work in reprocessing AGR fuel we shall be told by the noble

1331
Lord, Lord Marshall of Goring, that there will be a serious hold up in the programme of AGRs. As with all such matters, the chances are that there will be cost overrun; costs up 16 per cent., and so on.
I was absolutely fascinated to hear the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson, say that the Government are concerned about the rights of employees, and that all the trade unions were consulted before the Government did anything. I have heard differently in this House, particularly in relation to the dock labour scheme.
Nevertheless, we now know that the higher costs have come to light in the past two months. My noble friend Lord Stoddart suggested that that was deliberate concealment. I do not go so far as to say that; I say that it is probable incompetence. Either it is concealment or it is incompetence because the costs have been known. Everyone has known that there will be a decommissioning of a Magnox because Berkeley is now being decommissioned.
The noble Lord said that taking Magnox reactors out of privatisation will significantly improve the valuation regarding the market. That appears to be the most naive statement of the year. Of course it will improve. If the taxpayer puts up £0·5 billion for every Magnox which is decommissioned, certainly the value will be improved. It may take it from nothing to £13 billion, which is where it now stands. It does not stand much higher, so the taxpayer will support it.
The arguments against putting the matter on ice for a couple of months are not convincing. I should like to see the Government study a little further the results of their actions yesterday. I should like to see them look at the contractual and licence situations and at all kinds of difficulties which may occur in the management of nuclear safety and civil emergencies, despite what noble Lords have said.
I have spoken long enough in winding up. I regret that the noble Lord has taken such a view, and that he does not agree with my suggestion of postponing the discussion on the Commons amendments. Nevertheless, I must recognise that the Government are the Government, and that by a majority in another place they have support for pursuing the matter and obtaining Royal Assent before the Recess. Therefore, it is with a certain amount of reluctance that I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Noble Lords: No, no!
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Nugent of Guildford): My Lords, is it your Lordships' pleasure that the Motion be withdrawn?
4.40 p.m.
On Question, Whether the Motion for the adjournment of the debate shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 110; Not-Contents, 148.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Ailesbury, M.

Lawrence, L.

Airedale, L.

Leatherland, L.

Alport, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Amherst, E.

Lockwood, B.

Ardwick, L.

Longford, E.

Attlee, E.

Macaulay of Bragar, L.

Aylestone, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Banks, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Barnett, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Blease, L.

McNair, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Bottomley, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Meston, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Molloy, L.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Monson, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L

Nicol, B.

Phillips, B.

Carter, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Porritt, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Raglan, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Rea, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Reilly, L.

Ennals, L.

Rochester, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Ross of Newport, L.

Ezra, L.

Rugby, L.

Fisher of Rednal. B.

Sainsbury, L.

Gallacher, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Galpern, L.

Scanlon, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Seear, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Grey, E.

Serota, B.

Grimond, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Halsbury, E.

Shepherd, L.

Hampton, L.

Simon, V.

Hanworth, V.

Soper, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Stallard, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Stedman, B.

Hayter, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L [Teller.]

Henniker, L.

Hirshfield, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hunt, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Hunter of Newington, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Hylton, L.

Tordoff, L. [Teller.]

Hylton-Foster, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Jay, L.

Underhill, L.

Jeger, B.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Walston, L.

Kagan, L.

Whaddon, L.

Kearton, L.

White, B.

Kennet, L.

Wigoder, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Willis, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Winstanley, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Aldington, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Annaly, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Arran, E.

Carnock, L.

Auckland, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Balfour, E.

Chelmer, L.

Barber, L.

Chorley, L.

Bauer, L.

Cockfield, L.

Beloff, L.

Coleraine, L.

Belstead, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Biddulph, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L

Birdwood, L.

Craigavon, V.

Blake, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Blatch, B.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Borthwick, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Donegall, M.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Donoughmore, E.

Butterworth, L.

Dundee, E.

Caithness, E.

Eden of Winton, L.

1333

Effingham, E.

Monk Bretton, L.

Elibank, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Ellenborough, L.

Morris, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Mottistone, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Elton, L.

Moyne, L.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Munster, E.

Ferrers, E.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Forester, L.

Nelson, E.

Fortescue, E.

Nelson of Stafford, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Newall, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Norfolk, D.

Gainford, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Orkney, E.

Goold, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Grantchester, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Greenway, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Haig, E.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Hanson, L.

Pym, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Quinton, L.

Henley, L.

Reigate, L.

Hesketh, L.

Renton, L.

Hives, L.

Richardson, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Hood, V.

Romney, E.

Hooper, B.

St. Davids, V.

Ingrow, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Seebohm, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Shannon, E.

Joseph, L.

Sharples, B.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Sherfield, L.

Keyes, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Kimball, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Kitchener, E.

Strathcarron, L.

Knutsford, V.

Strathspey, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Sudeley, L.

Layton, L.

Swinfen, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Taylor of Hadfield, L.

Long, V.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Lothian, M.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Torphichen, L.

Luke, L.

Torrington, V.

McFadzean, L.

Trafford, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Tranmire, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Trefgarne, L.

Mancroft, L.

Trumpington, B.

Margadale, L.

Ullswater, V.

Marley, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Wedgwood, L.

Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Windlesham, L.

Merrivale, L.

Wynford, L.

Middleton, L.

Young, B.

Milverton, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Motion disagreed to accordingly.
4.48 p.m.
Motion, That the Commons amendments and reasons be now considered, agreed to.
MARSHALLED LIST OF COMMONS REASONS FOR DISAGREEING TO CERTAIN OF THE LORDS AMENDMENTS, A COMMONS AMENDMENT IN LIEU OF ONE OF THE LORDS AMENDMENTS, A COMMONS AMENDMENT TO ONE OTHER OF THE LORDS AMENDMENTS, AND COMMONS CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS TO THE BILL
[References are to HL Bill 35 as first printed by the Lords. The Commons reasons and amendments are printed in italics.]

LORDS AMENDMENT
1 Clause 1, page 1, line 11, at end insert "in a manner that protects consumers of electricity without discrimination".
2 The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason—
Because the aim of this amendment is adequately secured by the Lords Amendment to insert a subsection (3A) at the end of page 3, line 29, to which the Commons have agreed.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: 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. I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 11, 12 and 13.
Although the first points I am about to make may appear negative, I do not wish to give the impression that what has been said about the position of rural consumers over the past weeks has fallen on deaf ears. We appreciate the concern expressed and I believe that our proposals will give your Lordships the degree of reassurance which has been sought.
When we discussed these amendments on Report, I explained to your Lordships that we were unable to accept Amendment No. 1 because it would undermine the central purpose of the Bill. By requiring the director to ensure that all licensed suppliers dealt with their customers on exactly the same basis in all respects, there could be no scope for competition. Moreover, it would mean that the inherent differences of the various categories of customer would have to be ignored and that all customers would have to be supplied on the same terms. I also pointed out that the amendment would prevent special protection being given—as we have proposed—to groups such as the elderly and disabled, and to those who experience difficulty paying their bills.
Rather than protecting the interests of consumers, therefore, this amendment would worsen their position. I should add that, following my explanation of why we were unable to accept that particular amendment, my noble friend Lord Stanley acknowledged that he too was suspicious about it. The position has not changed and indeed those concerns have been endorsed in another place. I am sure your Lordships will agree that the right course of action is not to insist on the amendment.
Turning to Amendments Nos. 23 and 24, your Lordships will recall that, again, we had difficulties with these. Amendment No. 23 would create an unworkable inconsistency in the Bill by providing, on the one hand, that a supplier should be allowed to show due preference when fixing his tariffs but, on the other, that he would be prevented from discriminating between any of his customers. It would simply be impossible to prevent a supplier from discriminating between tariff customers and yet still allow him to give preference where it was due.
The Bill recognises that preference and discrimination should be permitted where these can be justified. There are many instances where this already happens in practice. One example is the Economy 7 tariff, which enables the supplier to pass on to the customer the benefits of his efficient load management. We would not wish to prevent this. It is, however, our intention that the Bill should prohibit preference or undue discrimination against any individual or against any group of customers. Amendment No. 24 seeks to include rural consumers among those who should be given protection. I can

1335
assure your Lordships that they are already covered by our proposals and that there is no need for the additional qualification that has been proposed. We therefore remain convinced that these amendments are unnecessary and that they would not in any case achieve your Lordships' objectives.
We do, of course, appreciate that the intention behind this group of amendments was the desire to ensure that in future due regard will be paid to, and adequate protection provided for, the interests of rural consumers. When we discussed this question at Report, my noble friend Lord Stanley pointed out that, in relation to the same point on the Water Bill, he had been persuaded by my noble friend Lord Caithness that the correct way to deal with the problem was to give the Secretary of State and the director duties to protect the rural consumer. Consequently my noble friend tabled an equivalent amendment to the Electricity Bill. The effect of that amendment is that the Secretary of State and the director, in exercising their functions under the Bill in the manner best calculated to protect the interests of consumers in respect of the prices they pay for their supplies, would be under a specific obligation to take account in particular of the need to protect the interests of consumers in rural areas.
I am grateful to my noble friend for bringing this point to our attention and congratulate him on the arguments in support of his points. I am pleased to confirm that, after careful consideration, we believe that placing such a duty on the director and the Secretary of State would be an improvement to the Bill in reinforcing the need to take account of the interests of rural customers. That view has been supported in another place.
Your Lordships demonstrated commitment to achieving recognition for the needs of rural consumers when accepting these amendments during the Report stage of the Bill. As I said earlier, we have looked at this matter very closely and believe that the amendment which has been made to the Bill will ensure that the interests of rural consumers will be protected. I am sure that, in view of our proposals, the House will not insist on Amendments Nos. 1, 23 and 24.
Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 1, to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 2. —(Lord Sanderson of Bowden.)
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, perhaps I may say a few words about the amendment. I have to admit, as I said on Report, that Amendment No. 1 was not quite correct. In fact, now that the Government have been so good as to accept the amendment to Clause 3 I have to further admit that I was just a little concerned that Amendment No. 1 was sailing close to the wind. Indeed, it gave my noble friend Lord Renton such a shock that it drove him into the government Lobby, whereas I think he was with me in spirit.
Although I have to admit that it was a paving amendment, I hope the Opposition Front Bench will not cough and splutter too much if I say that it is just possible that such a ruse can be overdone in the
1336
future. Of course, that does not apply to me but I hope it will apply to the Opposition.
I should have preferred to see something in Clause 18 to draw the net tighter; that is, the rejected Amendments Nos. 11 and 12 which my noble friend Lord Sanderson referred to. I accept his arguments and those put forward by my noble friend Lady Hooper on Report. Indeed, I owe him and her an apology for treating the arguments rather cavalierly when I summed up. However, as one of the movers of these amendments—one of which, the amendment to subsection (3)(a) in Clause 3, the Government are to accept—I hope that it is in order for me to thank all noble Lords who supported them. They came from all sides of the House. Not least I thank the Labour and Liberal Front Benches, who helped so much when the heat became rather hot in the kitchen. There were moments when I felt that I had a tiger by the tail. Perhaps I should follow my noble friend Lord Peyton's simile and say that it was a Rottweiler rather than a tiger; but that I find at the moment rather a dangerous form of amusement.
I thank the Government for listening and taking action on the concern expressed by your Lordships for those who live in rural areas and particularly for accepting this amendment to Clause 3. Like the similar amendment to the Water Bill mentioned by my noble friend Lord Sanderson, this amendment makes it very difficult for electricity plcs to load charges against rural consumers; so much so that my honourable friend Mr. Spicer said in another place yesterday:
"that amendment will require the regulator in carrying out his duties to take into account the interests of rural consumers. That enormous concession on the Government's part directly meets some of the anxieties that have recently been expressed".—[Official Report, Commons, 24/7/89; col. 819.]
In that context I should like to correct the noble Lord, Lord Williams, who I fully accept has helped me considerably. He intimated when I moved the amendment that it was farmer-friendly. I was, of course, promoted and indeed whipped by the National Farmers Union but that was done on behalf of all those who live in rural areas, not just farmers. While on the subject of whipping I make no apology whatever to my noble kinsman the Chief Whip for going into the Lobby against him with a number of fellow Back-Benchers. As one Cross-Bencher said, the Government Chief Whip cannot have his own way all the time.
I am content that this matter has ended in laughter rather than tears. Indeed, I agree so much with my noble friend the Leader of the House, who said, when recently we discussed the child benefit amendment rejected by the Commons, that many amendments put forward by your Lordships' House are accepted by another place. Of course, there are times when they are not, but many are. Although I may have treated this amendment with laughter I consider it a serious matter. I repeat my thanks to the Government, who also considered it serious enough to put in their own amendment.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, we do not oppose the Commons in their reason. I have nothing specific to say other than to the noble Lord, Lord

1337
Stanley of Alderley, who moved the original amendment, that he must remember that there are certain procedures in this House which are governed by Opposition parties. He could not conceivably have won his amendment without them. He could not conceivably have won his amendment had it come up at a later stage in the business. The fact is that the drafting of Amendment No. 1, which I recognise to be in my own hand, was a device to get it up. This is a well known procedure and I hope the noble Lord will not be too caustic in future if we use the same device against him.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
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."
4 The Commons disagreed to this amendment but proposed the following amendment in lieu:
Insert the following new clause:
"Promotion of efficient use of electricity
(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 supliers; 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."
5 p.m.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 3 to which the Commons have disagreed, and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 4 proposed in lieu thereof.
The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, who moved Amendment No. 3, recognised when he did so that his amendment might not be correctly drafted. As was made clear when we discussed the amendment, it appeared to the Government that the difficulties with the amendment went deeper than the question of drafting. And since then the Energy Select Committee has recognised that the amendment is technically deficient.
But it was clear from remarks made by the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, the noble Lords, Lord Kearton and Lord Peyton, and the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, during discussion of the noble Lord's amendment that your Lordships felt that the Government should do more to promote the efficient use of electricity, even though the Bill as it stood already contained many important provisions to encourage the efficient use of electricity.
1338
For the first time it established a regulator with a statutory duty to promote the efficient use of electricity. Clause 3 of the Bill gives the Secretary of State and the director a duty to promote efficiency and economy on the part of person; licensed to supply or transmit electricity. It gives the Secretary of State and the director a duty to promote the efficient use of electricity by customers.
The Government's proposals also provided for public electricity suppliers to be required by their licence to provide guidance to their customers about the efficient use of electricity. Condition 18 of the draft public electricity supply licence published in January required each licensee to provide, within three months of his licence coming into force, information on the efficient use of electricity in a form approved by the director.
These are important and significant provisions for the promotion of the efficient use of electricity. I am now pleased to be able to say that the Government have done very much more, following the spirit of what the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, was looking for. First, they have given the director, through Commons amendments, the power to set standards for public electricity suppliers to achieve in promoting the efficient use of electricity and for the standards to be published. The consequential amendments to Clause 40 enable the director to require suppliers to produce evidence about how well they are doing in relation to specific standards laid down by the director. The director will thus be able to monitor what the suppliers are doing.
The director will also have powers to ensure that the standards are met. Condition 17 of the draft public electricity supply licence will be expanded to require the licensee to conduct his business in a manner he considers best calculated to meet them. If he fails to act in this way, the director has clear and effective powers under the Bill to enforce the licence condition. And if the director thought further action was needed under Clause 40 he could go to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission to amend the licence. It is in this way that we have sought to meet the spirit of the noble Lord's amendment. Like the intention of the amendment, what we are proposing will enable the director to require the public electricity suppliers to produce evidence to him showing how they are promoting the efficient use of electricity. And like that amendment, it will give the director power if a supplier fails to take appropriate action. But because it does so within the framework of the Bill and the draft public electricity supply licence, it will be effective and will ensure that suppliers really do promote the efficient use of electricity.
The Government have also decided to require licensees to introduce a comprehensive code of practice on energy efficiency. I am sure that this is well known to the noble Lord. The code of practice will be a major step forward. For the first time suppliers will be required to give their customers a comprehensive service related to the efficient use of electricity and guidance over a wide range. There will be a licence condition which suppliers will be required to meet, just as they are required to meet all the other licence conditions.

1339
I should like to make one final point. I have emphasised what an important role the director will have in promoting efficient use of electricity. I should like to make clear that co-operation between the director and the Department of Energy's Efficiency Office will be close, both at national and regional levels. I know that your Lordships have a high regard for the Energy Efficiency Office. That was made perfectly clear when this matter was debated. Your Lordships will know that the office has a great deal of experience to offer as regards the scope for improved energy efficiency, how consumers can be guided, and how energy management should be tackled.
I have tried to explain how the Government have recognised your Lordships' concerns and how we should do even more to promote the efficient use of electricity. I have also tried to explain how we have sought to meet in a workable and effective manner the spirit of the noble Lord's amendment. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 3, to which the Commons have disagreed, and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 4 proposed in lieu thereof.—(Lord Sanderson of Bowden.)

AS AMENDMENTS TO COMMONS AMENDMENT 4 IN LIEU OF LORDS AMENDMENT 3
4A Line 2, leave out "may" and insert "shall".
Lord Ezra: My Lords, the amendment passed by your Lordships was one of the most important amendments carried during the long drawn-out debate on the Electricity Bill. It was a measure of the importance we attached to it that we had support from all sides of the House. The purpose of the amendment was not only to emphasise the importance of energy efficiency in the use of electricity but to introduce a degree of mandatory control and regulation which would ensure that energy efficiency was achieved.
I was personally very dismayed when I read the report of the debate in another place on the amendment and the remarks of the then Secretary of State for Energy at col. 553 of the Official Report of 20th July. The purpose of the amendment was a laudable, desirable and conscientious one. It should not have been referred to in that way. My amendment to the alternative amendment proposed by another place seeks to stiffen the Government's wording.
It has been explained in some detail by the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson, that this clause should be read in conjunction with other parts of the Bill and in conjunction with the terms and conditions of the licence which is therefore strengthened. But as this is the operative clause it should be strengthened. The way in which it is currently drafted suggests that the director may or may not come forward with the standards. There is no indication of any sanctions that might be applied if they are not carried out. The purpose of the amendment to the amendment is to strengthen the wording and to replicate—it is the first reference in the Bill to energy efficiency—what
1340
comes later. If, later, there are strong supporting powers for this clause, the wording should reflect that; it should not be drafted in this conditional manner. The clause on its own suggests that there may or may not be standards set, as it appears in the opinion of the regulator. Nothing is laid down about the carrying out of those standards: they would simply be published. I put the amendment forward for your Lordships' consideration. I beg to move.
Lord Shepherd: My Lords, the tone and quality of the Minister's speech were in marked contrast to what was heard in another place. I welcome that. However, before speaking to the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, I wish to raise a matter of supreme importance to the House—the relationship of its Members with Ministers. In the Select Committee of another place the Secretary of State said that the mover of the amendment recognised and acknowledged that the clause was unworkable. That was the main accusation which he made against the decision taken by noble Lords in Committee.
Reference was made to my undertaking that if there were imperfections in the drafting of the clause, I would be most willing to co-operate with the Minister. In that connection, I should say that I received an invitation from the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, who was then the Minister responsible for the Bill, to go to see her in the department. Of course I went, as many noble Lords have done in the past. As a Minister, I also received people in the same way. Such meetings—and this is what I wish to establish—have always been based on confidentiality. This can provide the means to find a way out of a difficulty. Of course minutes are taken of such meetings and they are usually taken for the protection of the Minister as to what he or she may have said or what undertakings may be alleged to have been given.
Having been a member of your Lordships' House for over 30 years, I have never under any circumstances known of an occasion where what took place in a Minister's room under such conditions was used in Parliament as an argument against what the mover had put to the House.
I recognised that there were imperfections after the clause had been included in the Bill. Moreover, I undertook—and we agreed to this on Report—to remove them. I was so gravely disturbed about the grounds of confidentiality, because I had never used the words in question in any other place under any other circumstances, that I went to the Chief Whip. I explained to him the circumstances. I made it very clear that if we could not continue with the basis of confidentiality between Members and a Minister, that would have grave repercussions for the way in which this House conducts its affairs as a revising Chamber.
I received a letter of apology from Mr. Parkinson. It was unreserved. It was an apology. I replied and said that so far as I was concered the issue was one of confidentiality between Members and Ministers. I also said that in the light of his letter I would regard

1341
the matter as dead, as being finished. Therefore, I was dismayed when I read the Hansard report of another place of Thursday, 20th July 1989. I direct the Minister's attention to col. 552, which reads:
"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".
It appears Mr. Parkinson forgot that he sent me a letter of apology and he used confidential conversations in the House of Commons to recommend to Members of that place that they should not accept your Lordships' amendment.
I believe that this is matter of great importance for the future. I say that because, if you cannot have the traditional relationship between Members of this House and Ministers, the activities of this House as a revising Chamber will be placed in great jeopardy. One should always remember too this fact. I referred to the minutes. They are never available to anyone other than the Minister. I want to make it clear that I acquit the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, of responsibility in the matter. She behaved with great honour and, I believe, great distinction throughout the passage of this long Bill.
I now turn to the clause in question and to the amendments moved by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra. The Government have gone a very major way towards meeting the anxieties of Members of this House in regard to energy efficiency. Moreover, taking into account their original position both in this House and in another place, I think that it would be quite ungenerous not to accept the major step which they have taken in bringing forward this proposed clause in replacement of Clause 3.
As I said, this is a major step forward, but, it is still permissive and it is still without teeth. The House of Lords' Select Committee, Sub-Committee B, as the Minister will remember, said that the Bill as then drafted was inadequate. The House of Commons Energy Committee considered not only our reports but also the amendment which your Lordships' House passed. I should like to quote what the committee put in the concluding part of its report. It reads:
"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: Public Electricity Suppliers must be under a statutory obligation to promote more efficient electricity use"—
I think that the Government have gone a good way, if not the full way, in that regard. The report then continues,
"That statutory obligation must be re-inforced by penalties to ensure that it is met. 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".
Therefore the difference between what the Government and the House of Commons are proposing is in those two phrases of the House of Commons Energy Committee. But how important is that?
I was listening to the former Secretary of State for Energy on the programme "Any Questions" which was broadcast last Saturday at midday. He said that
1342
we are giving a prime duty to the director general. My understanding of a prime duty is that it is beyond a general duty; it is a superior duty. It is a duty which those who promote the Bill believe is necessary in the national interest. But how can you have a prime duty if you do not have the ability to enforce it?
The Minister dealt with what will be in the conditions within the licences. With difficulty of course one can obtain sight of a copy of those conditions in the Library of the House of Lords. I have had a quick look at them. I shall take the Minister's assurances as to the way in which the director general can achieve the compliance of the suppliers. But there is still a doubt as to how effective those assurances can be.
Is it conceivable that the director general would revoke a supplier's licence, because that in the end is about the only sanction that he has? However, the supplier will own all the means by which power finds its way into people's houses. It is not like an ITV licence. It is beyond understanding that a director general could ever revoke a licence, even under the most extreme circumstances. I have doubts, not as to the Government's present position in regard to what they propose in the clause and the effectiveness of it, because they are constrained within the legislation as it is now proposed within the Bill.
I should infinitely prefer to see the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, included in the Bill; in other words, instead of "may", the director general "shall"—as contained in the original Clause 3 passed by your Lordships—and also the various sanctions which the noble Lord proposes. I doubt whether, even if those sanctions were available, they would ever have to be used. So much in life depends for compliance upon the degree of the sanctions available.
However far the Government have gone—I recognise that they have gone a long way in that regard—they should go one stage further, as proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, and then I believe many who are concerned about energy efficiency would be more than satisfied. The Government in the end would be applauded for it. I hope that the House will support the noble Lord, Lord Ezra.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, I agree with everything the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has said. The trouble is that, although one thanks the Government for taking all this on board, as the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, said, there are not the sanctions that there should be.
One must go back to first principles. Although the Government appear to be all in favour of action for the adverse greenhouse effect—as we all know, the most important thing that we can do quickly is energy efficiency and conservation—they have resisted all this—I am thinking again of combined heat and power—and putting anything in the Bill which is effective. One again, we find that what we have suggested could be more effective.
I have listened each time to the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, trying to explain why the Government do not want to do so. None of her explanations has

1343
made any sense whatever. The reduction of CO2 from our power stations is predominantly something that we can achieve by reducing the ongoing requirements for energy. The Government simply do not seem to take that point on board and try as hard in the Bill as they can against it.
That is everything that I have to say. It is most dispiriting that when it comes to practicalities the Government should not take our suggestions on board rather harder than they have done.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, perhaps I may pick up one word used by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd; that is, "permissive". The Government propose powers which are permissive. The director "may". The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, whose amendments I unreservedly support, is trying to make the power mandatory. Why is that important? It is important, as has been observed by no less a body than the energy committee of the other place in its sixth report. I propose to confine myself to the relevant quotations from that report, which was published last week.
I again wish, as I said earlier this afternoon, that the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, were here, because I have to refer to her, as does the report. The report replicates the debates that I had with her during the Bill's progress.
The first reason that it is essential that energy efficiency should be made mandatory in the Bill is illustrated by two quotations. The first is in paragraph 82 of the report of the Energy Committee of the other place:
"nuclear power is not a solution by itself to global warming, and that energy efficiency is the most important response to the problem".
The second quotation comes from paragraph 84.
"we do not believe that further investment in nuclear power beyond the present programme is likely to occur in the current climate"—
That is the current climate of public opinion—
"The contribution which nuclear power will make in the next 10 to 20 years to reducing CO2 emissions should not be overstated".
That is my first point. It is essential to combat the propaganda that has been put out by the Government and the CEGB that nuclear power is the answer to the greenhouse effect.
The second point relates to the importance of energy efficiency itself and the Government's failure, and continuing failure, to recognise that fact and to use the powers which they have to put into practice the energy efficiency which they claim. I quote again, this time from paragraph 104:
"However, the budget of the EEO has been cut drastically, is planned to be cut further, and there seems to be a misplaced complacency that consumers are `now well aware of the case for energy efficiency' ".
That paragraph concludes with the statement:
"We believe that the apparent relegation of energy efficiency initiatives in the Department's priorities indicates a misjudgment both of the evidence and of the analysis of this issue".
If the Government, with their energy efficiency unit, are apparently reducing the priority which they should be giving to energy efficiency, we need still more the imperative within the Bill to make it mandatory that the director "shall" insist on energy
1344
efficiency; and that he "shall" achieve that efficiency by a given time; and if that is not achieved, that there shall be sanctions against whoever is lacking in that respect.
My next quotation is from paragraph 111. I repeat that I am sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, is not here, I apologise to her for having to use her name in her absence, but the report does so because she gave evidence to the Committee. Paragraph 111 reads:
"Baroness Hooper took the view that 'the advantages of energy efficiency are so real and manifest that a programme to encourage voluntary compliance is the most effective'. We have to disagree. We have been left in no doubt that, if the Government is to respond swiftly and effectively to the threat of global warming, it will have to review most carefully its strategy towards the encouragement and promotion of energy efficiency—both the public and private sectors of the economy—and will have to adopt a much higher profile and pro-active stance".
That is precisely what some of us have been saying to the Government and to the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, throughout the progress of the Bill. She has said to us on behalf of the Government that the public was sufficiently well informed in order for market forces to produce energy efficiency.
This report shows that there are those in another place who are supporters of the Government and members of the government party who agree with the criticism that we have been making on the cuts that have been made in the energy efficiency unit. They do not believe that the Government's general policy on energy efficiency is sufficient to off-set the dangerous global warming effect which is now becoming a commonplace phrase but which is a very real menace to the future of mankind.
There is one final argument that has been used by members of the Government after our urging them to increase the mandatory requirement for the use of energy efficiency. It is that it is no use thinking that this country can halt global warming by its own actions. We know that.
Perhaps I may end simply with one of the conclusions reached by the House of Commons Energy Committee at paragraph 156, entitled "UK and the World". This is the second point that it makes:
"The UK should set an example to the world by seriously tackling its own emission problems in advance of international understanding: the world response will be the sum of individual countries' responses".
This is an opportunity for the Government to accept these amendments on the basis of the evidence, the arguments and the analyses of which I have just given examples from the Energy Committee of another place. Without the mandatory imperative that energy efficiency must be applied, that if it is not applied there will be sanctions applied against it and that it must be applied by a specific date, as the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, said we are simply giving a permissive direction, a permission to the director. Parliament should be giving an imperative. I believe that in doing so it would be following the very detailed work that has been done by the Energy Committee of another place.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I was very shocked by the account that my noble friend Lord

1345
Shepherd gave us of his conversations with Ministers and the subsequent use that was made of those conversations. I very much hope that the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson, will take this up with the Leader of the House. It seems to me intolerable if Members of the House cannot have confidential communications with Ministers on the basis that they will not be revealed to the outside world, let alone revealed in a party political context.
As regards the substance of the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, to the Commons amendment, of course I agree with him. The Government have offered probably one-eighth of a loaf when we put in the whole loaf in a Division in the House. Nevertheless, we must be grateful for one-eighth of a loaf, and the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, might make it something like one-third or two-thirds of a loaf. Therefore we support the amendment.
Nevertheless, the Government recognise that any imposition of duties on public electricity suppliers which are liable to damage their profits makes them less marketable. It is as simple as that. If one wants to sell them, they are probably about the only thing that can be sold out of the industry after what has happened. If one wants to sell them, one has to alleviate the burdens on them for protecting the environment. Therefore one simply funks the issue. That is what has happened, as I understand it. Nevertheless, we are grateful—to be generous to the noble Lord—for a quarter of a loaf rather than one-eighth of a loaf.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, for moving these amendments. I think that it will come as no surprise to him that I am not able to accept them, but I want to go through them in turn, particularly the third amendment, which is exceptionally important.
The first amendment that we are considering resurrects the old chestnut from our previous deliberations on the Bill. I merely remind your Lordships that the word "may" is used in these legislative provisions when a person is given a measure of discretion as to what he is to do or as to the manner in which he is to do it. "Shall" is appropriate only when legislation specifies in detail what is to be done. In this case the clause does not specify what the standards are to be or how they are to be published. The director is given a discretion to decide that. It is only right that it is the director who will have the necessary expertise to decide on the content of the standards. In addition, he needs flexilibity to be able to adapt to the standards and to changing circumstances.
There is no doubt whatsoever that the director will make such standards and I can give the House an assurance on that. The use of "may" is simply a matter of drafting and I hope that the explanation which I have given to the noble Lord will take care of that.
As concerns the second amendment, I cannot accept the proposed change of wording. It is the director who will set the standards for the promotion
1346
of the efficient use of electricity and they will therefore necessarily be those which he believes the suppliers should meet.
The wording of the subsection accurately reflects this process. Also the second amendment attempts to make it mandatory for the suppliers to achieve the standards set. That would defeat the object of the exercise. The director will set standards which will be objectives for the suppliers. They will be high standards and as time passes they might become progressively higher. But for reasons that I shall give when I deal with the third amendment, there is no need to attempt to make the attainment of the objectives mandatory. Our approach to enforcement is, I would suggest to the House, a little more subtle and I hope more realistic.
I turn to the final amendment. I have to say that the noble Lord's proposals to set a date by which the standards must be achieved and lo apply such standards as are necessary if they are not met are simply not necessary at all. It will be, first, for the director to decide upon and to set the standards. He may well decide to set a standard for which a target date might not be appropriate. For example, he may wish to require the public electricity suppliers to ensure that all their customers receive certain guidelines about the efficient use of energy. This would clearly be an on-going process, as a supplier would be continually adding new customers to his list, and a target date for the completion of such a standard simply would not be appropriate. Of course it will be open to the director to include in his standards target dates for completion where this is appropriate. He may well do so, but to include such a proviso in the Bill could limit the director considerably in the kinds of standards he would set.
The second part of the amendment would enable the director to apply such sanctions as appear necessary if the standards are not met. However, the Bill already provides for the director to be able to take action through enforcement procedure. As I have explained, condition 17 of the draft public electricity supply licence will be expanded to require the licensee to conduct his business in the manner he considers best calculated to achieve the standards set. If he fails to do so—here we come to one of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd—the director has clear and effective powers under the Bill to enforce the licence condition. If the director thought further action necessary, considered that there was an effect adverse to the the public interest but was unable to agree changes with the supplier concerned, he could go to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission to amend the licence using the evidence gained by his monitoring of the performance in the area. Therefore, we believe there is no need to provide for extra sanctions in the clause.
The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, asked about revocation. Revoking the licence, as I have tried to explain, is not the first or the most appropriate sanction. As I have said, enforcement powers under the Bill can be used to make orders telling the company what to do. The second sanction is to approach the MMC and, thirdly, the courts for an

1347
injunction. Finally, the Secretary of State can, if necessary, revoke the licence.
I turn now to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, that I take the remarks that were made at the beginning of the speech most seriously. I shall draw the matter to the attention of my noble friend the Leader of the House. I understand very well the feelings of the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd. As to the substance of his remarks, I have studied most carefully the fifth report of the Energy Committee, dated 4th July, and indeed the conclusions to which the noble Lord referred. However, I must say that I think the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, thinks he has obtained more than one-eighth of a loaf as a result of—
Lord Shepherd: My Lords, that was the noble Lord, Lord Williams, not me.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: Yes, my Lords, I know that. But the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has, I think, been a little more generous than the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel. He was gracious enough to say that the first of the conclusions of the Energy Committee's report had been met by the Government—that is conclusion 5a. However, we differ when we come to the last conclusion which concerns the most effective way of dealing with this matter and brings in the question, on which the noble Lord touched, of penalties.
The Energy Committee suggested that the most effective penalty was for tariff increases to be refused, especially where such increases, caused by additional supply investment, could have been avoided by investment in energy efficiency. This approach—the notion of "a least cost planning obligation—confuses two quite different sets of decisions. Decisions on the efficient use of electricity are for individual consumers to take. Decisions on the amount of electricity that will need to be generated will be for the suppliers, based on their estimates of demand, including of course their estimates of consumers' decisions on energy efficiency.
A least cost planning obligation would involve the electricity supplier or regulator deciding that a particular energy efficiency measure was preferable, because it was cheaper, to contracting for electricity supply. We believe that such a planning process takes decisions away from customers. Least cost planning puts security of supply at risk if the anticipated reductions in electricity demand do not occur.
Finally, I should mention the various initiatives being taken by the Government on the question of energy efficiency. I believe the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, was concerned that the Government were not taking this whole matter seriously enough. It would take me too long to go into details of core warmth, the best practice programme, the new building regulations, the public sector campaign announced only last week on matters of energy efficiency, and indeed the major study proposed for domestic electrical compliances. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, will realise that we have looked most carefully at his amendment. However,
1348
in the light of what I have said, perhaps he will consider withdrawing it.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, the noble Lord referred to my concern that the Government were not doing enough in the matter of energy efficiency. Did he not understand that this was the concern expressed by the Energy Committee of another place which has criticised the cutting down, and apparently the future cutting down, of the energy efficiency unit which the Government set up? It is not important whether I consider that the Government are doing enough as regards energy efficiency. The Energy Committee of another place, with a majority of Conservatives on it, stated that it did not consider the Government were doing enough. The committee specifically criticised the cutting of the energy efficiency unit.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, with the leave of the House, of course, I understand what the noble Lord is referring to. All I was trying to say in replying to the noble Lord was that various initiatives are taking place which place energy efficiency high up the agenda of this Government. I hope he will accept the remarks in the spirit in which they are made.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, the energy efficiency unit has done a great deal, but all the Government can say at the moment is that they do not need to promote energy efficiency further, and that therefore they can save something on promotion. However, the concept has only just begun to come across. How can the Government justify reducing the funds as they have done?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should say that we have discussed this matter of the energy efficiency unit on at least three occasions during the passage of the Bill through this House. The Government have tried to make very clear the importance we attach to energy efficiency. I am very happy to write to both the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, and the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, giving them details of the initiatives that have been started of late by this Government in the matter.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, the noble Lord does not need to do that. The point still remains that much more should be spent in that direction. Unless the noble Lord has an answer to that point, I do not think that writing to me is of any consequence.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I am indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson, for the detailed reply which he gave in respect of the amendment which I moved, and also to those noble Lords who have spoken in support of it. I shall try to be as brief as possible. Two specific issues arise in connection with the amendment that has come to us from another place. The first is that, in spite of the wording, can we be satisfied that the director will establish these standards of performance in relation to energy efficiency? We have been assured by the noble Lord,

1349
Lord Sanderson, that he will do so. The use of the word "may" is something we have reluctantly had to get used to. It does not mean that something may be done at all, but rather that the director will get on with the matter. I do not quite understand why we cannot adopt the normal usage of the English language. There appears to be some constitutional impediment to using the word "shall" when we mean shall; instead we use the word "may". As I understand it, the word "may" means will. That is what the noble Lord said. I am satisfied that everything will be duly recorded and that if the director does not prepare these standards, we can refer back to this debate.
The second issue concerns enforcement. Here I need clarification, The noble Lord, Lord Sanderson, said that in paragraph 17 of the licence there will be provision for the enforcement of these standards and that that will be specifically referred to. The standards in this clause will, as I understand it, be specifically referred to in paragraph 17 of the licence. I understand that they will be enforceable. As I understood it, the noble Lord said that there was no need to put the question of enforcement into this clause of the Bill because it is adequately covered in paragraph 17 of the licence. I have not seen the licence so I cannot tell. Is that what the noble Lord meant?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, with the leave of the House, that is indeed what is meant. The noble Lord will not have seen the licence because it has not yet been published. I have given the assurance that condition 17 of the draft licence will be expanded to require the licensee to conduct his business in a manner that he considers best calculated to achieve the standards set.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, does that imply that if the licensee does not do so the director can apply the various sanctions allowed for in the licence?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, yes.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, it seems to me that the Government have come a considerable way to meeting our requirements. I have elucidated the two points which seemed to me to be of prime importance in putting forward the amendments, namely that the director will set those standards and that he will have powers of enforcement. I should have preferred it all to have been stated clearly in the Bill. However, if it is contained within the meaning of the clause, supported by the appropriate condition of the licence, I ask your Lordships' leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment No. 4A, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 4B and 4C not moved.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS TO THE BILL
The Commons proposed the following consequential amendments to the Bill:
5 Page 32, line 4, leave out "and".
6 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."
7 Page 32, line 14, after "39", insert "or (Promotion of efficient use of electricity)".
8 Page 32, line 15, leave out "overall".
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their consequential Amendments Nos. 5 to 8 en bloc.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their consequential Amendments Nos. 5 to 8 en bloc.—(Lord Sanderson of Bowden.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
9 Before Clause 11, insert the following new clause:
"Licence conditions for nuclear installations
.Where a person authorised to generate electricity under section 6(1)(a) above proposes to do so by means of nuclear fission, it shall be a condition of the licence that the Secretary of State may at any time if he perceives that there is a matter affecting the safety of the public by order requisition and bring under his own control the relevant nuclear installations."
The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason:
10 Because the aim of this amendment is adequately secured by existing legislation.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 9 to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason numbered 10.
The amendment deals with the licence conditions for nuclear generation. The noble Lord, Lord Williams, who moved the amendment at an earlier stage of the Bill, argued that the Government might need to take over a nuclear station in order to take control in an emergency so as to ensure that the public would be fully protected.
It was explained during Committee that we did not believe the amendment to be desirable or even helpful. The powers of the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate—part of the independent Health and Safety Executive —which have been referred to earlier today are such as to enable it to take action at any time if it considers a risk to the safety of an installation might exist. Those powers include directing that the installation be shut down and not restarted until the inspectorate's consent is given. The powers are sufficient to ensure that the risk of an accident is extremely small, a point borne out by the 30 years of safe operation of our civil nuclear industry.
The noble Lord also referred to the need for the Government to take control of the installation in the unlikely event that an emergency arose. I should point out that there are two major steps to be taken in such an event. First, there is the implementation of whatever emergency measures are necessary to ensure that the public are protected. Secondly, and also of vital importance, there is the need to restore the plant to a condition of safety as quickly as possible. I shall return to the question of emergency

1351
planning in a few moments but I wish first to deal with arrangements for restoring safe conditions on site.
The only people who can properly undertake the task of restoring a plant to safety are its operators' own staff, the experienced people who know the plant and who are trained to deal with an emergency. The Secretary of State cannot do it; nor, with all their ability and skills, can his civil servants. Nor would it be right to take control away from the operating management of the station and hand it over to the NII That would serve only to undermine the existing arrangements under which responsibilities for plant safety are clearly understood and are in the right hands. The NII's role is a vital one. It is to monitor the situation, advise as appropriate and, if necessary, give directions to the operator. The Secretary of State taking over the station would in no way help to restore plant safety.
I should have said at the beginning that when speaking to the amendments I would also speak to Amendments Nos. 14 to 23, which we also need to debate now.
I turn now to those amendments to Clause 92 which the noble Lord, Lord Williams, argued at Committee stage were consequential on the new clause before Clause 11. The power in Clause 92 to give directions is aimed at fulfilling two specific objectives: maintaining the physical security of electricity installations and planning for civil emergencies such as severe weather conditions or natural disasters which would be likely to affect electricity supplies.
One of the effects of the amendments is to remove the requirement for the Secretary of State to consult the intended recipient before giving a direction under this clause. Directions under this clause could involve very detailed technical matters. In order to ensure that they are both accurate and effective, the Government believe that it is essential that the intended recipient should be given an opportunity to comment on the proposed contents.
I regret that I am also unable to accept the amendment which would remove the Secretary of State's power to withhold the laying of a direction before Parliament if he considered that that would be against someone's commercial interests. Directions relating to plans for dealing with civil emergencies could contain highly sensitive commercial information. For example, they could identify the terms under which certain customers received their electricity supplies, information which could be very useful to competing suppliers. The Government believe that it would be wrong to disclose such information. Moreover, we would not wish the effectiveness of the directions to be constrained by worries that commercially confidential information might be made public.
In addition to requiring a licence under Clause 6 to generate electricity, any person operating or installing any nuclear installation will continue to require a nuclear site licence from the Health and Safety Executive. As a condition of such site licences all operators of nuclear installations are required by
1352
the NII to prepare emergency plans, including plans for dealing with an accidental release of radioactivity. Those plans, on which the local authorities, police and other involved bodies must be consulted, are tested regularly in exercises monitored by the NII. They cover emergency procedures at the site and off-site arrangements to protect the public.
Post privatisation those safety requirements will continue to be placed on operators through conditions set out in the nuclear site licence. There is no question of privatisation resulting in a lowering of safety standards, a matter which I know your Lordships treat seriously. Neither is there a need for the existing regulatory framework to be duplicated in this Bill.
Moved, That the House do not insist in their Amendment No. 9 to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 10.—(Lord Sanderson of Bowden.)
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, I have not read the amendments in detail but I am sure that they are good for the Bill. However, what ought to be said very clearly is that such amendments would not be necessary if the Bill had been properly drafted and considered in advance. The Government must stand condemned for having produced an ill-considered Bill which has no possibility of producing cheaper electricity. They have gone on with it regardless. That should be said now as an obiter dictum.
6 p.m.
Lord Peston: My Lords, speaking for those of us who helped to insert the new clause in the Bill, I am bound to say that we are rather sad that the Government have decided that they are unable to accept it. They are making a serious mistake, particularly if they have the interests of the nuclear industry and nuclear generation at heart.
The most that could be said against the amendment is that it over-eggs the pudding, so to speak. So far as I understand the objection, Members of the other place claim that the amendment is adequately secured by existing legislation. I do not believe that that is the case. Even if it were, the Government would have been better advised to lean excessively in the protection direction rather than rejecting what noble Lords inserted in the Bill after due deliberation.
As has been said—I do not want to go over the ground again—there are genuine question marks over the future of nuclear power generation. I, for one, am unhappy that those question marks have been introduced as a result of the Bill, given that there are already sufficient question marks. The amendment would have been helpful; it is a great pity that the Government do not care for it.
We hope that there will not be a nuclear accident. We do not seek to suggest anything that would undermine the role of the inspectorate. I hope that the high standards in the area of safety that the industry in public ownership has met will still be met given that, regrettably, the nuclear generating part will be in private hands.

1353
Nonetheless, we know enough to realise that accidents are possible. The point that concerns me about the noble Lord's arguments is that I do not believe that, if there were to be an accident, the public would accept anything less than the amendment states. The noble Lord is entirely right that, in practice, those who operate the stations will have to be the ones who set to work to get things sorted out. However, under no circumstances would the general public accept a statement from the Secretary of State, whoever he turns out to be—it has nothing to do with party; we have no idea who the Secretary of State will be—that he would not take control and full responsibility. If a Secretary of State rose at the Dispatch Box in another place and said, "There is a nuclear accident and the industry will get it right", he would be hounded out of his job within an hour.
Finally—I am genuinely surprised that the noble Lord has raised the matter at this time—I cannot believe that, if there were to be a nuclear accident, any question of commercial interests could be allowed to arise. If there is a nuclear accident in this country, we shall simply have to deal with it. No one will take any notice whatsoever of the alleged commercial interests of the companies concerned. People will be concerned only with dealing with the accident. I did not think it helpful of the noble Lord to refer to anything to do with commercial interests. We had no such thoughts. We were solely concerned with taking a realistic view of how a nuclear accident would be dealt with in practice.
I regard this as an area where noble Lords were right to try to advise the Goverment to do the right thing. If my memory serves me correctly, it was not just noble Lords on this side who took that view, although I do not have the papers to hand. I can do no more than say that one is disappointed and one feels that the Government have misled themselves. There is nothing more to add.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I respect what the noble Lord, Lord Peston, has said and his belief that we have not dealt with the matter as he would have wished. We believe—and we have looked at the matter carefully—that the amendments are not simply unnecessary; they are misconceived. By creating confusion, they could undermine the existing well thought out and—the noble Lord, I believe, referred to this—detailed proven safety regime. I shall study what he said, but noble Lords can take it that it is the Government's view that safety must predominate and that we believe that we have dealt with this effectively in the Bill.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
LORDS AMENDMENTS
11 Clause 18, page 15, line 26, leave out "undue".
12 Page 15, line 27, at end insert "particularly consumers in rural areas".
The Commons disagreed to these amendments for the following reasons:
13 Because the aim of these amendments is adequately secured by the Lords Amendment to insert a subsection (3A) at the end of page 3, line 29, to which the Commons have agreed.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendments Nos. 11 and 12 to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 13. I have already spoken to these amendments. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendments Nos. 11 and 12, to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 13.—(Lord Sanderson of Bowden.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENTS
14 Clause 92, page 64, line 9, leave out from "may" to "give" in line 10.
15 Page 64, line 10, leave out "that" and insert "a".
16 Page 64, line 10, after "person" insert "to whom this section applies".
17 Page 64, line 10, after "general" insert "or particular".
18 Page 64, line 19, leave out "after consultation with a person to whom this section applies".
19 Page 64, line 20, leave out "that" and insert "a".
20 Page 64, line 20, after "person" insert "to whom this section applies".
21 Page 64, leave out line 28.
22 Page 64, line 38, after "supplies" insert "endanger the safety of the public".
The Commons disagreed to these amendments for the following reason:
23 Because the aim of these amendments is adequately secured by existing legislation.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendments Nos. 14 to 22 to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 23. I have already spoken to these amendments. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendments Nos. 14 to 22, to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 23.—(Lord Sanderson of Bowden.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
24 After Schedule 13, insert the following new schedule:

SCHEDULE THE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY PENSION SCHEME
Power to amend scheme
1.—(1) The Secretary of State may make regulations amending the Electricity Supply Pension Scheme (in this Schedule referred to as "the scheme") for any of the following purposes, namely—

(a) for enabling the following persons to participate in or acquire pension rights under the scheme on such terms and conditions as may be prescribed, namely—

(i) members and former members of existing bodies;

(ii) officers and former officers of the Electricity Consumers' Council; and

(iii) persons (other than successor companies) whose participation in the scheme will not prejudice its approval for the purposes of the relevant enactments, and employees of such persons;

(b) for requiring any persons (including persons not participating in the scheme) to make payments to the trustees of the scheme in such circumstances as may be prescribed;

1355

(c) for requiring or enabling any functions exercisable under the scheme by existing bodies to be exercisable by such persons, and in such circumstances, as may be prescribed;

(d) for enabling the scheme to be wound up (in whole or in part) in such circumstances as may be prescribed; and

(e) for securing that the scheme continues to be approved for the purposes of the relevant enactments, notwithstanding the transfers made by this Act and the repeal by this Act of section 54 of the Electricity Act 1947.

(2) Regulations under this paragraph may make such supplemental, consequential and transitional provision as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
(3) Regulations under this paragraph may be made so as to have effect from a date prior to their making, so however that so much of any regulations as provides that any provision of regulations shall have effect from a date prior to their making shall not place any person other than existing bodies or Scottish Boards, or their successor companies, in a worse position than he would have been in if the regulations had been made to have effect only from the date of their making.
(4) Regulations under this paragraph shall not be made at any time after any supply or generating company has ceased to be wholly owned by the Crown.
Protection for certain persons
2.—(1) 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 is placed in any worse position by reason of—

(i) any winding up, in whole or in part, of a relevant scheme, that is to say, the scheme or any other scheme which is provided or amended in pursuance of the regulations; or

(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;

(b) no person to whom paragraph 3(1) below applies is prevented from continuing to participate in or acquire pension rights under the scheme by reason of any change of employer—

(i) which does not affect his continuity of employment and is made otherwise than in such circumstances as may be prescribed; and

(ii) in the case of which his new employer either is a participant in the scheme or is wholly owned by one or more companies which or each of which is such a participant; and

(c) no person to whom paragraph 3(1) below applies is placed in any worse position by reason of any change of employer which does not affect his continuity of employment but prevents him from continuing to participate in or acquire pension rights under a relevant scheme;

and the references in paragraphs (a) and (c) above to any worse position shall be construed, in relation to a person to whom paragraph 3(1) below applies who, after the transfer date, ceases to participate in or acquire pension rights under the scheme, as references to a position which is any worse than his position immediately before he so ceases.
(2) Regulations under this paragraph may impose duties (whether as to the amendment of the scheme, the provision or amendment of other schemes, the purchase of annuities, the making of payments or otherwise) on persons who are or have been employers of persons to whom paragraphs 3(1) or (2) below applies; and duties so imposed on any person may include duties owed to persons of whom he is not and has not been an employer.
(3) Regulations under this paragraph may also provide for any dispute arising under them to be referred to arbitration.
(4) Sub-paragraphs (2) and (4) of paragraph 1 above shall apply for the purposes of this paragraph as they apply for the purposes of that paragraph.
3.—(1) Subject to sub-paragraph (3) below, this sub-paragraph applies to—

(a) any existing employee who, immediately before the transfer date, is a participant in the scheme;

(b) any existing employee who, after that date, participates in the scheme within three months of his attaining the minimum age for such participation;

(c) any former participant who, after that date, participates in or acquires pension rights under the scheme in such circumstances as may be prescribed by regulations under paragraph 2 above; and

(d) any person who participates in the scheme in pursuance of regulations made under paragraph 1(1)(a)(i) or (ii) above.

(2) Subject to sub-paragraph (3) below, this sub-paragraph applies, to—

(a) any person not falling within sub-paragraph (1)(c) above who, immediately before the transfer date, is not a participant in the scheme but has pension rights under the scheme; and

(b) any person who, after that date, acquires pension rights under a relevant scheme by reason of the death of a person falling within sub-paragraph (1) or paragraph (a) above,

but only as respects the pension rights by virtue of which he falls within paragraph (a) or (b) above.
(3) Any person to whom sub-paragraph (1) or (2) above applies may elect in such manner as may be prescribed by regulations under paragraph 2 above that that sub-paragraph shall cease to apply to him; and if any person to whom sub-paragraph (1) above applies—

(a) ceases to be in continuous employment; or

(b) voluntarily withdraws from a relevant scheme,

otherwise than in such circumstances as may be so prescribed, that sub-paragraph shall cease to apply to him except as respects pension rights which have accrued to him before that time.
4.—(1) So much of Schedule 13 to the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 as has effect for the purpose of ascertaining whether any employment is continuous shall apply for the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3 as if—

(a) those paragraphs were contained in that Act; and

(b) in that Schedule "associated employer", in relation to a company participating in a relevant scheme, included any other company participating in such a scheme and any other company of which a company so participating has control, or two or more companies so participating together have control;

but regulations under paragraph 2 above may provide that no account shall be taken for those purposes of any person ceasing to be in continous employment for such periods and in such circumstances as may be prescribed by the regulations.
(2) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1) above, a company has control, or two or more companies together have control, of another company ("the other company") if—

(a) that company, or each of those companies, is a member of the other company and that company controls, or those companies together control, the composition of the other company's board of directors;

(b) that company holds, or those companies together hold, more than half in nominal value of the other company's equity share capital;

(c) a company of which the company has control, or those companies together have control, has control of the other company; or

(d) two or more companies of which that company has control, or those companies together have control, has control of the other company;

1357
and subsections (2) to (4) of section 736 of the Companies Act 1985 (as originally enacted) shall, with any necessary modifications, apply for the purposes of this sub-paragraph as they apply for purposes of subsection (1) of that section.
Interpretation
5.—(1) In this Schedule—
"Consultative Council" means a Consultative Council established under section 7 of the Electricity Act 1947 for the area of an Area Board;
"employer", in relation to a person employed by a company which is a wholly-owned subsidiary of another company, includes that other company;
"existing body" means any of the following, namely, the Area Boards, the Generating Board and the Electricity Council;
"existing employee" means any person who, immediately before the transfer date, is employed by an existing body or a Consultative Council, or falls to be treated as employed by an existing body by virtue of regulations made under section 54(4) of the Electricity Act 1947 (service as a member to count as service as an employee);
"former participant" means any person who, immediately before the transfer date, is not a participant in the scheme but has pension rights under the scheme by virtue of his having been such a participant;
"pension", in relation to any person, means a pension of any kind payable to or in respect of him, and includes a lump sum, allowance or gratuity so payable and a return of contributions, with or without interest or any other addition;
"pension rights", in relation to any person, includes—

(a) all forms of right to or eligibility for the present or future payment of a pension to or in respect of him; and

(b) any expectation of the accruer of a pension to or in respect of him;

and includes a right of allocation in respect of the present or future payment of a pension;
'the relevant enactments" means Chapter I of Part XIV of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 (retirement benefit schemes) and Part III of the Social Security Pensions Act 1975 (contracted-out pension schemes);
"relevant scheme" has the meaning given by paragraph 2(1) above;
"the scheme" has the meaning given by paragraph 1(1) above;
"wholly-owned subsidiary" has the same meaning as in the Companies Act 1985.
(2) For the purposes of this Schedule, a company is wholly owned by one or more other companies if it has no members except—

(a) that other or those others and its or their nominees; and

(b) wholly-owned subsidiaries of that other or those others and their nominees.

(3) Subject to sub-paragraph (1) above, expressions used in this Schedule which are also used in Part I or II of this Act have the same meanings as in that Part."
25 The Commons agreed to the above amendment with the following amendment—
In paragraph 4(2)(d), leave out second "has" and insert "together have".
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 25 to the Lords Amendment No. 24. This concerns a minor drafting error. The correction has been made in the amendment. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 25 to the Lords Amendment No. 24. —(Lord Sanderson of Bowden.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Finance Bill
6.7 p.m.
The Paymaster General (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
The Finance Bill continues the strategy of tax reform and tax reduction which the Government have pursued throughout their time in office. My right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer's sixth Budget carries forward our policy of reducing taxes whenever possible, eliminating undesirable tax-induced distortions and promoting tax reliefs which will make the economy work better. The British Economy has been transformed by the Government's policies; our success story has been recognised and imitated all over the world.
We have demonstrated that the way to generate sustainable economic growth is not through Government meddling in the economy, but rather through Government getting out of the way and letting market forces do the job. We have freed the private sector from unnecessary controls and regulations and created a stable environment for firms and people to plan ahead with confidence. We have removed large areas of the economy from public control.
The result has been a supply side revolution. Manufacturing productivity has grown very much faster than in the 1970s. Manufacturing output is running at record levels and continues to rise. Corporate profitability and investment are also growing rapidly.
The strength of the enterprise culture is shown by the record number of new businesses. Last year there was a net increase in new businesses of 1,300 a week—a new record. New businesses and new investment lead to more jobs. Over the last five years we have created far more new jobs than any other European country, and living standards have been transformed.
Of course we have had a few setbacks. But it is a testimony to the improved strength of the British economy—and the resolute commitment of this Government—that recent world economic shocks, such as the oil price collapse and the stock market crash, have not caused a major crisis or loss of confidence.
The reasons for that resilience are clear. People and businesses both here and abroad are confident that the Government remain committed to the path which they have so successfully followed over the past 10 years. That commitment is shown by the tough action that we have taken to get on top of inflation. We recognise that some individuals, particularly those who have taken out large mortages, are facing difficulties as a result of higher interest rates. But, as we have seen in the past, the costs of letting inflation get out of control are far higher.
It is now becoming apparent that our policy is working, and inflation will soon be firmly back on a downward path. Let no one doubt the Government's commitment to deal with inflation.

1359
The increase in the trade deficit last year was primarily a result of the investment boom—consumer goods accounted for only about one quarter of the increase in imports of manufactured goods. It should be noted that the deficit is a private sector phenomenon; the Government's finances are in massive surplus. This means that the current deficit is very different from the deficits of the past. The boom in private investment will stand us in good stead for the future, increasing both capacity and exports over time.
The action which we have taken in tightening monetary policy will also help to reduce the deficit. The recent rapid growth of consumption has been associated with a fall in the private saving ratio. High interest rates will encourage saving at the expense of consumption. There are already signs that this is happening: retail sales growth has slowed right down and the housing market hs cooled off considerably. In the meantime, with the Government continuing to pursue sound monetary and fiscal policies, the deficit can be readily financed.
To appreciate fully the drastic turn-around in the performance of the British economy over the past 10 years it is necessary to view it in a world context. The UK grew more slowly than all the other major European countries all through the 1960s and 1970s. In the 1980s we have grown faster than any of them. In the 1960s and 1970s we were at or near the bottom of the European investment league. In the 1980s we are top. And productivity in the whole economy has grown faster than in any other major industrialised country except Japan since 1980—and in manufacturing we have beaten even the Japanese. Again during the 1960s and 1970s we were languishing near the bottom of those leagues.
The statitics make one thing abundantly clear. The Government have reversed the remorseless decline in the fortunes of the British economy. The British people are now wealthier than they have been before, and British business is investing more in the future than it has ever done before. It is the success of the policies that we have pursued over the past 10 years which has brought that about.
The role of tax reform is to encourage enterprise and improve economic performance in the medium term. The Government have therefore reformed the taxation of saving, in order to strengthen and deepen popular capitalism in Britain, in particular by encouraging wider share ownership. This Bill contains significant measures affecting life assurance, pensions, employee share schemes and unit trusts.
In the post war years, direct share ownership accounted for a declining proportion of private sector wealth. Since 1979 this trend has been reversed, while the number of people owning shares has increased dramatically. Even before the Abbey National flotation, 20 per cent. of the adult population were shareholders. I hope that those new shareholders will go on to acquire more shares. Only when a balanced portfolio of equities becomes the rule rather than the exception will our vision of a property and share-owning democracy be secure.
1360
In my right honourable friend's Budget he announced a number of improvements and simplifications to personal equity plans. These changes, which enable small investors to spread risk more widely and allow direct investment to compete on more even terms with institutional saving have already been implemented. A substantial number of companies are now offering PEPs. Five hundred thousand plans have been taken out since they became available in 1987.
A particularly welcome aspect of wider share ownership is the increasing number of employees who hold a direct stake in the success of their own firm and so receive a share of its profits. The Finance Bill provides further encouragement to all-employee share schemes and introduces a new regime for employee share ownership plans (or ESOPs as they are generally known).
For some companies ESOP trusts offer more flexibility than normal all-employee share schemes. They can borrow to acquire shares rather than rely entirely on funds provided by the company; this enables a substantial number of shares to be held in trust for longer term distribution to employees.
By providing tax incentives for employee share schemes, ESOPs and profit related pay, the Government have improved the working of the labour market and assisted more employees to benefit directly when their companies do well. These measures complement the other steps that we have taken to end restrictive practices, reduce red tape and allow enterprise to flourish. This is the way to improve the supply side of the economy, and so increase both profits and jobs.
The further reform of the national insurance system announced in my right honourable friend's Budget will also improve the working of the economy. From October, contributions will be reduced across the board and two "steps"—which mean that contributions increase suddenly at earnings of £75 and £115—will be abolished. This reform removes an important work disincentive and ensures that, for those paying NICs, it is no longer possible to become worse off by working harder.
My right honourable friend's corporation tax reforms, introduced in 1984, have given the United Kingdom one of the lowest corporation tax rates in the industrialised world. As a result, overseas companies have been encouraged to invest in Britain and, most important of all, the quality of investment by British firms has been greatly improved. Now investment decisions are being made on the basis of economic factors, not tax privileges.
This reform is a crucial part of an environment in which company profitability has recovered to its highest level for some 20 years and businesses are investing at record levels. And, as the latest survey of investment intentions shows, high investment is set to continue. The investment boom that we are currently seeing is not just a recent development. Over the whole of the last seven years investment has grown more than twice as much as consumption. It is a clear sign that British industry has confidence in the future.

1361
Since 1984 small companies have seen their corporation tax rate cut from 42 per cent. to 25 per cent. This year's Finance Bill raises the profits limits for the reduced rate by 50 per cent., thereby benefiting half of all companies not already paying at the reduced rate.
Small businesses play a crucial part in maintaining Britain's economic prosperity and laying the foundations for future growth. By reducing the burden of tax and regulation, the Government are ensuring a climate in which enterprise and initiative can flourish. The changes in this Bill strengthen Britain's claim to have one of the most favourable tax regimes for small companies in Europe and have been widely welcomed by businessmen and managers.
The last year has seen the greatest transformation in private pension provision since the war. Over 3¼ million personal pensions have been taken out. Personal pensions are particularly suited to young mobile employees and are the only form of pension savings available to the self-employed. For too long the late starter has been unable to make sufficient contributions to match the pension offered by final salary schemes. The Bill addresses this problem by raising the contribution limits substantially for those aged over 35.
As well as reducing the administrative burden on employers by simplifying the rules for additional voluntary contributions, the Bill also deregulates pension provision. The end of the link between the Inland Revenue limits on the size of pension eligible for tax relief and the maximum pension payable by employers will lead to a more flexible system. Employees and employers will be free to negotiate whatever pension package they think is appropriate. Inland Revenue rules will only constrain the size of the tax relief.
While the Government are committed to encouraging private pension provision, it is only possible to reduce tax rates if all special reliefs are looked at critically. With a top tax rate of 40 per cent. there can be no justification in allowing unlimited relief when such relief is at the expense of ordinary taxpayers who can expect only modest pensions. Unlimited relief also creates an unwarranted bias in favour of institutional saving.
For that reason the Bill introduces a limit of £60,000 on the earnings eligible for tax relief. This gap was deliberately pitched at a level to minimise disruption to existing schemes. Few people currently have earnings above this level, and most of these will receive generous transitional protection.
This cap will be indexed in line with the RPI. As a result, its real value will not fall over time. Although the numbers affected by the cap will increase, the build-up will be slow. Even in 40 years' time the vast majority of those retiring will be unaffected by the cap. Those who are affected will always have the opportunity of negotiating a non-privileged top-up pension.
As well as deregulating pension provision for those saving for retirement, the Bill also benefits people who have already retired. My right honourable friend
1362
recognised the special needs of those aged 80 and over in his 1987 budget by introducing a more generous age allowance. The Bill extends this allowance to those aged between 75 and 79. As a result three-quarters of all those aged 75 and over will not be liable to income tax at all. The Bill also reduces the rate at which the age allowance is withdrawn for those with incomes above the income limit. This will reduce the effective marginal rate in the withdrawal band to below 40 per cent. for the first time.
These measures will be complemented by the abolition of the pensioners' earnings rule, included in the Social Security Act. This will mean that pensioners are free to take up part or full-time pension employment without suffering any reduction in their state pension. Abolition will remove a source of rigidity in the labour market and has been widely welcomed.
As a result of these changes pensioners will pay less of their income in tax. I am pleased to say that pensioners not only now keep mere of their own money; they also now have more money in the first place. Between 1979 and 1986 the average net income of pensioners increased by 23 per cent. in real terms. Thus they have shared fully in the increased prosperity of recent years.
The Bill also introduces tax relief for private medical insurance for those over 60. It would be wrong to give these clauses too much importance. This tax relief is a modest measure expected to cost £40 million in 1990–91. By contrast, government spending on the NHS this year will total some £24,800 million. Yet although modest, this measure is aimed at a genuine problem. Membership of employer health insurance schemes normally ends on retirement. As a result, people find their premiums rise, their employers' contributions cease and their incomes fall at the same time. By going some way to offset this, these proposals will increase the overall provision of health care and so ease demand on the NHS to the benefit of those who continue to use its services.
As well as providing substantial help for pensioners, this Bill also includes a number of measures directed at charities. One of our main concerns has been the effect on charities of the European Court of Justice VAT judgment. We have managed to ensure that, for their basic non-business activities, charities will continue to benefit from zero-rated construction services and fuel and power. Most new communal residences, such as homes for children, the elderly and the disabled, will continue to be zero rated. In addition, vehicles leased to the disabled will become exempt from car tax, thereby reducing the cost of each car by £400.
I am also pleased that we have been able to maintain zero rating for the construction of village halls. This was warmly welcomed by all sides when announced in another place. I am sure that many of your Lordships will be well aware of the contribution that village halls make to local communities and will join me in welcoming this outcome.
Although all these measures are important, by far the best way to help charities is to encourage people

1363
to contribute to them. In recent years we have improved relief for charitable covenants, introduced relief for companies making one-off donations and, most recently, introduced relief for payroll giving. The response has been encouraging. Between 1978–79 and 1987–88, covenanted giving to charities has grown by 140 per cent. in real terms. Payroll giving has also grown steadily since its introduction in 1987. There are now over 3,700 schemes in operation and 120,000 donors participating. This Bill gives a further encouragement to this form of charitable giving by doubling the limit for relief. Tax reductions and growing net incomes have increased charitable giving. This shows that we are by no means the selfish and materialistic society that some claim.
Another measure which has been widely applauded is the reduction in duty on unleaded petrol. Together with the increased duty on 2-star and 3-star, this has ensured a rapid increase in the market share of unleaded in recent months. Unleaded petrol now accounts for over 20 per cent. of the market, up from less than 1 per cent. a year earlier. This further reduction in duty reaffirms the Government's commitment to phasing out lead in petrol.
I said earlier that the Government were committed to deregulation. The size of this Bill—over 180 clauses and some 17 schedules—may lead some of your Lordships to doubt the strength of this commitment. However, one of the paradoxes of legislation is that in order to repeal restrictions it is necessary to introduce new legislation. The close company clauses provide a good example of this.
Another reason for the Bill's length is that it includes some 30 pages implementing more of the recommendations of the committee chaired by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keith of Kinkel. I should like to place on record the Government's appreciation of the work of the noble Lord and his colleagues in striking a balance between the rights of the citizen and the requirement that the revenue departments are able to collect tax that is due. These clauses are the product of an almost unprecedented degree of consultation for tax matters. They will help to ensure that the operation of the tax system is effective and efficient, while at the same time remaining fair and just.
The Bill contains a series of measures to improve the taxation of savings, to widen share ownership and to help small businesses. It will simplify and modernise the administration of the tax system. It underpins the continued strength of our public finances and takes forward the Government's programme of tax reform, thus improving the supply performance of the economy. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(The Earl of Caithness.)
6.26 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, on behalf of those who sit on these Benches, and I am sure on behalf of all Members of your Lordships' House, wherever they sit, I should like first to congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, on his timely
1364
promotion. It will be very pleasant in the months that lie ahead to be able to exchange views with him. My personal encounters with the noble Earl have been brief but they have also been very pleasant. We certainly welcome his appointment.
In view of the weather, in reply to the noble Earl's euphoria concerning the state of the economy and the economic miracle that has happened, I do not wish to raise the temperature unduly by replying to him directly. I should prefer, with your Lordships' permission, to use the latest observations from the OECD, an organisation to which his predecessor, the noble Lord, Lord Young, was undoubtedly devoted. Indeed he gave your Lordships selected quotations from time to time in order to prove his point.
In answer to the noble Earl's glowing references to the Government's administration of the economy, I should like to quote the somewhat cooler words that I would use from the OECD:
"According to the latest forecast by the OECD (the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, comprising the 24 most advanced capitalist countries) Britain is likely to have, in 1989 and 1990, the highest inflation rate of the big seven countries, the biggest current account deficit as a percentage of GDP, and the slowest growth rate".
That was reported in the Economist on 15th July. It was unkind enough to add the words—and its address is not in the Walworth Road—
"To add insult to injury, the OECD secretariat has also quietly demoted Britain into sixth place in all the tables in its half-yearly Economic Outlook, acknowledging at last that Italy's economy is now bigger".
I am not one to knock my own country. But it seems to me that there is a rather different view about us in parts of Europe whose prime interest is not the re-election of Mrs. Thatcher to the Prime Ministership whenever the general election comes. Moreover, I could not help noting from impeccable EC sources, and on the other side of the coin to give it a social flavour, that the number in poverty in the United Kingdom by accepted European standards (which the British Government themselves have accepted) has increased by over 3 million during the years 1979 to 1989. That is another view of the buoyancy and success of the British economy.
I propose to confine myself to two questions raised by the noble Earl: first, the overseas trade position and, secondly, the question of inflation. The deficit in our overseas trade last year was approximately £14 billion as compared with 1980 when it was approximately in balance. Those figures are not fiction. The noble Lord, Lord Young, has not yet got at the figures for the purposes of creative accounting. They are the facts.
The forecasts vary. The National Institute of Economic Research forecasts a figure of £17 billion at the end of this year and £15 billion the following year; others put it as high as £17 billion at the end of this year and £14 billion at the end of next year, with £12·6 billion in the year following that. I repeat that there are variations.
The question that one must address oneself to is whether the situation is serious. Does it matter in modern times? I can remember that in the course of the last 15 years a deficit of £300 million would have been regarded as catastrophic. A government were

1365
nearly brought down when figures were announced of £300 million in arrears for one year.
I do not want to seem unreasonable but the Government appear to take the attitude that this situation is only to be expected because of the vast capital investment that has been made in the United Kingdom. They always omit 1980 to 1981 and 1982 because there was a catastrophic massacre of a great deal of our capital equipment at that time. They seek to justify it on the grounds that it is capital equipment. I have news for the noble Earl which must defictionalise much of what he said. The department produces the overseas trade statistics which are classified according to the Standard International Trade Classifications. I have those statistics in all divisions: food and animals, beverages and tobaccos, basic materials, fuels, oils, fats and waxes, chemicals, manufactured goods, machinery, equipment, miscellaneous manufactures and commodities.
Those figures differ sharply from the more general terms that the noble Earl's predecessors used with regard to capital goods, intermediate goods and consumer goods. An analysis reveals that only some 14 per cent. of imports into the United Kingdom consist of capital goods. I am quite willing to supply extracts from the overseas trade statistics. As he knows, there are differences between the overseas trade statistics because imports are recorded as cif, and exports as fob. However, that does not affect the proportions, and the difference in the overall figure is approximately £5 billion. According to the visible trade statistics, which are derived from the trade and navigation returns, the deficit on our trade is some £20 billion as against the £15 billion on the balance of payments basis, which is accounted for by this factor.
I am fortified by the fact that that figure has been verified by Lloyds Bank, which is not a subscribing member of the Trades Union Congress or of the Labour Party. It confirms the figure. It says in the latest issue of its review:
"Whilst the deficit on capital goods has been rising, it was only £1·2 billion, barely 5 per cent. of the deficit in 1988, and imports in this category account for only 14 per cent. of total imports".
There is a difference between what the noble Earl has told the House and the facts that I have revealed. Perhaps the Government are becoming cognisant of the true facts as distinct from the public relations aspect of the matter which may have been foisted on them by the noble Lord, Lord Young, in a propaganda euphoria. They may be shocked when they know the extent of this matter.
That point is further fortified by current economic trends which show that in 1979 fixed capital expenditure in manufacturing industry was running at £11·2 billion and slightly under that figure in 1988, when it was £11 billion. There has been no net substantial increase. One must take into account continued depreciation and obsolescence. There has been no net increase in investment in manufacturing industry to take it above the figure at which it was standing in 1979, adjusting it for 1985 prices at a common price level.
1366
The Government may say that it does not matter because it is all covered by our massive overseas investment. It is quite true that overseas investment from Britain is approximately two-and-a-half times investment inwards, and there are of course assets owned by British nationals and corporations overseas. I would be surprised to learn, if I were one of those investors, that in some way the overseas investments were being held as a kind of security, or held under charge as security against a government deficit. Particularly after the abolition of exchange control in 1979, surely the Government would not wish to say to those who invest in the United States, for example, where a good deal of the money has gone—it has also gone to Korea, Germany and a number of other places—"You can send your money abroad for investment, but bear in mind that it is being held as security against any deficit which may be incurred". That has no relevance to it whatsoever.
What matters is that at the moment there is some £43 billion on deposit by non-residents of the UK in UK banks, which is there to get the interest that it can earn. It is held there by the interest that it earns. We call that hot money. It swishes all over the place, according to wherever it can earn the correct return. Are the Government happy to hang on to the £43 billion? That figure increased by £14·6 billion last year, according to Lloyds Bank research—hot money deposited in London.
It is entirely coincidental of course that that figure more or less corresponds with the total trade deficit. But there is a massive liability there which under the terms on which it was deposited can be withdrawn at will. Is that a satisfactory position? Moreover, there is a spin-off from that situation. Not only is this money on deposit, but interest is being paid on it. As it begins to accumulate, as it has done, the interest is paid on an ever-increasing sum.
If one looks at the surplus on invisible earnings, which have hitherto been one of our mainstays, one finds that it has been decreasing. In 1986 the figure was £8·9 billion; in 1987 it was £7·3 billion; at the end of 1988 it was £5·9 billion. That is despite an increase in interest, profits and dividends which one would expect from an increased investment.
But the transfer payments were about £3·6 billion last year, which included about £2 billion which for some obscure reason we pay out of the Consolidated Fund to the EC, the countries with whom we are in the most substantial trade deficit. I wish it to go on record that one is very glad that Mr. Major, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, is going to the Foreign Office. The ex-Financial Secretary to the Treasury will be an excellent person to look after such matters.
The Earl of Caithness: He was the Chief Secretary.
Lord Bruce of Donington: I am sorry; the Chief Secretary.
If this deficit continues on anything like the lines forecast, in order to hold on to the deposits in London by maintaining interest rates, the interest burden is going to increase progressively and the surplus on invisibles will progressively deteriorate.

1367
If this situation continues, in four or five years' time the invisible balance may be extinguished altogether.
Money held on deposit is a very serious matter. What can the Government do in those circumstances? They are in a cleft stick. If they raise interest rates, more money is attracted and at the same time a considerable disadvantage is placed on manufacturing industry in trying to make further investment. As your Lordships know, this year investment is showing signs of sagging. On the other hand, if the Government lower the rate of interest, as they might be pressurised to do by those with very heavy mortgages on their homes, they face the loss of hot money from London. If that happens, the exchange rate goes down and imports become dearer as a consequence, putting, so we are told, an extra strain on inflation. But it makes it easier for exports.
The whole trouble is that the result of the neglect of investment in manufacturing capacity over these years has been an inability to give Britain the manufacturing capacity that it requires even to satisfy its own home market in competition with imports, let alone to increase its exports. So the Government are caught. If they keep the interest rate as it is at 14 per cent., though the figure will disappear out of the index in the course of the next two or three months for the purpose of the annual rate, it will still remain at 14 per cent. for the purposes of manufacturing industry and investment.
On the other hand, if the Government are forced by a sudden lack of confidence to raise interest rates, again imports will be made cheaper but exports will be more difficult to deal with. I trust that the noble Lord will agree with me that this discloses a rather serious situation. I am not going to say that it is catastrophic. Owing to the retention of high interest rates and hot money, for the moment the situation is held. But can anyone say that is a sound foundation for the British economy? I do not believe that any reasonable person can. One agrees that one balances one year against another. There can be surpluses one year and deficits the next. But never before have we had this continuing degeneration of our trade position mainly with the EC.
I now turn to inflation, which is connected with the problem that I have been discussing. At the moment it stands as 8.3 per cent. When the Government took over it was 10.3 per cent. That fact is not generally realised, mainly due to the extravaganza of the noble Earl's predecessor who boasted of having brought the inflation rate down from 20 per cent. to the then figure of about 4 per cent. In point of fact, some of the first acts of this Government on taking office were to raise interest rates very considerably indeed to about 17 per cent. They relaxed exchange controls, they nearly doubled VAT, thus putting up the cost of living, and they put extra charges on fuel, besides other measures. That raised the rate of inflation to 20 per cent. The Government ultimately succeeded in reducing it.
I wish to go back a little because I want to establish the fact as distinct from the myth. In the latter part of the life of the Government headed by Mr. Heath, noble Lords opposite will recall the famous Barber boom which set off inflation in this country to a
1368
very considerable degree. As time passed it was accompanied by a quadrupling in the price of oil, which caused the initial inflation in the United Kingdom from 1974 onwards.
In 1974–75 the inflation rate was running at 24 per cent.; in 1975–76 it was 16 per cent.; in 1976–77 it was 15·8 per cent.; in 1977–78 inflation was at 13·2 per cent. and in 1979 it was 10·3 per cent. That is how we come to the comparison with the present figure of 8·3 per cent. which the noble Earl is going to bring down. So after 10 years inflation has declined at a rate of about 2 per cent. and unemployment still remains, on the undoctored figures, about a million above what it was when the Government took over in 1979.
I do not consider that to be impressive bearing in mind that the very high inflation rate figures from 1974 to 1979 were at a time when this country did not have any benefit at all from North Sea Oil. During their period of office the Government have brought inflation down from 10·3 per cent. to 8·3 per cent. and they have had the advantage of £70 billion from the sale of North Sea Oil. All that they could do was to achieve a 2 per cent. decrease in inflation. All that they could do was to achieve an unemployment figure which on the old basis is still 1 million above the figure when they took over.
My arguments must be limited to those small points because properly one is subject to time limitations. I suggest to your Lordships that, far from showing the rosier picture referred to by the noble Earl in the earlier part of his remarks, they show a picture which spells great danger for the United Kingdom. We must consider many ways in which to extricate ourselves from the situation and a whole series of other domestic vicissitudes. I use a mild term for the misery that the Government have caused among the poorer people of our country. There are ways in which the problem must undoubtedly be tackled. But to pretend on the grounds produced that the adverse trade balance is of little consequence shows an alarming lack of economic discernment by those in charge of governmental affairs.
The Prime Minister is a self-styled tigress who sits in a Cabinet composed of hypnotised hamsters who do exactly what she wishes without question; and so one of the greatest acts that any incoming British Government must perform aside from dealing with those problems, in conjunction with our friends in Europe, the Commonwealth and elsewhere is to restore to the British people some measure of justice and freedom, which have progressively been taken from them by one of the most incompetent governments that this country has ever known.
6.52 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, I join with the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, in congratulating the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, on his promotion and in joining our debates on these matters. I also found him a courteous replier for the Department of the Environment. I have no doubt that he will carry over those qualities into his new department. From the point of view of the

1369
presentation of the Government's case this afternoon he did not put a foot wrong. I look forward to some more idosyncratic speeches from him.
Your Lordships' House is peculiarly inhibitied from dealing with Finance Bills, even though only about half are money Bills. Nonetheless, as an author almost 40 years ago of a book obscurely titled Mr. Balfour's Poodle, and as a Chancellor of the Exchequer 20 years ago I endorse that abstinence on the part of your Lordships.
That being so, debates on the Finance Bill can best be used as occasions for looking at the overall state of the economy. Because in May we had a 10th anniversary imprinted on our minds, and because the Government are fond of talking in terms of a new epoch having begun in 1979, it is appropriate to look at the past decade as a whole. Mrs. Thatcher has not instituted a new calendar. I suppose that one advantage of her views about the French Revolution is that she may have felt rather inhibitied in doing so.
There is very much a sense that the new world began in May, 1979. Before then there were the benighted ages not only of Wilson and Callaghan but also of Heath, Macmillan and, if truth be told, of Churchill, for no government was more consensual than that of 1951–1955.
It is also the conventional wisdom, achieved partly by the time-honoured device of deserveration, to present the 10 years as a record of unparalleled success. Mr. Lawson may be having a little temporary trouble but it is not more than a tremour in the tale of triumph; a little indigestion brought on by a surfeit of success.
The noble Lord, Lord Young of Graffham, was a particularly notable exponent of that version of history. Last Thursday when he assured me that if I tabled a Question he would be glad to answer it, I suddenly realised how much I shall miss him. Those Panglossian reassurances at least carried with them to our outpost on the frontiers of the Empire, when sometimes we feel that we have only district officers to deal with, a certain sense of association with vice-regal power. Now he is gone. The spell being broken, perhaps we might look at the facts of the past 10 years.
The accepted gospel is that, thanks to severe discipline and the rejection of short-term Keynsian management in the early years of the Government, the country has brought inflation under control; has enjoyed an unprecedently long period of sustained and sustainable growth; has vastly improved its competitive position; has put its industry in good shape; has become the envy of the leading world economies; and, as Mr. Lawson said in his 1988 Budget speech, is now experiencing an economic miracle comparable in significance to that previously experienced by West Germany and still enjoyed by Japan.
Since then there has been an inflationary blurp and a balance of payments deterioration which perhaps must be regarded as a little bigger than a blurp. Nonetheless, there is nothing wrong which cannot be put right by a Britain which has turned its back
1370
on the bad old days. Those claims are worth looking at in a little more detail.
The instrument of discipline in the early days of the Government was the control of the money supply—M3, the main aggregate—although there were a certain number of bewildering switches rather like an uncertain motorway programme at certain stages in those early days of concentration on monetary policy. Now when it has more or less been abandoned it is extraordinary to look back and see what has happened to the control of the money supply over 25 years of four successive governments.
The two periods during which money supply has been rather out of control have been the two periods of Conservative government: the average growth of 17.5 per cent. a year under the noble Lord, Lord Barber, and 15 per cent. a year under Sir Geoffrey Howe and Mr. Lawson. The two periods of Labour government in the 1960s and 1970s were, by comparison, quietly controlled as regards money supply.
On this issue the performance of the great sophisticated instrument of government of the Conservative Party has been quite extraordinary. They have behaved like a primitive American religious settlement where an enormous amount of wailing, beating of breasts, weeping and denunciation of the demon of alcohol goes on in public. But in private there are appalling scenes of drunkenness and debauchery affecting not only the congregation but also the preachers. However, under the two Labour governments—at any rate under some beneficent Chancellorships—we treated the money supply much more like those brought up in a wine growing country: we dealt with it as it came without letting it go to our heads one way or the other.
I turn from instruments to results. I deal first with inflation. I am aware, as the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, said, that the performance by the Government was once supposed to be the jewel in their economic crown. That is no longer the case. We all know the central point. They inherited 10 per cent., and now have it down to 8 per cent. with not very good prospects. However, it is the comparative record which is so appalling. It is twice the average for the European Community and the worst in any Western economic summit country other than Italy where it is about the same.
Secondly, we come to the crucial issues of productivity and competitiveness. Overall productivity in the British economy—that is output for workforce employed—has not risen very quickly, and less than in either of the two preceding decades. It has risen significantly faster than in previous decades in the manufacturing sector. However, the manufacturing sector has been shrinking in relation to the rest of the economy. Therefore, we have the paradox of some dynamism in the less dynamic part of the economy accompanied by a rather weak productivity performance in the parts of industry which are becoming more important. At any rate the improvement in productivity, even in manufacturing, seems to have done nothing for the competitiveness of British industry whether at home or abroad. Imports of manufactured goods have gone

1371
up to 10 times more than production has increased since 1979. The trend line for manufactured imports has risen over the 10 years about three times as fast as exports, which is a somewhat worse relationship than in the preceding period.
The effects of that were masked by oil until 1986. Once the mask began to slip, they revealed themselves in a horrifying balance of payments deficit. A sort of "Portrait of Dorian Grey" has been enacted. We now have a worse balance of payments deficit in relation to GDP than the much vilified one of the United States, with worse prospects for either improving it or being able to finance it indefinitely.
The fixed investment performance has also not been as strong as the noble Earl suggested this afternoon. The figures have been vitiated so much by classifying sales from the public to private sector as positive fixed investment for the private sector and also by the massive change in the frontier in the two sectors that it is possible to sustain an inconclusive statistical argument almost indefinitely on that point. However, the decade performance for net fixed investment in manufacturing looks substantially down on the not very great performance of the 1970s.
It would be surprising if that were otherwise because the second half of the 1980s has been genuinely notable for having an exceptionally strong and sustained period of growth in personal consumption. Thus, from the end of 1984 to the beginning of 1989, that increased at an annual average rate of 5·9 per cent. which is a vast increase over a four year period.
One's reaction to that is bound to be mixed. In a sense, the ultimate purpose of all economic activity is consumption. To that extent, it is good. At the same time the endemic fault of the British economy for decades has been for all booms to be consumption linked and thus more unstable than those of Germany or Japan whose miracles the Chancellor believes we are emulating. At this time, we have a consumption linked boom with knobs on. Whatever else can be said about the record, it is not one based on any of the traditional values of thrift, providence, Victorian England or the corner shop. As regards the private sector, that is based on "give'em the money".
There has been a decade of output growth at an average of 2 per cent. per year, and consumption growth at an average of 3 per cent. which accounts for a great deal of the present position. That might be fine if there were good prospects ahead. Riding a bicycle with no hands is very good if you are going along a straight road towards the sunny uplands. However, if you are riding straight towards the cliff edge, that is rather less impressive.
There seems to be a major and central dilemma facing any Chancellor or any Prime Minister at present; it is one which makes a lot of recent boasting about the economy sound rather tawdry. Unless we can grow by at least 2·5 per cent. per year, unemployment—and I admit that that has come down a lot during the past two years but is still higher than in the United States, Japan or Germany—will start to rise again. If we grow by
1372
anything like that 2·5 per cent. every exponential consideration suggests that the balance of payments deficit will grow from its present massive £18 billion into realms beyond human experience. We could easily be at a deficit of £40 billion or £50 billion, the equivalent of 10 per cent. GNP. So far from being the envied paragon (if we ever were), we should quickly become the only first world country with a third world debt problem.
I do not claim to have a philosopher's stone solution. Increasingly, I distrust panaceas. I believe that the problems of the British economy remain deep seated. I do not believe that this Government have made great impact on those problems; but nor did the preceding Government. They have made one or two problems better and perhaps have made two or three worse. However, mostly they have failed to effect them one way or the other. A little modesty from the Government about their economic performance would not come amiss.
I find offensive and increasingly ludicrous the view that economic virtue was enthroned in May 1979 when the evil serpents of Macmillanite profligacy, Heathian compromise, Wilsonian weakness and Callaghanite cowardice slunk away into dark corners before the flashing blade of a sword of discipline and truth held in an arm clothed in white samite. Manichaeanism is a bad thing in most fields of human endeavour but is particularly so in the essentially mundane process of the management of the economy where we need modest rationalism, particularly when large parts of the record and prospects are as bad as they are at present.
7.8 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I also begin by congratulating my noble friend Lord Caithness on the Front Bench on an extremely well deserved promotion. Those of us who have seen him in action on the legislation of this Session know what an adroit and effective parliamentarian he is. It is very good indeed to see that ability and hard work recognised.
I understand that he is now Paymaster General. As one who some years ago held that office, I wonder whether I may remind him of the fact that not then, unfortunately, but some 200 years ago the paymaster generalship was a highly remunerative office. In those days the holder of that office used to draw the pay of the public services, invest it and draw the income from the investment. If, as was often the case, a frigate disappeared at sea, the pay owing to the crew went to the Paymaster General. The only distinction between holders of the office in those days was that the extremely punctilious ones were always regarded as self righteous because they simply invested money in gilt edged while the more speculative ones put it into all sorts of investments in the happy knowledge that if successful they would gain the proceeds, and if unsuccessful they would not have to carry the loss. Alas, that was 200 years ago. However, the Paymaster General still has one agreeable perquisite which my noble friend might not yet have seen. He is ex-officio governor of the Royal Hospital at Chelsea, which is one of the finest and most moving institutions in this country.

1373
While on the subject, I hope I am not out of order in asking my noble friend to convey to his right honourable friend the Chief Secretary my congratulations and particularly the pleasure I feel that the position has been restored and that the right honourable Member for Kingston upon Thames is now Chief Secretary to the Treasury once again.
The debate on the Finance Bill is an annual exercise in this House and, of course, tends to be extremely diverse. The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, was in characteristic form. Everything was wrong with the Government, and it was the fault of the Government that things had gone wrong. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, was a little more sophisticated in his approach; to such an extent indeed that when he came to contrast the records of two Labour Governments and the Conservative Government he somehow did not have time to mention that in 1977, under a Labour Government, the IMF had to be called in. Severe restrictions were imposed on economic activities and personal consumption in this country under threat of pressure from the IMF. The noble Lord did not appear to have time to mention that aspect of the matter.
I was a little surprised that the noble Lord should regard a rise in personal consumption as criticism of the Government. It must be admitted that personal consumption has risen conspicuously over the past 10 years. After all, personal consumption is ultimately the objective of economic activity. That is what it is all in aid of. The fact remains that although criticisms may be made the great majority of people in this country are better off in terms of material goods than they have ever been and have enjoyed steadily improving standards. However much the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, may dismiss it, when we consider, as we shall in a couple of years' time, the choice of the next Parliament it is likely that many people will remember that fact. I certainly do not regard it as a criticism of the Government that personal consumption has risen. I would regard it as a criticism if it had been reduced, as it was under the orders of the IMF as recently as 1977.
Lord Jay: My Lords, 1966.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, 1966. I am obliged to the noble Lord. Consumption, of course, was reduced in 1977 under the measures taken as a result of the pressure from the IMF.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jay, who is to follow me in this debate. He will recall, as probably no one else in the House will, that I followed him as Financial Secretary to the Treasury as long ago as 1951. I inherited from him an extremely well run office and an extremely good private secretary.
One must pick out from this massive Finance Bill the points to which one wishes to refer if one is to keep one's observations within a length that your Lordships' House would tolerate. I regard the Bill, as a whole, as not making dramatic change but retaining a steady continuation of the process of recent years, a steady improvement in the efficiency
1374
of our system and improvements in our system of taxation; though before I finish I will have one or two suggestions for further improvements which I hope my noble friends and my right honourable friends may desire later to consider.
I agree with what was said earlier. One should be concerned at the current rate of inflation. I should like to hear more from my noble friend Lord Brabazon of Tara, when he winds up, on how the Government see the development of inflation. Fairly optimistic observations have been made recently which I profoundly hope are right, but I say at once that no one can be satisfied with an inflation rate of 8·3 per cent. It is much too high. It is damaging to so much of the good work that the Government have done. Resolute effort to restrain inflation should be the first priority in the economic policy of the Government.
Control of inflation certainly involves strict control of public expenditure. There is no doubt that excessive public expenditure and unjustifiable increases in the wage levels of those in the public service are contributors to inflation. I hope and believe that the Government regard coping with inflation as being the first priority in their policies. That has been said. I am however inclined to wonder whether the Bill, looked at as a whole, fully reflects it.
The other related aspect is the ease of borrowing. It seems to me that our banks are a little too easy in granting loans to borrowers. I hasten to say that I am not reciting any personal experience—any experience of mine would probably be in the contrary direction. On the whole, however, the banks seem to provide loans somewhat easily. It may be that a tighter policy on allowing loans thro ugh our banking system would contribute to helping to deal with inflation.
The example given by the proposals of the former Secretary of State for Education to supplement student grants by student loans seems psychologically and singularly ill-designed in this context. Surely it is not a good idea to encourage graduates on leaving university, having taken their degrees, to do so in debt and therefore accustom them to the idea of borrowing in order to sustain their standards of life. I hope in that context that the new Secretary of State for Education will consider seriously whether encouraging borrowing on this scale among the younger generation is particularly wise and whether it does not carry with it a considerable risk of spreading the desire to borrow—and to borrow for consumption—which is certainly one of the features in cur inflationary situation today.
I repeat what I said last year. I regard our system of direct taxation as still oppressively high. A rate of 40 per cent. at around £20,000 a year is a considerable levy to impose upon earnings. If one compares it with levels of taxation before the war one sees how far we have moved, even under a Conservative government, to severe levels of personal taxation.
One of the advantages of reducing personal taxation is that it gives greater incentive to work, to

1375
enterprise, to take risks, and chances and to push forward projects. Increasing people's take-home pay through reductions in taxation enabling them to have a higher quantum of take-home pay for the same nominal wage is a very good method of securing restraint in wage demands. That applies particularly at the lower levels of income. After all, the ordinary man looks at the package of his take-home pay more seriously and sensibly than he does the nominal wage which has been negotiated for him.
Therefore, I beg of my noble friends, and right honourable friends to go further forward with the process of tax reduction. It was something of a disappointment that this year's Budget, and therefore the Finance Bill which we are discussing, does not make substantial reductions in taxation as at one time had been hoped. I hope that this does not indicate any diminution of the zeal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to bring down the levels of taxation.
I have one or two rather contrary suggestions to make. I should have thought that there is every justification, if more revenue is needed, for increasing the tax on tobacco. If people insist on smoking and thereby add ultimately to the cost of the National Health Service—this has been statistically demonstrated—there is no reason at all why they should not be made to contribute rather more in taxation which can then go towards the health service, the costs of which they themselves have caused to rise. I hope that the Government will seriously consider substantial increases in tobacco duty. I make that suggestion with some seriousness.
I take a rather heretical view on VAT. It is a highly inflationary tax. In my experience it compares very badly with the old purchase tax which it replaced. When we had purchase tax—I had some responsibility for operating it during two stints at the Treasury—we were able to discriminate as to the direction in which the tax fell. Purchase tax on luxuries such as jewellery, silks and so on was very high. It was sometimes as high as 66 per cent. But it was not applied at all to basic necessities. There was a deliberate use of the differential rate in order to discriminate against luxuries and not to inflate the price of necessities. It was a much better tax.
I know that since we joined Europe we have been landed with VAT. I regard it as a harmful and inflationary tax. I came across one example of it the other day which seems to me to call for a remedy. If one buys a car one has to pay a tax on the car. The VAT imposed applies not only to what one paid for the car but applies also to the tax one involuntarily paid on the car. That is an extremely oppressive application of VAT. It is after all supposed to be value added tax. How it can be said that one is adding to value simply by paying the car tax on one's car, I do not know. It is very oppressive and could be remedied without serious financial consequences.
I want also to raise a point on the inheritance tax. In the nature of things the tax falls on people at a bad moment. It falls on a family when the breadwinner and his widow have died. It is especially harmful that it falls on their principal home. It goes right against the Government's policy of encouraging
1376
home ownership. With the high level of house prices, particularly in the south of England, the tax can be very heavy even on quite modest homes. It must discourage people who like to think that they have bought a home which they will be able to pass on to their children.
There is a partial precedent for treating the principal home on a special basis. That applies to capital gains tax. As I understand it, if one sells one's principal home, no capital gains tax is applied. That is a sensible provision. Such an exception might well be applied to everybody's principal home. It would from time to time save the Government from embarrassment. When the owner of a great house dies the Government have to be brought in, because of the high rate of tax, to find financial help to prevent the house being closed or sold up. If a big house, on which therefore the tax would be high, were not subjected to inheritance tax, from a practical point of view a good many people would not have to come to the Government for help.
There seems to be a considerable argument for such an approach which would be enormously gratifying to a large number of people. People will have worked for years, paying their mortgages, which as your Lordships will know are now at very high rates, and will finally acquire their homes and own them. I know that inheritance tax does not apply to his wife, but as soon as the man and his wife die a heavy tax is imposed on the home and the children may often have to sell it. There is room here for a sensible and intelligent tax concession.
I very much welcome the encouragement which the Bill gives to charitable contributions. We have moved with this stimulus quite a way in encouraging private charity—not as far, because we have not the resources, as the United States, but a considerable way. Judicious tax concessions in respect of charitable contributions can do a great deal of good. Private charity has qualities which, with the best will in the world, publicly administered social services do not have. It can be more flexible and more adaptable to individual circumstances in particularly difficult cases than any system of social security, however humanely and intelligently administered it may be. The encouragement therefore of private charitable activities is one of the good features not only of this Finance Bill but of previous ones.
Innumerable points will occur to other noble Lords. This is a massive Bill. My noble friend explained its size. If we were subject to the procedures of another place and we took it in Committee, it would take us a very long time to consider. There is a mass of detail representing the devoted work of a department which I think I can say includes the ablest people in the public services. I refer to the Treasury. I am sure that much of the less conspicuous and less noticeable parts of the Bill will contribute considerably both to the progress of our economy and to individual happiness in many cases.
I do not propose to plunge into a great argument as to whether the outcome of the Government's policies over these years has been as good as I like to think it has been or as bad as the noble Lord,

1377
Lord Bruce of Donington, likes to think it has been. The truth is that we have seen unemployment steadily fall and the standard of life of the great majority of our people steadily rise. That is the kind of thing which ordinary people will use as a criterion on which to judge the success or otherwise of the Government's policies.
I shall be interested to hear what my noble friend Lord Brabazon of Tara says in reply. The noble Lord, Lord Bruce, referred to the, on the face of it, massive deficit on the overseas balance of payments. However, I am encouraged by the fact that despite the deficit foreign investors seem to find this a very good country in which to invest. It is noticeable that the Japanese, with the world open to their choice, have on several occasions recently made massive investments, especially in the motor car industry of this country. That is surely an indication that impartial people, with no particular bias in our favour, find the state of the British economy attractive for investment. They find it apparently sound. That is a judgment to which I think we are entitled to give a good deal of respect.
The Bill will shortly become enacted, I am sure that all noble Lords, whatever the doubts some may have expressed, will wish that it contributes to the increasing strength of our economy and to the increasing wealth and happiness of the people of our country.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Jay: My Lords, in warmly congratulating the Minister on his promotion, I can say with complete conviction that we cannot at any rate blame him for either last year's or this year's Budget and Finance Bill. I think the best that can be said about these two measures for this year is that they will not be so damaging as last year's which stepped up spending by those with the larger incomes and so converted the balance of payments deficit for 1988 from the Chancellor of the Exchequer's forecast of £4 billion to an actual deficit of about £14 billion.
One can well understand the disappointment of the Government's supporters at finding that after 10 years we now have an inflation rate which is very nearly equal to that which the Government inherited when they came to power. We also have an unemployment figure that has doubled and the overseas payment deficit is higher than ever previously known. Indeed, as this Government constantly declare that they are fighting inflation as their first priority, it is particularly surprising that the inflation figure has nonetheless been rising for two years and is now very close to where it was when they first came to power.
It seems to me that we have slid into this damaging predicament because, first, almost all instruments for controlling the economy have been thrown away; and, secondly, this Government continue to choose—and this is especially true of the previous Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Young—to ignore, if not actually to conceal, what is really happening in the economy and what, up to last year, was partly hidden by our temporary oil earnings.
1378
As regards economic miracles, one interesting fact is that the real annual growth of out put per year in the UK has grown in the past ten years more slowly than it did in the years between 1969 and 1979 and, indeed, more slowly than the average for the whole period from 1948 until 1979. But, imports in those last years, especially manufactured imports, have been increasing uncontrollably since the 1970s. That is the real phenomenon of the 1980s. As a result, last year's current balance of payments deficit of £ 14 billion is running this year at between £15 billion and £20 billion. It is almost entirely a visible trade deficit with the EC, about half of which is with Germany and most of which is in manufactured goods, especially motor vehicles.
Of course, up to 1970 our visible trade with the EC was roughly balanced. The deficit appeared from 1973 to 1976, when we removed all tariffs from EC imports, and it has been growing ever since. The trade deficit produced by last year's Budget is not a temporary deficit, although that aggravated the situation; it is a long-term deficit which has now been increasing for over 10 years. All that is made worse by the fact that our net invisible earnings are also now declining. There are two reasons for that: first, the very high interest payments on our huge borrowing from overseas; and, secondly, our ever-growing payments into the EC budget.
The most serious aspect of this whole rake's progress is the balance of payments deficit. I say that because, whatever the propaganda says, if you are in a current balance of payments deficit you must, as a nation and as a government, do something about it. You either have to borrow from overseas or you have to run down your reserves.
With a current account deficit of £15 billion or £20 billion, we are, in effect, living beyond our means internationally to the extent of between 4 per cent. and 5 per cent. of our GNP. Against that we have official reserves which I think amount to rather less than £30 billion—the Minister can tell us if that is correct when he replies—but we lost 2 billion of that figure in June alone. At that rate the reserves would hardly last 18 months. Therefore we are bound to borrow and we are in fact now borrowing from overseas on a very large scale. That is why the Chancellor of the Exchequer has to maintain a 14 per cent. interest rate, which is 7 per cent. higher than the corresponding German rate.
Even if we use some of our reserves this year in order to meet the deficit, we shall almost certainly be borrowing something like £10 billion or £12 billion from overseas. This means—and I make this point especially to the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter—that every three months this year we shall be borrowing as much as we borrowed from the IMF in the whole year of 1976.I do not think that the noble Lord noticed that. Moreover, only a fraction of that borrowing will mean real capital formation in the UK, as in the case of the Japanese motor firms' intervention, which I very much welcome. I suspect that that will only amount to about 5 per cent. of what the Government call "inward investment". Unhappily, the great bulk of it is being borrowed from thousands of unknown

1379
traders and speculators as short-term deposits which they can withdraw within 24 hours or less.
As regards the amounts involved, my noble friend quoted figures estimated by Lloyds Bank. I shall quote a recent article which appeared in The Financial Times which put the situation in this way,
"Government activities … are under the constant scrutiny of anonymous foreign investors who stand ready to withdraw an estimate of £35 billion of short term hot money at a moment's notice".
It now needs 14 per cent. interest rates to keep this money here. No doubt that makes things look better in the short term; but it makes the longer term prospect worse. First—and this is probably the most serious point of all—by holding the exchange rate at too high a level, we are worsening the very trade defect which is the basic cause of the whole trouble. Secondly, by borrowing £10 billion, or something of that order, every year at a rate of 14 per cent. or 15 per cent. we are increasing the outward payment of interest and dividends from this country on the wrong side of the account by something like £200 million every year. That is one reason, as I said, why the invisible account is deteriorating.
Although one feels inclined to say, "I wouldn't have started from here", as regards what is done next, the fact of the matter is that "here" is where we now stand. For reasons of dogma the Government have now thrown away exchange control; control of imports; direct control of the volume of bank deposits; and, finally, any incomes policy. Of course the latter dogma is now costing us dear as pay inflation gets going again. As long as certain people in the City pay themselves a salary of £250,000 or £500,000 a year, some other people will put in claims for another £5, £10 or even £20 a week. Moreover, some of them will go on strike in support of those claims and will receive a great deal of support from the public.
The Government then say that they are trying to restrain inflation by holding up the sterling exchange rate; but that, as I have said, is to make the longer-term outlook much worse. The truth is that the present sterling exchange rate is much too high. The right exchange rate is a rate which enables one fully to employ one's resources without a balance of payments deficit. It was indeed the fall in the exchange rate in 1986 that reversed the employment movement in this country and started the up-swing. That shows the importance of the exchange rate.
As I see it, the only real choice left now to us before 1992—which incidentally, is likely to make the trade deficit worse—is whether the pound comes down with a crash or is managed down gradually, but substantially.
Despite his unfortunate balance of payments forecast, no one would wish to belittle the present Chancellor's reputation as a bluffer and a gambler. However, that is not enough in the present situation, after all the mistakes of the past 10 years and with a record of a growing payments deficit.
We need now a policy to ensure that the exchange rate falls reasonably smoothly to a level where the trade and payment deficit can be got under control again. Of course, that will tend to raise the internal
1380
price level, but I am afraid that that is the price which a country pays to stop living beyond its means.
It is crucial therefore to maintain the maximum practical United Kingdom influence over the sterling exchange rate. It is all that we have left with which to control the economy. In my view, to fix that rate now, whether in the EMS or on any other pretext, would be one of the most gratuitous acts of unilateral disarmament since the Trojans invited the wooden horse within their walls.
7.41 p.m.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, before I make my brief contribution to this important debate, I should like to state that a long time ago I made a firm commitment for eight o'clock tonight, when I hope to receive some guests, and so I shall absent myself for a few minutes, if I may, to receive them and then return with all speed to the House.
We have had some important contributions from persons, highly skilled and occupying important positions directing at various times the country's economy. They have covered a great deal of ground in a short time. I should like to address myself to a simple question: are we returning to a stop-go situation? I should like to examine that question with regard to what has happened over the past 10 years; to consider what the prospects are; to try to discern the underlying trends that have brought about our present situation; and then to consider whether the remedies now being tried are adequate or whether there should be some other remedies.
From the evidence of the past 10 years, it looks very much as if we are back in a stop-go situation. When the Government came to power, that coincided of course with a world recession and so they could not be blamed for being in a difficult situation at the start. During that period, they deliberately adopted certain deflationary policies which had the effect, among other things, of substantially diminishing our manufacturing capacity, about which I shall say more in a moment.
Recovery began to set in around about the end of 1981. It went right through until about 1986–87, when there were discernible signs of overheating which increased in intensity until we found ourselves faced in 1988–89 with a situation, familiar in the past, of a substantial balance of payments deficit and increasing inflation, of course stimulated by the high interest rates which then had to be applied. The question is whether we are going to continue in that type of situation. I have no doubt that, as a result of measures being taken, there will be a degree of recovery in due course, after a period of painful adjustment, and then perhaps after a certain period we shall get back into the same overheated situation. That is not a pleasant prospect for this country.
To find out whether that position is really likely to recur in the years ahead, I thought that it might be desirable to try to discern underlying trends. What have been the basic trends which have led to the present situation? I may not be right in my analysis, but I have identified two trends which I believe to be largely responsible for where we are now and for the possibility of a recurrence of stop-go.

1381
One is the behaviour of what is known as broad money. My noble friend Lord Jenkins of Hillhead referred to it and so did other noble Lords. The surprising fact is that we have a Government who prided themselves on their monetary policy when they came to power. The control of the money supply was meant to be the cornerstone upon which the whole of the country's economy was to be based. But round about 1984 they decided to give up that cornerstone, if one does that with a cornerstone, and left the broad money supply to look after itself.
I have the latest figure in the Economist, which compares us with other countries. The growth in broad money in Britain in the year ended May was 21·8 per cent. That was in one year. The only other country of the 13 OECD countries in the table to have exceeded that figure was Australia, with a growth rate in broad money of over 24 per cent. In every other country it was substantially lower. Australia exhibits many of the symptoms that we have in this country. It has a gathering balance of payments deficit and increasing inflation. It is having to apply a high interest rate.
We have reached a situation where we have what appears to be a virtually uncontrolled growth in money supply. The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, referred to that point, and it has mainly been revealed by the way in which bank lending has increased over that period. Bank lending in 1984 was just below £15 billion and in 1988 it was over £55 billion. It is growing at a rate of knots. There is a vast amount of currency and credit sloshing around in an uncontrolled way. That is on the one hand. On the other hand, because of the diminution in our manufacturing capacity, that money has had to be increasingly employed in bringing in goods from abroad.
The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, referred to the fact that the vast amount of goods coming from abroad are consumer goods, with relatively small amounts—less than we have been led to expect—being directed towards capital requirements. Whatever the case may be, we seem to be faced with a growing supply of money plus credit on the one hand and a reduced productive capacity to meet that great spending capability. That seems to be the situation.
If that is a fair analysis of the underlying trends and the situation is as I suggest, there arises the question of how to deal with it. Let us consider for a moment how the Government have set about dealing with it. They have done so by using a single instrument, as we know, and that is interest rates. They seem to regard interest rates as a sort of mediaeval nostrum, a sort of cure-all, for every conceivable economic disease.
The trouble is, however, that it exacerbates some negative aspects of the economy. The first effect of rising interest rates is clearly to increase inflation. As it works its way through to inflation, the effect of high rates is to worsen the balance of payments because it tends to make goods less competitive. Over a period, no doubt by diminishing the rate of industrial growth—it may be that we end up with a
1382
hard landing—those things correct themselves, but at a considerable social cost. The question that must be asked—it was posed by the noble Lord, Lord Jay—is whether there should not be a variety of measures to deal with the situation.
First, perhaps I may take the currency. In addition to the problem of the vastly growing amount of broad money and diminished basic industrial capability, we have a highly exposed currency. It is subject to the massive speculative pressures of the world which have now been unleashed. I should have thought that the time had certainly come when we should be trying to reduce the exposure of our currency by finally negotiating our way into the exchange rate mechanism. So long as we have a volatile currency to deal with, an excessive credit and spending power and a diminished industrial capacity, we are bound to remain in very serious difficulties. So I should "unbundle—if I may use that current fashionable word—the currency by putting it into the ERM. Then we shall keep it away from the rest of the problems which we have to deal with.
Coming to the broad money question, I believe that the Government ought to think again about liquidity ratios, over-funding and all the other things that used to be done in the past to try to control the level of broad money. In addition to that, there should be much more stimulus towards private saving. The level of private saving over recent years has fallen from about 12 per cent. to a mere 4 per cent. or less. So I believe that the question of broad money needs to be tackled in itself.
Finally, as regards our industrial capacity, of course there has been a substantial improvement in manufacturing productivity, as my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Hillhead rightly said, but on a much diminished manufacturing base. That was the whole point which we made in the overseas trade report: we were very concerned that the manufacturing base would be unable to meet the needs of the country, particularly when the oil revenues diminished. That is precisely what came about.
So I should like to conclude by saying that, in order to find a long-term solution to our problem and avoid getting into the stop-go situation, we must look again at ways in which we can enlarge our manufacturing base. There are a variety of measures which can be taken for that purpose and we have had many debates on the subject. It seems to me that it is of prime importance. So we need to look again at the underlying causes of our present difficulties, to see whether the policies that are being adopted at the moment are sufficient to deal with them. I fear that they are not. A variety of measures are needed and I have tried to indicate some of them.
7.53 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, earlier in the debate the Chamber looked somewhat like an old boys' network. I counted five, if not six, former Treasury Ministers in their places in the House. Surely that is the most elitist gathering that I have yet seen on the Finance Bill in your Lordships'

1383
House. There has been a tendency—or at least there was when I first came here 15 years ago—to regard the Finance Bill as an inconsequential event. On one occasion I was shocked when it passed through all its stages without debate. Another noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, and I decided that we could not let that kind of thing happen again.
We have steadily tried to build up the claim of your Lordships' House to have a point of view about some matters upon which our powers may be restricted. It so happens that the noble Lord, Lord Bruce-Gardyne, had to leave without fulfilling his intention of participating in the debate. I am sure that we are all sorry about that. I was to follow him and I was going to say how pleasurable it was to see him back in his place, taking part in our debates. We wish him well.
This happens to be very close to the 40th anniversary of my maiden speech on a Finance Bill. That was when I first entered the House of Commons in 1949. We were debating the Finance Bill in this Chamber. I made my maiden speech from what was then the Government Benches, Mr. Speaker's Chair being under the clock. I am pointing at the place where I made my first speech on the Finance Bill. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, Sir Stafford Cripps, completely ignored it when he came to reply, which I thought was probably what I deserved from such a source. I cannot say that I enjoyed my first venture into a speech in the House of Commons.
I have had 40 years of Finance Bills and 25 Chancellors in my time. A little before I came into the House I began to know Chancellors. My score covers a little more than my parliamentary life. But from Philip Snowden to Nigel Lawson is a pretty good score of experience and education in ministerial styles and affairs.
What impression do I have about the trends in taxation over that period? I come to this now because I think that this Finance Bill could be the next to last in this Parliament. Certainly we can expect to have another Finance Bill in 1990 but after that one cannot be so certain. So it seems that we have probably come to the end of the present era of changes in tax structure and taxation reforms by the present Chancellor. It is no good being Chancellor of the Exchequer unless one is there for at least five and hopefully seven or eight years in order to achieve a coherent plan of taxation policy. I think some Chancellors have failed to do all they could have done if they had stayed longer. However, three or four Chancellors during the last 40 years have left their mark because they were able to stay to see their vision about taxation changes more fully realised.
My impression is of the tightening grip of the tax gatherer upon the taxpayer over the years, added to very substantially of late by the Keith Committee on taxation enforcement which came out over a period of three years—1983 to 1985.
The first question which I wish to put to the noble Earl, of whom we are all very fond, is whether Clauses 168 and 170 represent the end of the Keith disciplines to be introduced into our legislation. The Customs and Excise taxes were dealt with several years ago. The direct taxation recommendations
1384
have been sorted out and implemented over the past two or three Finance Bills. There is a further instalment in the Finance Bill today.
The Keith Committee recommended a much more severe code of control over and treatment of the taxpayer. We stopped moralising about taxation and even about tax avoidance or evasion. The report of the Select Committee of the House of Commons of 1905 was a sanctimonious report. It discussed moral delinquency and advanced the economic theory—this is nonsense—that those who paid less than they should were transferring some of their burden to their neighbours. I think we would have difficulty today in seeing that direct relationship between tax avoidance and the mass of revenue and the millions of taxpayers who contribute to our national exchequer. Nevertheless, tax avoidance can be regarded as a failure to comply with the law and a failure to discharge one's civic duty properly.
However, I think we have now turned all of this into a system. We have been looking for efficiency and tighter control. So the language in the Keith Report does not concern the morals of the matter but rather the identification of the taxpayer. That is the first item. The control of the known taxpayer is the second item. Those headlines carry a message. That is the tenor of the Keith recommendations.
The Inland Revenue decided straight away that several of the recommendations were impossible to apply. I have referred to one of them before. It was put forward by the 1905 House of Commons Select Committee. It suggested that all settlements reached by the Inland Revenue with delinquent taxpayers, short of prosecution, should be publicised. It was suggested that names should be publicised. I believe I suggested on one occasion that I thought a much better way of dealing with that kind of delinquency was to call back the stocks and put people in them. Anyway, the Inland Revenue was very sceptical about some of the remedies which even the Keith Committee thought were possible.
But now we find that the disciplines on the taxpayer as regards rendering returns, obeying requests for information and being willing to offer rights of entry to officers of the Inland Revenue bring the draconian powers of the Inland Revenue board down into the hands of its authorised officials. That was unheard of at one stage. Powers given to the Inland Revenue board were thought to be tolerable only if they were exercised by the direct authority of the board. However, now an authorised officer will have the authority to carry out such powers.
I think the other thing we shall find is that, instead of a rigid code of penalties, more flexible penalties will be introduced which will be at the discretion of authorised officers. I think that this new regime of control of the known taxpayer should be watched a little carefully. The reports of the Inland Revenue board should be examined to ascertain how far the penalties have been used and in what way, because we are bringing the authorised official well to the door of the citizen in more directions than taxation. I think that must be watched as regards civic freedom.
The other thing I think has been noticeable over the years is the search which the Inland Revenue has

1385
made for additional sources of income which it can convert into additional deductions of tax at source. Now as never before there is a range of tax deductions from income, interest, dividends, wages and salaries. Never before has the Inland Revenue had such a grip over the collection of tax at source. That relieves the taxpayer to a very large extent of any noticeable participation in his own assessment as tax is removed at source.
In my own case I never hear from the Inland Revenue until after the end of the year of assessment. Then I want to know how much I am owed for overdeduction. It is easy with the coding system we have now to pitch the tax deduction where the differential rate can be used, high enough to cover possible liability and even to cover in some cases contingent liability. One finds not too soon after the end of the year whether one owes something or whether one is owed something by the Inland Revenue. On occasion surprisingly, although one owes the Inland Revenue a small amount, one's notice is inscribed to say that this amount will not be collected. That is an indulgence which in my experience is worth framing and showing to one's grandchildren. It is new in the experience of the Inland Revenue for it to declare that an amount is too small to be bothered with. That shows a consideration for the taxpayer on which it is well worth offering a word of approval. Those two matters, the tighter grip and the wider use of the system of deduction of tax at source together give the Inland Revenue something much more valuable in the hands of tax administration than it has ever had before.
The other thing I wish to mention is a trend which I think has its dangers. It is the system of selective concessions from the taxable code. They are increasing, they are more widespread than before and they are all hostages to fortune. Once one gives a concession it is extremely difficult ever to withdraw it. At the present time one sees in two major directions how small beginnings have led to a monstrous vested interest—one is the mortgage market and the other the insurance market. Unless we are very careful, we shall find a new lobby looming up on the horizon, which is the charity lobby. Yet the Government are rather blind about voluntary service. "Charity" is now a term which loosens purse strings and brings out cheque books in a generous impulse which is quite unique in our affairs.
"Charity" used to be a hated word, but it is not now. Look at the patronage in the hands of our broadcasting authorities in the field of charitable work. There is the BBC Children in Need appeal, the commercial Telethon and the Red Nose appeal. Those three television programmes among them notch up £30 to £40 million a year. That is all in the hands of the biggest patronage to charity that this country has ever known. That process needs to be watched. I hope that when we come to consider charity law we shall address the many matters that need our attention. We should ensure that there is proper control and accountability of all forms of appeal to the public. Flag days have been allowed to
1386
get well out of hand. They were such a daily or weekly affair that they became a nuisance to the citizen. He was stopped in the street all the time by someone rattling a box. Flag days had to be brought under local authority control and are still.
We tend to develop an industry of our institutions. Taxation is an industry. Why is it that in all the publications that reach the hands of Inland Revenue officials there are lists of advertisements for experienced tax officers and inspectors of taxes? They are wanted by consultants, accountants and professionals in the field of finance and particularly of taxation. What is it that is now being sought in these raids on the staff of the Inland Revenue? It is quite serious. People who have been trained by the Inland Revenue are leaving, induced to go by those who can pay them higher salaries because they work for fees. They work on the side of the taxpayer, and I do not criticise them for that.
It looks as though the limited expertise in tax affairs—recruited and trained by the Inland Revenue—has now to be spread over the interests of the taxpayer, who wants his own consultant to look after his interests. I can only suggest that the time may be coming when, in addition to a legal service, we shall need a taxation advisory service. Is that not a reflection upon the complications of the tax system? Can the taxpayer not expect to get a square deal from the Inland Revenue unless he pays someone? That is surely part of the argument for simplified taxation, difficult though that is.
Those are the impressions that I have gained of taxation policy over the long term. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, that the level of taxation is still too high. When one looks at an item of income—salary, wages, interest, investment income—and sees 40 per cent. taken off, that looks a pretty big figure. I believe that many people in employment regard what is taken off as what "they" take away. I do not believe that they examine as closely as they should what their true liability to tax may be.
Well, there we are. I sit down after 40 years and heaven only knows whether I shall take part in any more of these debates. It has certainly been an education to work in the realm of probably the most efficient taxation system in the world. I think that it is that so far as concerns direct taxation. One sees all the problems.
I say in conclusion that the introduction of codes of more severe penalties for failure or neglect ought to excite the administrators of our taxation system to seek the good will and understanding of the taxpayer rather more than they do. I hear the staff of the Inland Revenue say frequently, "We should like to give the public a service", but they should tell the public what service they would like to give them. It is a service, after all. Taxation is one of the obligations of citizenship. The British people are not averse to paying what they feel is right and just.
However, there are too many injustices built into the system now to meet with universal approval. They will take a lot of getting rid of. We may eventually be driven to the practice of President Reagan of getting rid of a great many of the selective

1387
concessions, reducing the level of taxation generally and starting from a lower base altogether. I hope that I live to see that.
8.14 p.m.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I rise immediately to express the hope that under no circumstances is this the last occasion on which we shall hear the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, address the House on the subject of taxation and Finance Bills. Those of us who have listened to him on previous occasions and in other places know that he brings to the subject an immense wealth of experience, not least from his former activities at the Inland Revenue Staff Federation which propelled him into public life. We hope that we shall hear him again.
I also begin with a profound apology to my noble friends on the Front Bench that I was not here when the debate opened. I can only plead in mitigation, not as an excuse, that I was attending a charitable function downstairs, and I failed to see that the debate had been announced on the television screens.
I shall resist the temptation—because the hour is getting late and there are one or two specific things that I wish to say—of following the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, and others who have spoken and challenged the Government's economic policy. I shall say merely that for the majority of those who have the conduct of our industrial affairs—I do not say that the view is universal—and those who manage very large sums of policyholders' life or pension fund money, the biggest shadow at;.he moment is not any of those matters which noble Lords opposite have mentioned. It is the potential prospect that there might be a change of government after the next election. That is what they really fear. Having listened to some of the recipes advocated by noble Lords opposite of returning to the detailed and specific controls over the economy (which, happily, we have abandoned) I can well understand those anxieties.
I hope that I am not breaking with the tradition of these debates if I talk about the Finance Bill, because this is the Second Reading. I should like to direct my attention to those parts of the Bill which deal with occupational pensions and one or two related matters. I should immediately declare my interest as chairman of a major mutual life insurance company.
For nearly 100 years—it may be more than 100 years—tax relief has been given for pension arrangements by the Income Tax Acts. Employers have been able to claim their contributions to a pension scheme as a deductible expense of the business. Employees have had relief from tax in respect of their contributions. Their employers' contributions have not been taxed as the income of the employee, and the income of the fund is itself exempt from tax.
The noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, referred to the vested interest of insurance. However, that system is founded upon a very sound principle indeed. It is a principle which has been enshrined in
1388
the words: exempt the build-up, tax the benefit. It means that one spreads the income of a working life over a person's entire life and in effect one spreads the tax as well. In a progressive tax system under which the higher one's income the higher the rated tax one pays, it is straightforward equity that if one's income fluctuates between a higher amount when one works and a lower amount when one retires the tax system should reflect that. The tax reliefs for pension schemes over the years have done just that.
Of course the schemes require Inland Revenue approval and the rules have changed over the years. However, the principles have remained the same. The tax reliefs have been proportional to the income. Maximum contributions have been related to the maximum level of pension bought in relation to final income or income over the past three years. It has all been proportional with no limit placed on the size of income that qualifies.
For the first time this Bill has introduced an upper limit. If noble Lords have had the time to study the schedules and follow the arguments, they will know that there is now an upper limit for taxable income that qualifies for tax relief of £60,000. An approved pension scheme and payment contributions under it will not attract tax relief for those parts of income over £60,000 a year.
If one assumes that the maximum pension is two-thirds of that salary level, that is a maximum pension that can be paid for of £40,000 a year. To many people that is still an astronomical sum, but for those who are concerned with the management of industry—manufacturing industry, service industry and the finance industry—a salary of £60,000 a year is by no means unusual today. If our top managers, leading scientists and engineers and professional men such as lawyers, actuaries and accountants earn more than £60,000 a year, any contribution relating their pension to their total income will not qualify for tax relief above the new limit.
It has perhaps not been fully recognised that that is a major breach of what has been a longstanding practice of all governments and that it represents a new departure. But the Government have perfectly reasonably said that they will not make that retrospective. It will apply only to new pension schemes or to new entrants to existing pension schemes or, in the case of the self-employed, to people who take out new policies after the date of the Budget.
However, as has been pointed out frequently by those concerned with management, that immediately puts a substantial premium on to the cost of persuading people at that level of management or expertise to change their jobs. If they can stay in an existing pension scheme and still obtain relief without the upper limit of £60,000 applying, they will obviously have to be paid very much more either in terms of a higher salary or in terms of additional non-tax relieved pension contribution in order to persuade them to change jobs. The costs of doing that are likely to be substantial.
But the matter goes further than that. The Government have said that £60,000 is not a fixed

1389
figure, and that it is to be indexed. But it is to be indexed in relation to prices and not to earnings, so that progressively the effect is likely to be that more and more people will be brought within the ambit of that new pension ceiling. It has been calculated that if, over the next 30 years, earnings rise on average 2 per cent. faster than prices—that is not an unrealistic assumption—the equivalent at today's prices would be an income of a little under £30,000 a year. That would be getting on for between 35 and 40 per cent. of the total membership of pension schemes. They will be subject to that ceiling.
For the individual, that will mean that his tax-exempt provision for his occupational pension will progressively leave him with a smaller and smaller pension relative to his income. The idea that one will be able to retire on two-thirds of one's final salary is something that will go. Alternatively, he will have to top up the approved pension provision without the tax relief either for his employer or himself or with the benefit of the build-up of the interest being tax relieved. That is probably likely to cost about twice as much. For any given amount of pension, it will cost him twice as much to build it up without the tax relief.
For the economy as a whole, it is bound to lead to a growing block on job mobility. That means that for the slice above the monetary limit—whatever it might be—instead of exempting the build-up and taxing the pension, there will be a system under which one taxes the build-up and the pension. It seems to me to be a form of double taxation which I am surprised to find us debating at this time. Where stands the century-old principle "exempt the build-up, tax the benefit"?
So far I have spoken mainly about pension schemes run by employers for employees: but the same applies to the personal pensions which the Government have been keen to encourage. I entirely applaud that. The relief is now given on the appropriate percentage of the income up to £60,000 depending on age. I very much welcome that and should perhaps declare an interest. During the passage of the Bill in another place, the Government increased the percentage for those over 60 to a higher figure than had originally been provided. Again, the limit applies only to new personal pension plans. If one already has an existing personal pension plan—a pre-Budget pension plan—one can continue on the old rules and the old percentages with no upper limit.
However, I must tell my noble friends that, for the insurance industry which administers many millions of those pension schemes, that has given rise to the most haphazard results. If one has a pre-Budget pension plan with a fixed annual premium, one cannot thereafter increase that premium without it coming under the new rules. If one has a pre-Budget plan that allowed a variable premium—some companies have offered that for some time—one can cheerfully vary the premium and increase it as much as one likes in line with one's income and one is not subject to the new rules. If, on the other hand, one has taken out a series of single premium policies—there was never any reason
1390
to choose the one rather than the other—each new single premium policy is a new policy and one is caught by the new rules. There seems to be no logic in that save that, if there is to be a cut off, it works in that way.
That might have been avoided. Pensions legislation is essentially long-term legislation. It is perhaps the most important form of investment that the individual makes after buying his house. People take out pension schemes intending to go on paying for 30 or even 40 years in the hope that they will be able to draw benefits for a further 20 or 30 years after that. It is indeed long-term business. It is not right that settled expectations should be defeated in that way without giving long notice and engaging in extensive consultation. That did not happen in this case. It was announced in the Budget. I shall say a word about the form that that consultation might take in a moment.
Before I do so, perhaps I could mention a third but related problem of which I have given my noble friend on the Front Bench notice. Government legislation has encouraged the switch to personal pensions. I certainly welcome that. It has been an extremely successful and effective policy. At the time of the relevant social security Bill, it was estimated that perhaps 1 million people might take advantage of the switch to personal pensions by opting out of employers' pension schemes. It now looks as if the figure is about 3 million people —three times as many as were originally envisaged. That is a staggering success for the Government's policy.
However, the consequence has been that, for the companies that are having to administer it, there has been the most incredible explosion of work that has had to be crammed into a very short period. That sheer success has produced a problem. I hope that, in raising it tonight, I might be given some words of comfort by my noble friend Lord Brabazon of Tara when he comes to reply.
In order to obtain the retrospective relief, the individual had to submit his application by 5th April. He then became eligible for retrospective relief over the previous two years. There is no argument about that. However, to be effective, the insurance companies then had to process the papers and get them to the social security department by 17th May. It is perfectly fair to say that they all had adequate notice that that date would be 17th May, but neither they nor the department could possibly have guessed what a huge flood of applications would arrive during the past two or three weeks before 5th April, every one of which then required to be processed and sent to the department by 17th May.
It is a fact that many of the insurance companies have been unable to deal with that enormous load. But the consequences do not fall on the insurance company. It may be highly embarrassing, but the real problem is for the individual insured, who, having sent in his form perfectly correctly by the due date, finds that it has been rejected by the department because it has arrived in Newcastle or wherever after 17th May. The date of 17th May is in regulations, and the line so far taken by the department has been that there is to be absolutely no concession, even if the form has teen held up in

1391
the post, or in some cases even where it has reached the department in perfectly good time but for no good reason has been sent back (and that has happened in a number of places).
It has been estimated that perhaps there might be between 3,000 and 5,000 people who put in perfectly valid applications for a personal pension plan and whose applications have been turned down by the department for no better reason than that they arrived a day or two later than the deadline of 17th May.
This matter has of course been put to the department but it seems to feel that it is bound by the regulations. I cannot believe that a government who have anxiously pressed the case for giving individuals more control over their pension arrangements and more individual interest in pension arrangements, and whose policy has met with the remarkable success of having three times the number estimated, cannot find some way in which this problem might be resolved. The people who will be disappointed that they have not will be the 3,000 to 5,000 people who had intended and expected that they would benefit from the new arrangements and who through no fault of their own will not be able to do so.
Perhaps I may end on one more general point which comes back to what I said about the pension arrangements in the Finance Bill. It is long-term legislation. It should have been the subject of considerable consultation. This is in marked contrast, I must say, to the provisions of the Bill in Clauses 82 to 90 which deal with the taxation of life insurance companies. In that case there was an admirable document put out by the Inland Revenue, there was a long period of consultation and it is perfectly clear that Treasury Ministers listened very carefully to what was said. There were a number of options available, and in the end the Government chose one of the options and have legislated.
That seems to me to have been entirely in line with the excellent practice that has been built up over a number of years of not trying to spring major tax changes—not changes in rates or anything of that kind but major structural changes—on to an unsuspecting public without notice; but instead to spell out the details in consultation papers, take the advice of those who are likely to be affected and then, in the light of that advice, to legislate.
It was done in the case of the reform of the corporation tax in 1970, with the introduction of VAT in 1971 and with the introduction of tax credits, which eventually became child benefit, and with a number of other measures. Why could it not have been done with this very significant change, as I say, in a century of well established principle and practice in relation to occupational pensions?
The way that it has been done is causing untold difficulty. I have not had time, and it would not be right to weary the House with further details; but I have to say that there is a good deal of disquiet in the pensions and insurance industry because of the way in which this has been done. There will be opportunities to amend the legislation either by means of regulations or in future Finance Bills. I
1392
hope that Treasury Ministers will listen very carefully to those who have to administer this very important part of our industrial, commercial and social life which is the occupational pension field.
8.34 p.m.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, at this time of night I shall endeavour to be brief. I am delighted to be able to congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, on his new appointment. We have all enjoyed sparring with him in his previous incarnations. We shall continue no doubt to enjoy sparring with him in his new role.
My enthusiasm, however, was slightly dashed when I realised that he had inherited the scriptwriter from his predecessor. I realise that he has had very little time to find a new scriptwriter, or indeed to write his own scripts, but I should like to encourage him in every way I can to do just that. As I listened to the noble Earl I felt not only that I had heard it all before but also that I did not recognise the world that he described as the world in which I live: everything was for the best in the best of all possible worlds; the Government had been totally successful; people's living standards had risen; and we were the most admired of all nations.
That may be how the noble Earl sees it. It all depends on the colour of the spectacles that one wears. Yet, as he knows perfectly well, as does everybody on the Government Benches (those that are left of them) and as has been said by nearly every speaker from this side of the House, the reality is that we have a huge balance of payments deficit. Moreover, we have a hideously high level of inflation in comparison with our competitors. Indeed, it is high in comparison with the objectives set by this Government and the tests the Government set themselves as to what they regarded as a satisfactory level (and the expectations which they led us to have) of inflation.
If that were not enough, we have in this country—it is a matter of very great concern which few other speakers have mentioned—a higher level of personal debt than I can ever recall. That is worrying a great many people. In the face of those three characteristics of today's social and economic scene, can the noble Earl really be so complacent?
If I had not been here in the House of Lords I should have been sorely tempted to say to him: "Look, Lord Caithness, come off it! Tell us frankly what the position is. We all want to collaborate to try to get things right". Between us we have a great many ideas as to what might be done. But so long as the Government insist on pretending that everything is perfectly all right, then of course in many ways I would be wasting my time. We talk, but they are not prepared to hear. They do not want to look at the facts as they really are. No doubt among themselves they are far more realistic. But, surely, we too can share in the realism and discuss the position as it really is.
The Government accept—and repeatedly say—that the level of inflation is far too high, very dangerous and must come down. We are with them on that. However, they are determined to use only

1393
one instrument to try to combat inflation; namely, the instrument of high interest rates. They use high interest rates to serve two purposes. As the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, explained, one purpose is to attract and hold hot money because that is one way in which they can sustain the level of sterling. They are afraid of what may happen to sterling if interest rates are not high enough. That is the policy that was followed by the United States.
As my noble friend Lord Ezra said—it was a view repudiated by the noble Lord, Lord Jay—a better way of trying to control the fluctuations of sterling would be to get into the exchange rate mechanism and get in there fast. I hope that the noble Earl will be the Minister who at last is able to say, "The time is right". I hope that he will not have to tell us as frequently as we have been told in the past, "Yes, the Government will do it when the time is right". If the noble Earl cannot do that tonight perhaps he will work out and tell us the criteria for making the time right. There has been every conceivable variation in the conditions of this country so that it is impossible to believe that something near the right time has not arrived at some point in the cycle that has taken place over the past three or four years. If the Government are prepared to do that, one reason for maintaining high interest rates would be removed.
The other reason is to check excessive expenditure. There is no doubt that there is excessive expenditure. Some people—and I do not agree with them—are asking for more credit controls although not full-blooded credit controls. As my noble friend Lord Ezra has suggested, one could look at liquidity ratios. One has only to walk into Regent Street to see banners offering thousands of pounds of interest free credit. It is at sale time. Perhaps 1,000 people go into such a store in one day. I do not know the figures. If they availed themselves of that astonishing offer just think what it would do to the amount of money circulating completely out of control.
Obviously the Government have to look for ways to control the amount of expenditure at the present time and to attempt to reduce the hideous level of debt. One measure is high interest rates. As we all know, they have very unfortunate, very damaging consequences, as well as having some value in achieving the purpose for which the Government are using them. They also have a horrific effect on mortgage rates which feeds straight through into wage claims. This contributes to and exacerbates all the problems that we are facing at the present time. The Government are well aware of this. But they do not seem to understand that there may be ways of dealing with excessive purchasing power other than to rely all the time on high interest rates.
My noble friend Lord Ezra has pointed out that high interest rates always makes it very much more difficult for manufacturing industry to get on with the job of investment, which it needs to do. They put up its costs in a variety of ways. High interest rates make it much more difficult for manufacturing industry to undertake the two tasks that it needs to do: to supply the demand for goods in this country and therefore to cut back on imports in the right
1394
way—not by import controls but by producing the goods that people wish to buy in preference to the imported goods that they buy because they cannot buy the goods manufactured in this country—and to make itself far more competitive in foreign markets. I shall return to that in a moment.
The Government can do other things. To say that to increase interest rates is the only instrument is surely a very blind response. There are fiscal measures that could be adopted. One looks in vain in this legislation for the kind of fiscal measures which could be introduced which would have some effect on cutting back on excess purchasing powers. The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, has already said that the Government could do more with taxes on tobacco and drink. It is not perhaps a very large matter but it could be done. These taxes have not risen to keep pace with inflation. It is one way of limiting people's purchasing power other than by high interest rates. I know that it will have some effect on the RPI. That is a disadvantage but not an overwhelming one.
Very uneven ways in which advantages are given to different groups have grown up over time. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, has given us an impassioned plea —for 20 minutes —in favour of the pension industry. The pension industry has benefited from special tax concessions. The other outstanding area is mortgages. Surely the least that we can say is that there should be no MIRAS benefits above the standard rate of income tax. Surely the amount of benefit that people can receive through special tax benefits on mortgages should not be allowed to grow as inflation grows but should be maintained at existing levels. There be no question of raising the level. Surely we want different kinds of expenditure, different kinds of benefits, to be on one level, and not to have particular kinds of expenditure especially favoured by the tax system, as they are today.
One further way in which we can cut back on excess expenditure by citizens is by more encouragement for savings. On these Benches we very much approve of the developments in share ownership and, although with some reservations in certain areas, in home ownership. However, different kinds of savings are undoubtedly dealt with differently in terms of taxation. A really imaginative Chancellor would be looking at ways in which saving of a more general kind could be encouraged through tax concessions in the way that savings in pensions and houses are encouraged. At present those are the only two areas.
There are a number of precedents for the way in which this could be done. The Institute of Fiscal Studies, as no doubt the noble Earl knows, has been working on a variety of schemes to give people encouragement to save in other ways and to receive the same tax incentive to saving in these other ways which is available at present through our existing tax system, which is highly biased in two or three directions. That is one way to check the excessive expenditure that is going on at the present time leading to such very high levels of debt and increasing inflation.

1395
Listening to the noble Earl, I felt that, if he is reflecting the Government's view of the economy today, they are not coming to grips with the real problems that we are up against. The year 1992 is around the corner. The global economy in which we have to operate is full of people who will provide us with the roughest possible competition. One has only to look at what is happening in the Pacific countries—in Japan, Korea and Taiwan. The situation is changing all the time. We shall find it extraordinarily difficult to hold our own, let alone to improve our position, in the Community or with regard to these other very challenging competitors that we have to meet all the time.
With the money that the Government have available now—they are talking about paying back the national debt with it—they should be asking "What can we do with this money, sharply and quickly, to increase our competitiveness?" There is no sign in this legislation that the seriousness of the competition that we face has been taken on board. In this country our infrastructure is a handicap to our economic success. There is a reluctance to develop the further steps that need to be taken to obtain the best possible value out of the Channel Tunnel and by so doing to enhance our opportunities in Europe.
Above all, far more money needs to go into making our labour force really competitive. It is hideously obvious that in comparison with other countries we have had and continue to have an untrained labour force which will not compete with Europe or the Pacific countries, and nothing in our present plan is altering this. We know that that is so. On paper everybody admits it.
What are we doing? The money ought to be used to train 16 to 18 year-olds to become competent to compete the world over. Because we have failed so much to train older people in the past, real training should be given to them and real incentives. What are we told? We are told to leave training to the employers because they are the people to do it; the market will drive them to do the right thing. The market has never driven them to do the right thing in the past and I see no earthly reason why they will do the right thing in regard to the quantum leap in education and training that is required if we are going to have anything like the labour force capable of competing.
I see nothing in the Bill that reflects the dangers that we are up against. We have a balance of payments deficit with the Community. Why? It is because our people are not properly trained and they are not good enough to compete. That is the danger and that is what we must alter. I see nothing in the Finance Bill that would lead us to believe that this is going to happen.
8.50 p.m.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, we have had a long, interesting and thoughtful debate. A Bill as long as this inevitably gives rise to a number of points, and I will try to deal with as many of them as I can.
1396
Most noble Lords have made reference to inflation and the high level of interest rates. Although the Government realise that high interest rates are never popular with borrowers, it is crucial to everyone that inflation is beaten. A resurgence of inflation would destroy jobs and savings and endanger our continued economic success. The Government have always made it clear that interest rates would be set at whatever level is necessary to maintain downward pressure on inflation.
The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, sounded proud of the 10·3 per cent. rate of interest bequeathed to us by the last Labour Government. I suppose that that is understandable, given the extent to which inflation was out of control under that government. It peaked at 26·9 per cent. in 1975. Shortly after that the IMF had to be called in, as my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter reminded us. Under this Government prices have increased at less than half the rate under Labour. We regret the 8·3 per cent. but it may have peaked and I am confident that it is on a downward path.
My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked for an assurance that we would seek to tackle the rate of inflation. My noble friend can rest assured that the defeat of inflation remains at the centre of the Government's policy. Over the last year the Government have taken strong action to bear down on inflation by tightening monetary policy. This policy is clearly taking effect.
Increases in interest rates are the only effective means of bringing down inflation. There is no easy or painless alternative. Other major countries like the USA, Japan, Germany and France also rely on interest rates to defeat inflation. This is why the Government got on top of inflation when they took office and again as recently as 1985 when interest rates were as high as they are today. Interest rates worked then and are having the desired effect now. Indeed, as households are now, for the first time, substantial net payers of interest, interest rates are particularly well targeted at consumer spending.
To those who say that this policy is not working, I would point to a number of indicators which suggest that the economy is slowing down. MO growth has slowed over the last few months. The growth in retail sales has slowed significantly since 1988. The Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors' surveys show that house price rises are continuing to slow down.
The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, said that a rise in interest rates increased inflation. That is why it is appropriate to look at the RPI, excluding mortgage interest payments. Excluding those, the underlying inflation rate was 5·9 per cent. in June, which was slightly lower than the rate in May. This suggests that inflation may now be at its peak rate and will soon be on a downward path. The Government remain committed to defeating inflation. For this reason the Chancellor has said that monetary policy will remain as tight as is necessary for as long as is necessary.
The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, expressed concern about the effect of interest rate increases on business. The Government appreciate

1397
that such increases are unwelcome to businessmen and regret any difficulties being experienced. But for industry overall output and productivity are both growing strongly and profitability is at the highest level for about 20 years. This has made most firms less reliant on borrowing and therefore less sensitive to short-term interest rate changes than they were in the past.
Furthermore, most larger firms can now borrow long term and long-term interest rates have risen very little. Investment remains buoyant. Industrial investment rose by over 17 per cent. in 1988 as a whole compared to 1987; business investment is now a higher proportion of national income than ever before. The latest DTI investment intentions survey—that for June—projects a continued rapid increase in investment in 1989.
The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, suggested that we should turn our attention to fiscal policy. It is clearly right that fiscal policy should buttress monetary policy. That is why we are running a substantial fiscal surplus. However, it is inappropriate to use fiscal policy for fine tuning. Attempts to smooth out growth cycles by discretionary variations in fiscal policy are liable to be destabilising in practice and inflationary—a lesson learnt from the experience of the 1960s and 1970s. Taxes and government spending can be changed only infrequently and changes are often difficult to reverse. Effects are also very uncertain. Interest rates are a much more flexible and reliable instrument for achieving the money GDP objective. Tax increases would hurt the supply side of the economy and trade performance would suffer in the long term.
The noble Baroness also advocated Britain's entry into the exchange rate mechanism of the European monetary system—a cry which I have heard not infrequently from the opposite Benches. The Government have always made it plain that the United Kingdom will join the ERM when the time is right. In her Statement to the House on the outcome of the Madrid summit the Prime Minister explained that we had first to get our inflation rate down. We would also be looking for satisfactory implementation of other aspects of the first stage of the Delors Report, including free movement of capital and abolition of foreign exchange controls. Membership of the ERM is not a soft option. Countries within that organisation change their interest rates also.
During the debate many speakers have referred to the current account deficit. It would be quite wrong to describe the deficit as unsustainable. There are many examples around the world of sizeable deficits or surpluses persisting for a considerable period. There have been the recent sustained imbalances of the United States, Japan and Germany. These reflect the worldwide move towards deregulation of capital markets, development of a wide range of new financial instruments and massive growth of mobile capital. It is not surprising that imbalances have emerged. Indeed it would be remarkable if domestic saving equalled domestic investment in every country.
1398
However export volumes are up 7 per cent. on a year earlier and it is clear that the trend remains upwards. Growth of import volumes has been slowing in recent months after rising since early 1987.
The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, said that investment goods were not responsible for the increase in the trade deficit. The main reason for the deficit has been a surge in investment which has not been matched by a comparable increase in savings, with the result that the UK has been importing capital from abroad. The demand from both consumers and companies has been growing faster than industry's capacity to meet it. Of the increase in imports of manufactured goods, excluding erratics, a quarter is due to consumer goods, including cars, and three-quarters due to goods for production and investment. This investment will increase industrial capacity and exports in the future. In addition, action taken to tighten monetary policy will help to encourage saving rather than consumption. In the meantime, sound policies must be readily financed.
The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, said that we were dependent on hot money to pay for the deficit. In the modern world the Government are dependent upon capital markets whether or not the current account is in deficit. My right honourable friend the Chancellor has noted that this is an excellent discipline for any country. It encourages the pursuit of sound anti-inflationary policies.
The noble Lord made great play of the flow of overseas investment into the UK, which only goes to show a considerable confidence of overseas investors in the British economy. We welcome the growth of overseas investment in the UK, in particular the recent announcements by Honda, Toyota, Bosch, Fujitsu and other companies mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. That investment will help considerably in years to come in the balance of payments in the motor car trade, which is one of the critical areas.
The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, suggested that the numbers in poverty had increased by 3 million since 1979. That is based on the EC definition of poverty, which is someone on two-thirds of average income. That relative view of poverty is a definition which no government have ever accepted. It is absurd to suggest that as average incomes go up the numbers in poverty increase. Real incomes throughout are increasing. The bottom 10 per cent. of income distribution had a real increase of 6 per cent. between 1979 and 1985, and there have been further increases since then.
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, said that the productivity of the whole economy is not better than in the previous two decades. We must compare our performance against those of other countries and not simply those of the past. In the 1980s our economy and productivity grew faster than for any other major industrial nation except Japan. We were near the bottom of the league in the 1960s and 1970s. So we have been doing better relative to our competitors.

1399
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, also claimed that growth was unbalanced and that consumption was growing too fast. We cannot agree. Growth is broadly based. Between 1981 and 1988, consumers' expenditure grew in real terms by 4 per cent. a year. That was slower than investment at 6·5 per cent. and similar to exports at 3·5 per cent. In 1988 investment was up 12 per cent. and consumption up by only 6·4 per cent.
The noble Lord further suggested that the boom was based on consumption. That is not so. Over the past seven years total investment has grown twice as fast as the rate of total consumption. Under the last government, investment grew by less than consumption. Improved performances reflect improvement in profitability and confidence in the future.
My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter and, I believe, the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, suggested that tax rates were still too high and asked why there had been no tax cuts in the recent Budget. I remind noble Lords that the Government are committed to reducing taxation. They have pledged a figure of 20 per cent. basic rate when prudent. National insurance reforms from October will give an increase in take-home pay for working people of up to £3 a week at a full year cost of £2·8 billion. My noble friend also suggested, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, who echoed his remarks, that the tobacco tax should be increased. I must say that they have not found a very sympathetic audience in this particular spokesman. We must strike a balance between the health sector and the need for revenue in determining the tax on tobacco. We thought it wrong this year to provide additional pressure on prices when the Government's reserves are so strong. I remind noble Lords that cigarette prices are 40 per cent. higher in real terms since 1979.
My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter suggested that main residences should be exempt from inheritance tax. The Government have substantially increased the threshold for this tax now at £118,000. As my noble friend recognised, housing is already a highly privileged asset, with mortgage interest relief, capital gains exemption, and domestic rates abolished. Therefore we feel that there is no case to give any further privilege.
The noble Lords, Lord Ezra and Lord Jenkins, spoke of the broad money supply. I think the point was M3. We must recognise the effect of the deregulation of the City and the liberalisation of financial controls. These have made it very difficult to interpret the broad money figures and, as a result, it is appropriate to look at a range of monetary indicators. The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, suggested that we were returning to a stop-go cycle. I cannot agree. We have had now eight successive years of sustained growth. The seven years to 1988 have seen a combination of strong and steady growth not matched since the war.
In his most interesting speech, the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, asked a number of questions. I agree with other noble Lords in hoping very much that this will not be his last speech in connection with a Finance Bill. I do not intend to
1400
ignore his speech as it was ignored 40 years ago in this Chamber. He asked me whether Clauses 168 to 170 of the Bill represented the end of the implementations of the Keith Committee recommendations. The great bulk of the implementation is now complete. For income tax there will be a further consultative paper on administration and the conduct of appeals. This will be the subject of a future Finance Bill. The measures are likely to be smaller in scope and in substance.
The noble Lord suggested that Inland Revenue officials were given too much power. We believe that the Keith Committee struck the right balance between the rights of the taxpayer and the needs of revenue departments. Revenue powers are subject to review in the courts. This Bill contains a number of safeguards for the taxpayer. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, also suggested that there were too many concessions to mortgage interest, insurance and charities and so on. The Government's belief in low tax rates requires special reliefs to be looked at critically. But we believe it right to encourage home ownership and charitable giving. Charities do much good in the country, as many of your Lordships well know.
My noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding asked why there was a cap on occupational pension schemes. We believe that ordinary taxpayers should not be expected to provide unlimited subsidy to high earners. Reducing tax rates is a quid pro quo for getting down marginal tax rates. With a 40 per cent. top rate tax there is no longer a justification for unlimited relief. Other savings reliefs, such as BES schemes and PEPs, are subject to monetary limits. If there is no cap, there is an unwarranted distortion in favour of institutional saving. My noble friend asked why these were indexed to prices rather than to earnings. Statutory indexation in the tax system—for example, tax allowances and capital gains—has always been indexed to prices. The United States has an earnings cap of 98,000 dollars and it is indexed to prices. Price indexation clearly means that increasing numbers will be affected by the cap, as my noble friend suggested. But the build-up will be slow. On a generous assumption of 2·5 per cent. earnings growth, no more than 4 per cent. of the workforce will be affected in 40 years' time. My noble friend suggested that the cap leads to employees being unwilling to change jobs. However, employers are free to pay what is required to recruit. There is no case, therefore, for a subsidy from the taxpayer.
My noble friend made some points about the application for personal pensions which missed the 17th May deadline. I concede that, given the huge numbers involved, it is quite possible that some mistakes were made and some forms have been incorrectly returned to companies. Where it can be demonstrated that properly completed forms were received in the department by 17th May, the office at Newcastle will be happy to rectify the mistake.
My noble friend also asked why there have been no consultations on the pensions measures. This year's changes did not change the basic tax treatment of pensions which my noble friend described. The substantial tax reliefs remain—relief on

1401
contributions, a tax free build-up of pensions and a tax free lump sum subject to the £90,000 limit. Very few people are affected by the new pensions cap.
As regards life assurance, the consultative document issued in 1988 offered more radical options for change. Therefore it was appropriate to have a long consultation period.
I hope that I have managed to cover most of the points raised this evening. The Bill contains some important changes to the taxation of savings. The cap on tax relief for pensions completes the reform begun in 1987 by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The taxation of life assurance has been put on a more rational and coherent basis while the Bill provides a major boost to employee share schemes.
The last decade has seen a transformation of the economy. In recent years Britain has out-performed her major European competitors in terms of growth, investment and jobs. It is the success of the Government's policies which has brought that about. It is those policies which are central to the Bill and I therefore commend it to your Lordships' House.
On Question, Bill read a second time.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, before I formally move the next stage of the Bill I hope that your Lordships will permit me to say how grateful I was to hear the kind remarks which were made. I realise that I have a great deal to learn in order to live up to the high standards set by my predecessors in my new office. I shall certainly endeavour to meet those standards.
It is also an honour to be speaking in the same Chamber as the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby. He made his first speech on the Finance Bill 40 years ago when I was kicking the sides out of my pram. I now make my first speech 40 years on. When he said that the tax rate was too high it did not surprise me that he was not listened to by his own side. I assure him that he was listened to by this side of the House today. I beg to move that this Bill be not committed.
Moved, That the Bill be not committed.—(The Earl of Caithness.)
On Question, Committee negatived.
Then, Standing Order No. 44 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution of 18th July), Bill read a third time, and passed.

Hovercraft (Application of Enactments) Order 1989
9.10 p.m.
The Lord Brabazon of Tara The Lord Brabazon of Tara rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 22nd June be approved [25th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move. Before speaking to the order I should like to draw noble Lords' attention to a printing error in it. Paragraph 2 of the preamble should refer to
1402
subsection (3) of the Hovercraft Act 1968 and not to subsection (3)(b).
This order provides for the amendment of the Hovercraft (Application of Enactments) Order 1972 to apply to hovercraft operating in a marine environment, the provisions of merchant shipping legislation concerning marine pollution and casualty investigation. It also applies sections of the Merchant Shipping Act 1979 for legislative procedural purposes.
I should perhaps begin by explaining that the Hovercraft Act 1968 recognises that hovercraft are vehicles in their own right, not ships or aircraft, and provides general enabling powers to make provisions for hovercraft. These include the power to apply to hovercraft other enactments and instruments relating to other means of transport. Through the Hovercraft (Application of Enactments) Order 1972 a wide range of such legislation is applied to hovercraft. This includes Merchant Shipping Act provisions relating to the investigation of casualties.
The purpose of the present order is, first, to apply to hovercraft international requirements arising from the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships 1973. The main purpose of this convention is to ensure that oil and oily mixtures and garbage are not discharged into the sea or coastal and inland waters navigable by seagoing vessels. The convention applies to hovercraft and it will be brought into effect for UK hovercraft by applying, with modifications, sections of the Prevention of Oil Pollution Act 1971, the Merchant Shipping (Prevention of Oil Pollution) Order 1983, the Merchant Shipping (Prevention of Oil Pollution) Regulations 1983, the Merchant Shipping (Reporting of Pollution Incidents) Regulations 1987, the Merchant Shipping (Control of Pollution by Garbage) Regulations 1988 and the Merchant Shipping (Reception Facilities for Garbage) Regulations 1988. The effect will be that UK hovercraft operating in a marine environment will need to meet similar requirements to prevent pollution as are already applied to ships.
Secondly, the order will revoke the provision of the Hovercraft (Application of Enactments) Order 1972 which applies the casualty investigation sections of the Merchant Shipping Act 1894 to hovercraft. The casualty investigation provisions of the 1894 Act have been replaced by Sections 55 to 58 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1970 and the Merchant Shipping (Formal Investigations) Rules 1985. The order will apply, with appropriate modifications, these new legislative provisions and so bring up to date the powers to investigate hovercraft casualties in line with those now operating for ships.
Thirdly, it is intended to allow greater flexibility in the legislative process in applying merchant shipping safety legislation to hovercraft. At present it is necessary to make regulations which apply to ships and then make a separate enactment order to apply to hovercraft. An example of where this flexibility will save parliamentary and official time is in the United Kingdom implementation of amendments to the International Regulations for Prevention of Collisions at Sea 1972.
I am sure that the House will appreciate the need for this order to ensure that developments in maritime safety and pollution regulations are applied, as appropriate, to hovercraft engaged in maritime operations.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 22nd June be approved [25th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
Lord Underhill: My Lords, the House is grateful to the Minister for outlining the provisions of this order. I thought that this might be his last duty as Minister in the Department of Transport. However, I have seen the appointment of his successor in the other place and I do not know what will be the position. During the time that he has handled transport matters the noble Lord has always been co-operative and prepared to give advance information. While we may have disagreed on policy matters, we have always had a good understanding and relationship on transport issues. I should like to take this opportunity of wishing him the best of luck in his new position and I congratulate him on the appointment.
The order before us is quite important and I am glad that the noble Lord has explained the various provisions for prevention of pollution in paragraph 3. While the opportunity for pollution may be limited, it is important that provision to prevent pollution by oil and garbage should be related to hovercraft as well as other vessels.
Also, I am particularly pleased to see the provision under paragraph 4 on safety regulations and possibly more so the revised arrangements for inquiries and investigations into hovercraft casualties. Those seem to be very important points.
Perhaps I may also add, as I have been critical of the explanatory notes on previous orders, that I found these explanatory notes easily understandable and I have the greatest pleasure in accepting this order.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his kind words and for his unfailing courtesy certainly during four of the past five years in which I have dealt with transport matters in the House. I shall miss the opportunity of exchanging views with him and I am grateful to him for his words.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Health Promotion: Proposed Foundation
9.17 p.m.
Lord Rea Lord Rea rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in view of the large sums raised through excise duty on tobacco, they will establish a health promotion foundation to fund sporting and cultural activities and medical research.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, before asking my Question, it is my pleasure to thank the noble Lord, Lord Henley, who has answered on health matters from the Government Front Bench for the past few months. He has always been very courteous and
1404
helpful. I wish him good luck but also some sympathy in his position in the Department of Social Security. That is a much more boggy area than health and much more complicated. I cannot say that I envy him but I wish him luck.
I should also like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Trafford, on his new post. I have looked back as far as I can through lists of Government Front Bench Ministers in your Lordships' House and I cannot find a previous doctor, especially as a health Minister. I think that he set an important precedent. The Government are fortunate to secure the services of someone with political skills and experience as well as professional eminence to guide their forthcoming, very controversial legislation through your Lordships' House. I look forward to some well informed debates.
This evening we are concerned with health and not health services. I am firmly convinced that action against smoking along the lines which I shall suggest will save more lives than could be achieved by any possible changes in the National Health Service. The great advantage is that it would cost the Government not one penny.
I have asked this Unstarred Question to put the idea of a health promotion foundation funded through tobacco tax on to the political agenda in the United Kingdom. I regret that the concept was not my original idea but forms the central part of the Tobacco Act 1987 which was passed in the state of Victoria, Australia, with all-party backing.
In the wording that I first used in my Unstarred Question I also referred to the large sums of money raised through tax on alcohol. However, as I intend to concentrate on tobacco, yesterday I removed the world "alcohol" from the Question without realising that the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, was going to contribute. She is to talk about alcohol and many of the arguments I shall use about tobacco are relevant also to that substance.
Before describing the proposals I will, with your Lordships' permission, give a brief review of the present situation regarding smoking and tobacco advertising in the United Kingdom. The past decade of steady decline in cigarette smoking by adults has stopped. While the rate is still going down in adult men and is now stable in women as a whole, it is still unacceptably high. More than one adult in three is a cigarette smoker and far too many teenagers smoke—17 per cent. of boys and 22 per cent. of girls aged 15 smoked cigarettes in 1988, according to OPCS figures. In fact, virtually as quickly as an older person gives up smoking a young person is drawn in, often to start adult life as a confirmed, addicted smoker. By the time they give up, if they can—and it is difficult as any smoker, ex-smoker or person who has lived with a smoker can confirm—after, say, 30 years the damage done will be mainly irreversible. Their latter years, if they survive, may be of poorer quality than they should be due to the effects of smoking; for example, through strokes, emphysema, angina, heart failure, other arterial disease and peptic ulcer; let alone the effects on the unborn children of women smokers.
Quite a few who are more susceptible, however, will meet their end before giving up smoking and before reaching retirement age. It is sad to see lung cancer, which was formerly mainly the prerogative of male smokers, increasing steadily in women. It is about to overtake breast cancer as the most common cancer in women. Illnesses due to smoking have been calculated at a conservative estimate to cost the National Health Service about £500 million per annum.
However, against that figure we have to balance the £5·7 billion collected in tobacco tax and VAT which amounts to 4 per cent. of total tax revenue. The Chancellor of the Exchequer also saves money through the pensions he does not have to pay to people who die prematurely. An amateur calculation by myself puts this at about £2 billion per annum. That is calculated on 100,000 deaths, each saving £20,000. The average smoker dies 10 years younger than a non-smoker. With a pension of £2,000 per annum and 100,000 deaths from smoking, a total of around £2 billion may be saved by the Government through not paying pensions.
I very much hope that the Minister will be able to assure us that this useful saving, which, added to tobacco revenue, gives a total of £7·5 billion, is not in any way connected with the Government's timid and ineffective action in discouraging the consumption of cigarettes. Although we may not like to admit it, cigarettes are a slow acting, highly addictive lethal poison, despite the fact that they do have some pleasurable effects and I do not deny that. It has been pointed out in the past that if a product with the currently known effects of tobacco were to be put on the market it would not receive a product licence. No advertiser would touch it with a barge pole. As it is, the tobacco industry makes much of the fact that it is a legal product and therefore can be promoted. In fact, the tobacco industry spends £130 million per annum doing just that.
The Government rely mainly on voluntary agreements with the tobacco industry, though they have banned sales to children under the age of 16 and have also banned advertising on television. Under the voluntary agreements, no outdoor advertisements are allowed near schools, but there is no restriction on advertisements on the way to school, which rather undermines the effect of that restriction. Health warnings are printed in rather small letters on packets of cigarettes and on hoardings. It seems extraordinary that our Government should have been the only member of the European Community whose Health Minister objected to the recent European Commission suggestion that health warnings should be made more effective, particularly as we have the worst rate of heart disease in the world.
The tobacco industry contributes approximately £11 million voluntarily to the Health Promotion Research Trust which funds medical research but has a specific clause restricting research into the ill effects of tobacco on health. That is rather ironic when smoking is our number one preventable health problem. Under the voluntary agreement no
1406
advertisements are supposed to link smoking with active pursuits or success in sports. However, the spirit of the agreement is blatantly breached by sports' sponsorship. Approximately £6 million is spent by the tobacco industry on this form of advertising. The sports include cricket, rugby league, tennis, golf, motorcycling and motor racing—four different brands of cigarette back racing cars—and also bowls, darts and snooker, which are backed by three different brands. A number of cultural events also have tobacco industry sponsorship, giving prestige to the tobacco industry and smoking.
This form of investment has a vastly greater impact when the event, sports or cultural, is televised, which it often is. The brand name or logo is often mentioned or is clearly visible on the small screen in millions of homes. It has been shown in one study that 55 per cent. of 15 year-olds watched Embassy snooker at some point in 1985. Overall, 10 to 15 year-olds could have seen references to cigarette sponsors nearly 3,000 times while watching snooker on television in 1987. If the tobacco industry itself had had to pay for the television time devoted to sponsored events, the bill would have been nearer to £6 billion than £6 million. In fact, other advertisers (on ITV) and the public (on BBC) pay for what in fact is virtually free time on television for the tobacco industry.
Sports organisations are clearly unwilling to forgo their current tobacco sponsorship. If the events were to stop there would naturally be popular dismay, which would be politically undesirable for the government of the day. The most important aim of the proposed health promotion foundation, to be mainly funded by tobacco tax, would be to provide an alternative source of sponsorship for the events which now have to turn to the tobacco industry.
The foundation would be independent of existing health promotion bodies but should liaise closely with them and draw its membership from them and other appropriate organisations. It would complement the work of existing bodies but would have the following aims: to provide information and advice relating to the promotion of health or the prevention and early detection of disease; to promote healthy life styles and disease prevention through the sponsorship of sports, the arts and popular culture; and to provide alternative sponsorship opportunities to those sports and arts events which are currently sponsored by unhealthy products, especially tobacco.
It would also have as its remit the sponsorship of new areas which would help to promote information and advice relating to the promotion of health or the prevention and early detection of disease. It would fund health promotion and medical research into the prevention of disease. The result would be a source of funding for health promotion and prevention purposes specifically aimed at buying out existing unhealthy sponsorship, especially as regards tobacco. It would encourage sponsorship of new areas, associating them with health promotion and prevention measures from the beginning, and it could also help in researching the effectiveness of such health promotion and prevention measures.
In Victoria, Australia, the foundation now established by law is funded by an extra 10 Australian cents being added to the price of each packet of cigarettes. That raises 23 million Australian dollars each year—the equivalent of £11 million.
As regards the United Kingdom, if, for example, one penny of extra tax were to be put on each packet of cigarettes, the sum of £40 million would be raised. If used to fund the health promotion foundation as suggested, that would be sufficient to sponsor all the sports and cultural events which are now funded by the tobacco industry. It could augment the health education's miserly £5 million which tries to compete with the £130 million spent by the tobacco industry promoting the consumption of tobacco, and also provide useful extra funding for medical research, as I have already mentioned.
I am aware that taxes raised in the United Kingdom mainly contribute to the Consolidated Fund and that the instrument of earmarking or hypothecation is unpopular and does not often form part of legislation. However, I do not think that that would in fact be necessary since the foundation could be funded out of general taxation at no extra cost to the Exchequer if an equivalent sum were collected by raising the tobacco tax as I suggested. That would have the added benefit of increasing the price of cigarettes and adding a small additional deterrent. Price increases have been shown to be especially effective in reducing smoking by younger people. This would back the main aim of the whole exercise, which is to reduce the number of people taking up smoking in the first place.
9.32 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, on my copy of the Whip which I received last Friday, the Unstarred Question included the subject of alcohol. However, when I telephoned the Whip's Office on Monday to put my name down to speak, I was not informed otherwise. Therefore most of my remarks will be linked to alcohol because this is as important as tobacco, and because I know more about the problems arising from alcohol. I consider them to be similar in regard to taxation and health, and I have been a strong campaigner against smoking for as long as I can remember.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Rea, for asking this Question. I wonder how sincere the Government are in their wish to promote good health. While congratulating new Government Ministers on their appointments, I hasten to say that it is very depressing to find Ministers at the Department of Health who should be setting the younger generation a good example but who cannot do so because they themselves smoke. Perhaps they will be able to kick the habit and show their strength.
I am most attracted to the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Rea, of a health promotion foundation. We need health promotion more now than ever before. At a conference yesterday Mr. Douglas Hurd, the Home Secretary, spoke of the serious threat from the growing use of "crack", the highly addictive form of pure cocaine which can cause paranoid psychosis,
1408
hallucinations and many other problems leading to violent crimes. Once addicted, it is almost impossible to get the people weaned from their addiction and terrible consequences may result. The Home Secretary said:
"We are determined to do everything we can to make sure that the United States tragic experience is not repeated here".
These people who smoke cigarettes are the ones most likely to move on to the dangerous drug habits. The results of medical research need to be promoted and a health promotion foundation would help to achieve that aim. Above all, it would give a boost to the many excellent people working in this field who at present do not know where their funding will be coming from or if their posts will be in existence after a year.
In 1987 I chaired a committee which looked into and reported upon young people and alcohol. Many of the recommendations are as relevant to smoking as to drinking.
The Home Office report is still being debated, and some of our 50 recommendations have been implemented. The recommendations which do not seem to have been adhered to are some of those which are relevant to the debate. We heard evidence from taped interviews of young people. They said that the pub was often the only acceptable meeting place. We found that many young people who drink in groups in public places do so in response to the boredom which develops during long periods without constructive activities, such as during holidays and unemployment, and when there is a lack of sporting and cultural activities.
The problem can be just as great in rural areas as it is in inner cities. In rural areas, such as the one in which I live in North Yorkshire, there is hardly any public transport. Any comprehensive programme designed to reduce illicit and irresponsible drinking must ask why people drink or smoke, and what alternative venues and activities do, or should, exist to compete with the obvious attractiveness to young people of drinking in pubs and public places.
The youth service seems to be short of funds. Its facilities are often shoddy and inadequate. Drinking has become a problem among some of the youth leaders as well as the youngsters. In one of our recommendations we call upon the alcoholic drinks industry to build upon its existing work against alcohol abuse by promoting resources to set up a wide range of alcohol-free facilities, in co-operation with local agencies and the community, and to evaluate their effectiveness. That could also be said to the tobacco industry. As the drinks industry seems slow to do that, the suggestion before us from the noble Lord, Lord Rea, may be the better method.
Last week I was sent a paper and a video about an initiative taken by a major British drinks company. It is all about the training of its staff and about dealing with problem drinkers. It is useful so far as it goes; but I saw nothing in it to do with providing alternatives or the promotion of low or non-alcohol drinks.
This morning, before leaving Yorkshire, I spoke to my local grocer. He was exasperated and calling for action. He had been out to dinner with his family

1409
to a Porterhouse restaurant. He had been charged £1·40 for a pint of Whitbread white label low alcohol bitter. He said that it would have been bought by the restaurateur for about 35p. In his grocers the grocer can make a profit on a 440ml can of low-alcohol beer when he sells it at 45p. One of our recommendations in the report is that the alcoholic and soft drinks industry should make a concerted effort to promote low and non-alcohol drinks as an attractive alternative to alcohol, but not just for drivers, and to ensure that the profit margin on those and other soft drinks is not greater than that for alcoholic drinks.
To charge £1·40 for a pint of low-alcohol bitter makes a mockery of everything that responsible people are trying to do. I hope that the Government will not just sit like Pontius Pilate and wash their hands of all responsibility. I hope that they will try, and succeed, in stopping law-abiding people being ripped off by others who are not interested in helping to provide a safe and happy society. With 1992 approaching, many people are concerned that the prices of strong alcoholic drinks will go down. Our committee was concerned at the continuing belief that cider is a safe drink for young people. Many parents who would not dream of giving their children beer offer cider, which is frequently very much stronger. Parents seem ignorant of the fact, of which many young people are well aware, that cider is a quick and cheap means of intoxication. We recommended that the taxation of cider should be changed to increase the duty on high strength ciders so that the price per unit of alcohol to the consumer is brought roughly into line with that for beer.
We also recommended that the Government should consider increasing the tax on stronger beers. This extra tax could well go to help to provide healthy sporting and cultural activities. Many people drink and take drugs because they have low esteem; they are often, but by no means always, low achievers. They see little future. They need to be encouraged into healthy alternatives, both sporting and cultural. At home I run a trekking centre so that people coming into or living in the district can enjoy a country activity. I consider it a service to the community. Because I employ people, it is impossible to cover expenses, but it gives an interest to many young helpers and a needed activity.
There are some good initiatives in the community. On Friday at the opening of 'a scanner at a cancer hospital in Leeds I met a group of young children who come up to the hospital from their school to give Scottish dancing performances to the patients. These delightful young girls were like bright, twinkling little stars of goodness on a cloudy horizon. We need our young people to be healthy and kind. We should invest in their future. Tonight we have a useful proposal. I hope that the Government will go away and seriously consider it in a constructive manner.
This year among other categories for the Winston Churchill travelling fellowships we have trainers of children's choirs, recreation for disabled people, managers and trainers of healthy leisure activities,
1410
alcohol abuse and smoking. These are all to do with the subject of this evening's debate. Many people realise that a healthy lifestyle needs promoting. I end with a quotation:
"If you think education is expensive, try ignorance".
9.42 p.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, the advantage of tax on tobacco and alcohol has two very good prongs to it. One is that we generate more revenue and if it is used correctly it could certainly enhance the lot of those people who might in some way be damaged by the two substances. There is a second prong—that we restrict the consumption of those two substances. The idea of a fund and the examples given were very enlightening.
I think that the noble Lord, Lord Rea, has put his finger on a good solution to the problem. We would at one stroke effectively cut down consumption, especially among the young who would presumably have more limited incomes. We could also provide other activities, especially for the young and other groups in society by using the finances that are raised.
Initially what attracted me to the subject was the fact that we have a chronic lack of resources, for instance for sport in our society. The situation is currently improving but we still have a long way to go. I think that we should remember that every year when we complain that no Briton gets beyond the third round at Wimbledon—and even then he has to play at least two British opponents to get there—the situation might be helped somewhat if we had a few more courts and, far more important, proper coaching to help achieve the standards of excellence for which the country seems to pay all the time.
In sport as a whole, we should consider that we need more coaching and guidance for people as these activities can be seen as a type of preventive medicine in themselves. I suggest that anyone who is keenly involved in sports will at least cut down considerably on their smoking or drinking if they do not stop completely. Much more benefit and enjoyment is gained from a sport if one knows what one is doing. That can also make a sport safer in many cases. As a Rugby player I can confirm that there is a great deal of bad coaching in Rugby football for the simple reason that it is a highly technical and complicated game. Any one player cannot be expected to coach a team of his juniors for the simple reason that if one has played on the wing in Rugby football one does not know how the scrum works.
There could be other examples in other sports, but in a team sport the matter becomes more complicated as more resources and more back-up is required. The growth of such areas as sports medicine shows how the whole thing can snowball. I suggest that the Government should be putting more funds into this area. If we are to get the best out of our young people, we should give them a sense of achievement, as has already been mentioned. Sport is probably one of the best ways of doing that.
To turn to cultural activities, I cast my mind back to probably one of the most rewarding and satisfying

1411
activities that I took part in as a teenager outside the sporting field, which was drama. Acting and certain aspects of the performing arts are available in our schools; but unfortunately under the new national curriculum and the GCSE exams—I think those exams are an improvement on their predecessors—teachers increasingly have their time pinned down. Timetables are now dictated to them. As their hours now have to be accounted for, there seems unfortunately to be rather less willingness to donate time to extra-curricular activities. To supplement this, we should be looking to instruction outside schools and to facilities which fall outside the age group for schools. Pupils should be encouraged to take part in any of the performing arts from dance to acting. The same could be said of any form of artistic creation; for example, drawing or pottery. Once again, I think more emphasis should be placed on following these activities outside school. Very often when we leave school there is a cut-off period concerning these activities.
1412
Much of what I was going to say has already been mentioned and has been expressed far more clearly than I could have done. I wholly endorse the view that alcohol abuse is a very serious problem, not only because of the financial costs of the medical attention required and the costs incurred through time taken off work, but also because of the terrible damage that is caused to our society. There is an undeniable link between alcohol and violent crimes, especially spontaneous violent crimes. I was therefore a little surprised when alcohol was removed from the subject to be debated this evening. However, I agree that the example of tobacco has been very solidly covered.
I wish to close on the thought that if we are not going to fund these forms of social and sporting activities, and indeed research, of which we can surely never have too much, especially if it is well channelled research, and they are not to be promoted in that way, we shall not slow down the growth of the problem. I should like to hear from where the Government suggest we generate funds.
9.49 p.m.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, like my noble friend Lord Rea I, too, wish to expand a little on the words I said earlier today in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Trafford, on his appointment. He managed to utter a few stumbling words earlier in the day, but this is the first opportunity for him to make a speech. He has already proved his skills, ability and knowledge from the Back-Benches, and I think his presence will add information and experience to our debates on the health service. I shall greatly appreciate that. I wish also to convey my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Henley, who has always been extremely helpful, diligent and caring in his approach. He has also been helpful to other Peers. I am delighted that he has been promoted and is now a real Minister and not simply a Whip pretending that he is. I wish him every success in the future.
I am very grateful to my noble friend for opening this debate and for the quality of his speech. I warmly support his proposals for a health promotion foundation. Whether it should be linked with the Health Education Authority or whether the Health Education Authority should have a broader mandate than simply education and should take on the task of promotion are matters for consideration.
As I have said to my noble friend, while I warmly support the initiative, I could not support the proposed method of funding it. There are difficulties in the idea of hypothecation and earmarking certain types of taxed funds as a means of financing certain activities. Once one goes down that route one creates precedents for all types of expenditure. However, I believe that the Government should, because of their great wealth from smoking, contribute much more substantially to either a new foundation or one that is linked with the Health Education Authority.
The Government do not appear to care very much about these issues. In the White Paper on the reform of the National Health Service very little has been said about health promotion. It is almost all about the management of a sickness service.
Having spoken so far about smoking, I warmly welcome everything that was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham. Not only do I support what she said but I should like to pay tribute to the extraordinary amount of work which she does both in the field of drug addiction and to combat drink addiction. We are talking about a variety of types of addiction and I regard smoking as being largely an addiction. I do not believe that many people really want to smoke. I believe that an enormous number of people who smoke recognise the difficulties and would like to give it up but are addicted to it.
The issues raised by my noble friend are clearly extremely important. I must therefore be frank in what I have to say, and some of my noble friends who are themselves smokers, if they are present, might disagree with some of what I have to say. Smoking is by far the greatest preventable cause of disease and death in the United Kingdom. That should be recognised. We all know that it is true. Government policy should be formulated around that fact.
1414
Apart from contributing to coronary heart disease, which is so prevalent in Britain, it contributes to a great many types of cancer, many of which can kill. As I think my noble friend said, smoking kills about 100,000 people a year. Thus one in four smokers dies of his or her addiction, usually about 10 years earlier than they might have died from some other cause. When people say that you have to die from something, of course that is true, but we do not have to die as early as many smokers die.
I believe that the time will come when we have to ask why tobacco should for some extraordinary reason somehow continue to miss being caught as a dangerous drug, bearing in mind that it kills incomparably more people than illegal hard drugs—and I do not underestimate the importance and significance from the health point of view of hard drugs. It is extraordinary. I suppose that it is simply history and that people have smoked down the years. There has been a voluntary campaign to discourage people from smoking, but some time or other we shall have to face up to the fact.
It also seems quite extraordinary to me that with all that is known about its effects on health any Minister can continue such a dangerous practice while holding ministerial office in the Department of Health. Obviously I am thinking of the Secretary of State himself. It is no wonder that the Government seem not to care about the effects of smoking on society. I cannot see how a Minister can throw himself into an anti-smoking campaign if he is himself an addict.
I had to face that on the day when I became the Minister of State for Health some 21 years ago. I was a smoker. I was honoured to be appointed Minister of State for Health. It was a week before a press conference in which, without the Health Education Council, the department itself was launching a campaign against smoking. I knew that I had to give it up. There was no alternative. I cannot understand how Ministers can go about puffing cigars and cigarettes when they recognise the appalling lead that that sets for other people. It is no wonder to me that the Secretary of State for Health used his powers to veto stronger health warnings in the European Community. If the noble Lord tells me that it was for some other reason, I would say that it is no wonder that many people are misled and misunderstand the situation when there is a Minister in that position.
Almost every other aspect of government policy on smoking seems to be ineffective. I found it extraordinary that in the Budget last year there was no increase in the tax on tobacco products. I recognise why that was done. It was done to take one step to stop the rising rate of inflation, but it was done at the expense of a rising number of people purchasing cigarettes. The facts prove that to be so.
Smoking among children is a serious problem. A recent OPCS survey showed that 17 per cent. of 15 year-old boys smoke and that 22 per cent. of 15 year-old girls smoke. I see that another report has been published today which mentions that the

1415
number of school children who smoke has fallen. It did not give the figures in the report that I read but it stated that:
"Fewer children who tried to buy cigarettes in 1988 were refused by retailers than in 1986, according to the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys, which carries out a study every two years of schoolchildren's smoking. More than 90 per cent. of children who tried to buy cigarettes succeeded in doing so the last time they tried … The report says about a quarter of all children interviewed had tried to buy cigarettes. Only 8 per cent. had been refused last time they tried".
That is an extremely disturbing factor and the Government must turn their mind to ways in which we can be more effective in discouraging children from smoking. The facts show that those who start smoking when they are children are much more likely to be smokers as adults, in the same way as the surveys show that children are much more likely to smoke if they are the children of smokers. Recent research shows that parents' smoking influences children's smoking. Children, particularly girls, are more likely to smoke if parents, particularly mothers, smoke. Even stronger is the influence of the parental attitude to smoking, whether or not the parents smoke. Children are seven times more likely to smoke if they consider that their parents approve. The Government must therefore apply their mind to parents' attitudes to children smoking.
Advertising of smoking products should by now be prohibited. That matter has been under debate for many years. The method of voluntary agreements was entered into originally by a previous Labour Government of whom I was a supporter. We have reached the time when it is nonsense that advertising should be permitted at all. Many other countries have abolished it. How we can tolerate the advertising of something that is so damaging to health quite escapes me. The evidence linking cancer with smoking is much clearer than it was 10 or 15 years ago. We must examine the attitude of the Government on that question.
We must ask why tobacco companies are so keen to sponsor sports and entertainment. I agreed very much with what the noble Lord, Lord Addington, said about the importance of sports sponsorship and of more money being available to help young people in their sporting activities, as well as about the sponsorship of public sports and sports training. Like him, I was a rugger player. I do not quite understand how someone on the three-quarter line did not know about the scrum. I was in both. However, there it is, and that is another matter.
We recognise why the tobacco companies are so keen on sponsorship. Certainly it is not their love of sports. It represents cheaper advertising. As my noble friend said, it is a method of getting round the inability to advertise where advertising is not possible. It also gets round the current voluntary agreement between the Department of Health and the tobacco industry. That agreement on tobacco advertising, promotion and health warnings says:
"Advertisements should not imply that smoking is associated with success in sport. They should not depict people participating in any active sporting pursuits or obviously about to do so or just having done so, or spectators at any organised sporting occasion".
1416
As my noble friend said, sponsorship of sport by tobacco companies clearly breaches at least the spirit of that voluntary agreement. Research has recently shown that in 1987 Embassy snooker received 110 hours of coverage while Benson and Hedges snooker had 31 hours. Other research indicates that in 1988 tobacco sponsored televised snooker contained 21 references per hour to the name of the sponsor. That means that the company was getting advertising at a very cheap rate.
Quite obviously it is children who are the main targets of the sponsorship. A high proportion of children are sports fans who either watch a sport directly or on television. As I have already said, I believe that Ministers who smoke are not suitable to carry through policies designed to reduce smoking. The Government must face up to that issue. Perhaps it is a little late for us to say that when the Prime Minister has just done her reshuffle. Perhaps the next time that she gets round to it she will think of that point.
I want to give my absolute support to the proposal put forward by my noble friend. Even if the Government turn down this proposal they will have to come up with some very positive ways in which they will seek to change attitudes toward both smoking and drinking. I think that they have had some success in the area of drinking, although perhaps not enough, and I am sure that the Ministers involved recognise that fact. But we have not seen from the Department of Health anything like the same campaigning zeal and the same encouragement given to people not just to understand the dangers but to live a healthy life.
I think that the whole concept described by my noble friend is one that the Government ought to seize; even if they do not, they ought to consider it very carefully. New to his post as the Minister is—and he has only had a few hours to consider whether he supports the idea—if he wants to turn this proposal down tonight he should at least leave his mind slightly open in order that we may come back to this issue on another occasion.
10.2 p.m.
Lord Trafford: My Lords, first I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Rea, for the kind words that he uttered when he started his speech. I should also like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, for his remarks which were a continuation of those that he made earlier this afternoon when I said in reply that I hoped the honeymoon would last longer than the Recess. My noble friend Lord Henley will wish me to associate him with these thanks to both noble Lords and to thank them for the kind comments about his services as health spokesman in your Lordships' House.
I turn to the Question that is before us; namely that a health promotion foundation should be established to promote sporting and cultural activities and medical research, and that it should be funded from moneys raised through excise duty on tobacco. The proposal is a very interesting one. I am quite certain that it is one which might be expected to attract very considerable support at first

1417
sight. The difficulty is that as a scheme it has a certain number of complications. It also raises a number of wider issues. That is not to pour cold water on the ideas that the noble Lord has expressed so clearly.
I do not disagree with a word that the noble Lord, Lord Rea, said about the effects of smoking. I do not disagree with him in any respect about the desirability of campaigns to control smoking, in particular for the young. I do not disagree with the statement that he made on the evil effects of smoking. I pay tribute to him for his known work for the prevention of coronary artery disease.
I take issue with him on two points. First, he was being a little pessimistic. It is true that we have a higher rate of coronary artery disease than some other nations. Although I am tempted to launch into a professional dissertation on the matter I shall resist the temptation. I merely comment that in the last decade the incidence has dropped in this country by 25 per cent. Those who wish to continue to be pessimistic will say that this is not as great as the United States, where the figure is believed to have dropped by nearly 40 per cent. in 15 years.
The problem is that to establish the exact casual relationship as to why this has happened is extremely difficult. Many people who are concerned with the control of blood pressure, diet, cholesterol, diabetes, alcohol, smoking, and so forth have tried to claim a slice of the credit for this fall in the incidence of coronary artery disease. One recognises that they have a perfect right to do so. As I happen to believe that causation is multifactorial, I suspect that the decline is multifactorial. However, we should not fail to recognise that we are looking at some successes. We appear to be following the same trend, starting a little later, but I hope continuing until we reach the same lower level. We are therefore doing some things right, whoever may be doing it.
Secondly, it is only in one year that the decline in smoking levelled off. The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, quoted the report that came out yesterday from the OPCS which shows some quite encouraging features: for example, that the habit of smoking among secondary school children in England in 1988 is probably continuing to decline since the last survey and the prevalence has fallen. It has not fallen to nought, which is what most noble Lords who have spoken in this debate would like, but it has decreased considerably.
Overall the prevalence of smoking—which used to be totally acceptable and running at high levels, with high figures—is now down to 30 per cent. of the population. In other words, it applies to about one third of the population. Furthermore, there has been a differential approach by the Government—and, to be fair, by previous governments—with regard to the type of smoking. It is well established that cigarettes are the known and proven bad aspect of the use of tobacco.
The work of the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, in the field of alcoholism, in particular with regard to adolescents, is widely recognised. I am sorry that
1418
she did not receive her Whip a little earlier in order to recognise that the Unstarred Question was ultimately confined to tobacco. I accept entirely what she had to say. I was very interested in what she said about the high price of low alcohol products. As she may be aware, there have been some changes. The ministerial group on alcohol misuse, which is trying to tackle some of these vexing problems, of which I am sure she is aware, is improving public education. It has indentified a number of research projects which it is felt should be proceeded with on alcohol misuse. The group is currently considering the question of sponsorship of the relevant projects in co-operation with research councils and the drinks industry. Perhaps the noble Baroness will forgive me if I do not wander off into the subject of alcohol since we have mostly talked about tobacco.
I do not think that any noble Lord would disagree with the comments on the value of sport, coaching and so forth that the noble Lord, Lord Addington, made. I share those thoughts. It is always depressing when they do not get beyond the third round of Wimbledon, as the noble Lord said.
To return to the central question, at first sight this is an attractive proposition but it raises some problems. The main difficulty is that it would require a fundamental change in our methods of tax collection and expenditure. Your Lordships will know that it is a general principle of our taxation system that revenue from individual taxes is not allocated to any particular item of government expenditure. To do otherwise would make the efficient management of total public financing much more difficult. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, implicitly recognised this fact when he said that there were difficulties with this proposition.
It has been suggested in the past that various forms of hypothecated taxation should be introduced for various purposes. If that were to be introduced there would be hundreds, if not thousands—or more—calls for the hypothecation of tax revenue in all directions, not just this one. It would be extremely difficult to control public expenditure and therefore to control inflation.
One might say to the noble Lord, Lord Rea, that one of the problems is that there is so much money involved not only in tobacco but in alcohol that it has a significant effect on inflation, on public expenditure and so forth. Nonetheless this Government have increased the price of cigarettes in real terms by over 30 per cent. during the past seven years. One of the reasons for not increasing it as much as some people would have liked was the fact that that would have raised the general level of expenditure.
Lord Rea: My Lords, the noble Lord says that the real price of cigarettes and alcohol has gone up by 30 or 40 per cent. over a period of years. The real income of people generally has gone up by at least that percentage, if not more. Therefore the price in relation to income has not gone up: rather, if anything, it has gone down.
Lord Trafford: My Lords, it would be very nice to know that the standard of living was rising so fast that even though one increases the price of a product by 30 per cent., nonetheless one can afford it even more easily. If we treble the price of something and increase people's income by six times it will be very beneficial. We then wander into a terrifically difficult area in which in one field the freedoms of individuals are significantly curtailed with regard to costs and prices. And yet the same people would be very unhappy if their freedoms were curtailed in other directions. One must bear in mind the balance of freedoms in this kind of matter.
It is generally felt that the pooling of revenues by the Government means that they can take a balanced view and ensure that resources can be applied more flexibly, and directed as necessary, according to expenditure needs in any given year. However, even though the specific suggestion made by the noble Lord cannot be taken further, we ought to consider whether there is a need for an institution such as he outlined. The funding would raise very significant problems.
As noble Lords will know, the Government set up the Health Education Authority in 1987 to give increased impetus to health education. It now has a budget of around £25 million. It has an increasingly important role in helping to bring about improvements in health through its campaigns on smoking, alcohol abuse, AIDS and coronary artery disease. There is a sporting and cultural element to this work. The "Look after your heart" local grant scheme has supported many exercise and sports-related activities. It is involved in giving advice on healthy living through cultural activities, particularly in respect of ethnic minorities. It also has close relationships with the Sports Council. It has been given a specific remit to undertake research to support health education activity.
I should like to interject on a purely personal note that I am very much a supporter of prevention in health. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, was a little unfair when he castigated the White Paper for not having mentioned health promotion. Part of the aim of the changes in general practice and elsewhere is to encourage the trend that has continued for some years. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Rea, would recognise from his own practice that advice on healthy living and smoking is not the rarity that it was 30 years ago but is commonplace. One is very glad to see this.
The main agency for direct research which the Government support is the Medical Research Council which receives more than £175 million a year from the Department of Education and Science. The job of the MRC is to promote the balanced development of medical research, and to advance knowledge which will improve health care. It undertakes numerous research programmes and projects. In this way it is able to complement the research resources of universities, polytechnics, hospitals and those more immediately connected with the care of patients.
1420
Noble Lords will also be aware that, in common with other commercial enterprises—tobacco and alcohol are not the only ones—they sponsor many sporting and cultural activities. To turn to the tobacco sponsorship of sport, the Government have a voluntary agreement with the tobacco industry. That has already been referred to. The most recent restraint made significant changes in the amount of money to be spent on certain kinds of advertising. For example, it cut by half poster advertising and banned advertising in cinemas. The situation has been steadily tightened up since the time when the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, was responsible and even before when the first voluntary arrangements were made with the tobacco industry.
As I have already said, many businesses not associated with tobacco sponsor sports and cultural events. In the field of privately sponsored research, the tobacco industry provides considerable financial support for research into health promotion in fields that I agree are other than smoking, as the noble Lord, Lord Rea, said. These funds are administered by the Health Promotion Research Trust. It has supported about 130 projects. The industry also supports a number of other projects through the Tobacco Products Research Trust on the effects of modified tobacco products on human health.
I believe that this has proved to be an interesting debate. I personally share many of the views that have been expressed tonight on the evils of smoking. I accept that it is an addiction, and that it should be regarded as such. I welcome and encourage any and all measures to try to reduce the incidence of teenage smoking, and smoking by children in particular. I have tried to show that there are two sides to the question. There is great difficulty with the problems that have been put forward. I have also tried to show that there is considerable activity going on. It is a blend of activity by the Government and in the private sector. Its coverage is much wider than that which could be achieved by one foundation. One might say that it has many different tentacles. Therefore, even if it were possible to set up such a fund in that way, I believe that it would be extremely difficult. Many problems would be raised regarding funding, as that might narrow the range of its activities.

Associated British Ports (Hull) Bill
Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.

Midland Metro Bill
Reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with amendments.
House adjourned at sixteen minutes past ten o'clock.

  RIGHT TO SILENCE: REPORT
  RIGHT TO SILENCE: REPORT
  LEEDS PRISON: REMAND POPULATION
  LEEDS PRISON: REMAND POPULATION
  FORENSIC PATHOLOGY: WORKING PARTY REPORT
  FORENSIC PATHOLOGY: WORKING PARTY REPORT
  FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN: EC BENEFIT PROVISIONS
  FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN: EC BENEFIT PROVISIONS
  ANGLO-IRISH AGREEMENT REVIEW: COMMENTS
  ANGLO-IRISH AGREEMENT REVIEW: COMMENTS
  SCHOOLS OFFERING ASSISTED PLACES
  SCHOOLS OFFERING ASSISTED PLACES
  OPEN UNIVERSITY TEACHER TRAINING: FUNDING
  OPEN UNIVERSITY TEACHER TRAINING: FUNDING
  UNIVERSITY LANGUAGE CHAINS: BUSINESS FUNDING
  UNIVERSITY LANGUAGE CHAINS: BUSINESS FUNDING